planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 10:13 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
I know the back story about how Bernie bought the commercial rights for 99 years and then started selling parts of it off to various people and then Liberty bought all those shares and now owns 100% of the commercial rights.
With the introduction of the halo next year that virtually no one wants, what is there to stop the FIA from doing something along the lines of...

"F1 is far too expensive, and we will be running formula 1 to formula 2 regulations for the next 5 years"

It has happened before, and it seems the FIA have the power to do this if they choose.

Could Liberty say "We have paid billions of pounds for this business and we can't even write our own rules, we are going to cut the FIA out of the equation.

I know none of us will ever to privy to the ins and outs of the contract but it seems strange that a company would spend this much on a product that they really don't have any control over.

Like Jean Todt said recently the FIA will ALWAYS write the rules for F1.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6716
I believe it's the Concorde agreement that gives the FIA the right to legislate the safety/sporting regulations. That runs until 2020 so Liberty will have a chance then to change how things are run.

I doubt it will change substantially though, Liberty are a media company not experts in writing safety rules for Grand Prix cars, I think they'll stick to what they know and let he FIA take care of what they don't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7764
Have the FIA ever actually 'owned' F1? I know they administer and approve disapprove regs etc, but I dont know they ever actually owned the name/concept of F1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5035
moby wrote:
Have the FIA ever actually 'owned' F1? I know they administer and approve disapprove regs etc, but I dont know they ever actually owned the name/concept of F1

As far as I know, they 'owned' everything f1 based until Bernie bought the commercial rights in the 80's.

As far the regs go, is it still decided on by committee or do the FIA have the final say?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 270
i was thinking about this the other day. imo f1 would be better without the current version of the fia. lets get back to treating it like a sport, not a safety campaign and an aid to develop the technology of the future, at the detriment of entertainment. how long before the fia tries to convert f1 to electric? and yes a huge part of going to a grand prix for me is the noise. i cant see an electric f1 filling the stands, and if you cant fill the stands how is a circuit going to afford to run a grand prix.

maybe im wrong. maybe if the best drivers in the world are driving them then electric f1 cars could still draw the crowds. or maybe in the future going to a grand prix will be like a vintage race, with outdated technology but fast as hell, and great to go to the circuit and watch.

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6716
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
i was thinking about this the other day. imo f1 would be better without the current version of the fia. lets get back to treating it like a sport, not a safety campaign and an aid to develop the technology of the future, at the detriment of entertainment. how long before the fia tries to convert f1 to electric? and yes a huge part of going to a grand prix for me is the noise. i cant see an electric f1 filling the stands, and if you cant fill the stands how is a circuit going to afford to run a grand prix.

maybe im wrong. maybe if the best drivers in the world are driving them then electric f1 cars could still draw the crowds. or maybe in the future going to a grand prix will be like a vintage race, with outdated technology but fast as hell, and great to go to the circuit and watch.

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.

I'd imagine the pressure to make F1 electric (when electric motors are ready to start churning out F1 levels of power) will come from manufacturers and promoters before the FIA. When the majority of cars on the roads are electric it will start looking absurd to be using such outdated and irrelevant ICE cars. Manufacturers will want to start promoting their electric power units and the commercial rights holders will want F1 to keep with the times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
i was thinking about this the other day. imo f1 would be better without the current version of the fia. lets get back to treating it like a sport, not a safety campaign and an aid to develop the technology of the future, at the detriment of entertainment. how long before the fia tries to convert f1 to electric? and yes a huge part of going to a grand prix for me is the noise. i cant see an electric f1 filling the stands, and if you cant fill the stands how is a circuit going to afford to run a grand prix.

maybe im wrong. maybe if the best drivers in the world are driving them then electric f1 cars could still draw the crowds. or maybe in the future going to a grand prix will be like a vintage race, with outdated technology but fast as hell, and great to go to the circuit and watch.

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.

I'd imagine the pressure to make F1 electric (when electric motors are ready to start churning out F1 levels of power) will come from manufacturers and promoters before the FIA. When the majority of cars on the roads are electric it will start looking absurd to be using such outdated and irrelevant ICE cars. Manufacturers will want to start promoting their electric power units and the commercial rights holders will want F1 to keep with the times.


Where are the fully automatic transmissions in F1 cars? The catalytic converters and other advanced pollution controls? 4WD? Active suspensions? ABS brakes? I guess road relevance doesnt matter.

There are all kinds of ways F1 passes on technology found in today's cars. It's a supreme joke to think that any automotive technology goes from F1 cars into today's passenger cars. Hybrid engines were in passenger cars a decade before it showed up in F1.

F1 has banned the appearance of all kinds of technologies. Passenger car development is where the development continued and was applied.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.


The teams and Formula One know that the hybrid engines are deeply unpopular with race fans. The noise is what brings a large number of people to the track. Such visceral noise instills a lot of emotion into a race, something that is never captured on TV. The hybrid cars are soulless due to their greatly muffled sound.

Formula One knows that this is a problem and is trying to address this in the new engine regulations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
i think the fia has done a great job in the past on increasing safety but like nikki lauda recently said "its as safe as its going to get". sure, they'll always be things here and there but it seems the fia do over react to situations quite often.
i could a scenario of maybe a couple of accidents where two cars lock wheels and flip and it is decided that open wheeled cars are too dangerous and we end up with some sort of indycar type set up.
on a side note did indycar fans get as upset as the change to their racing cars as f1 fans are about the halo?

as someone suggested it all probably hinges on the concorde agreement. maybe the plan is for ross brawn to do the technical regulations, perhaps the fia could stay on as regulators and advisors but with no power to change the rules themselves as they see fit?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6716
Herb Tarlik wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
i was thinking about this the other day. imo f1 would be better without the current version of the fia. lets get back to treating it like a sport, not a safety campaign and an aid to develop the technology of the future, at the detriment of entertainment. how long before the fia tries to convert f1 to electric? and yes a huge part of going to a grand prix for me is the noise. i cant see an electric f1 filling the stands, and if you cant fill the stands how is a circuit going to afford to run a grand prix.

maybe im wrong. maybe if the best drivers in the world are driving them then electric f1 cars could still draw the crowds. or maybe in the future going to a grand prix will be like a vintage race, with outdated technology but fast as hell, and great to go to the circuit and watch.

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.

I'd imagine the pressure to make F1 electric (when electric motors are ready to start churning out F1 levels of power) will come from manufacturers and promoters before the FIA. When the majority of cars on the roads are electric it will start looking absurd to be using such outdated and irrelevant ICE cars. Manufacturers will want to start promoting their electric power units and the commercial rights holders will want F1 to keep with the times.


Where are the fully automatic transmissions in F1 cars? The catalytic converters and other advanced pollution controls? 4WD? Active suspensions? ABS brakes? I guess road relevance doesnt matter.

There are all kinds of ways F1 passes on technology found in today's cars. It's a supreme joke to think that any automotive technology goes from F1 cars into today's passenger cars. Hybrid engines were in passenger cars a decade before it showed up in F1.

F1 has banned the appearance of all kinds of technologies. Passenger car development is where the development continued and was applied.

Hybrids now being in F1 is pretty much my point, they're here and it doesn't look like they're going away.

I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
Liberty "owns" (they rented for 100 years) the commercial rights to F1 as per contract with FIA. F1 itself is owned by FIA, technically and factually.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
Liberty "owns" (they rented for 100 years) the commercial rights to F1 as per contract with FIA. F1 itself is owned by FIA, technically and factually.


have liberty just taken on bernies old contract (with about 60 years left to run) or was it a fresh contract for 100 years?

one thing i do wonder is that i thought FOM owned the names F1, Formula 1 etc. how can the fia and fom both claim ownership?

for instance when f1 related videos are taken down, its by request of FOM not the FIA


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
It is the same contract. Liberty took over BEs and CVCs shares of FOM who - through a chain of channel island companies - owns Delta Topco, which is FIAs contract partner. A bit simplified, but like this.

FIA owns the name F1 (etc) but has transferred the right to commercially exploit it exclusively to (effectively) FOM. FOM then protects its exclusive right by demanding video latforms to take down 'illegal' materials, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is the same contract. Liberty took over BEs and CVCs shares of FOM who - through a chain of channel island companies - owns Delta Topco, which is FIAs contract partner. A bit simplified, but like this.

FIA owns the name F1 (etc) but has transferred the right to commercially exploit it exclusively to (effectively) FOM. FOM then protects its exclusive right by demanding video latforms to take down 'illegal' materials, etc.


ah thanksoy very much, this clears up a lot of my questions.

do you think the FIA get a cut of the profits?

it would seem crazy to give up the money making side of a business and get nothing in return


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
paulonorcatto wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is the same contract. Liberty took over BEs and CVCs shares of FOM who - through a chain of channel island companies - owns Delta Topco, which is FIAs contract partner. A bit simplified, but like this.

FIA owns the name F1 (etc) but has transferred the right to commercially exploit it exclusively to (effectively) FOM. FOM then protects its exclusive right by demanding video latforms to take down 'illegal' materials, etc.


ah thanksoy very much, this clears up a lot of my questions.

do you think the FIA get a cut of the profits?

it would seem crazy to give up the money making side of a business and get nothing in return


That's a bit fishy. That-time FIA president Max Mosley sold the rights to Ecclestone's company for a one-time lump sum fee that was less than the annual profits from the rights. The FIA got no share until two years ago when it took a 1.something per cent share in Delta Topco.

Max Mosley was Ecclestone's lawyer and legal advisor, a close ally, before he became FIA president.

There have been rumours of bribery but afaik no evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7764
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opini ... -formula-1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:00 am
Posts: 561
Location: Running wide at Bergwerk
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
i was thinking about this the other day. imo f1 would be better without the current version of the fia. lets get back to treating it like a sport, not a safety campaign and an aid to develop the technology of the future, at the detriment of entertainment. how long before the fia tries to convert f1 to electric? and yes a huge part of going to a grand prix for me is the noise. i cant see an electric f1 filling the stands, and if you cant fill the stands how is a circuit going to afford to run a grand prix.

maybe im wrong. maybe if the best drivers in the world are driving them then electric f1 cars could still draw the crowds. or maybe in the future going to a grand prix will be like a vintage race, with outdated technology but fast as hell, and great to go to the circuit and watch.

on a side note, one thing that makes me chuckle is when there is an f1 event like in london recently. they still pull out the v8's for a bit of false advertising.

I'd imagine the pressure to make F1 electric (when electric motors are ready to start churning out F1 levels of power) will come from manufacturers and promoters before the FIA. When the majority of cars on the roads are electric it will start looking absurd to be using such outdated and irrelevant ICE cars. Manufacturers will want to start promoting their electric power units and the commercial rights holders will want F1 to keep with the times.


This is in the distant future.

_________________
"Guys I'm coming in, I'm having too much grip"
- Chanoch Nissany


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Miami, Florida
No it isn't. Fe fills the electric niche just fine.
the day F1 moves to all-electric exclusively is the day it will lose the bulk of its fans and likely Ferrari.

_________________
HAMILTON :: VETTEL :: ROSBERG :: RAIKKONEN :: VERSTAPPEN :: SAINZ :: MASSA :: BOTTAS :: NASR
ALONSO :: BUTTON :: PEREZ :: RICCIARDO :: GROSJEAN :: KVYAT :: HULKENBERG :: MALDONADO
THE REST… THERE ARE FAR BETTER DRIVERS THAT SHOULD BE IN FORMULA 1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4393
Location: Michigan, USA
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
No it isn't. Fe fills the electric niche just fine.
the day F1 moves to all-electric exclusively is the day it will lose the bulk of its fans and likely Ferrari.

That day will only come when (if) electric has totally replaced everything else, so probably not.

Personally - believing as I do that battery electric cars are a dead-end technology - I expect Formula E will probably itself be obsoleted by some other, better technology such as practical hydrogen in the mid-future. Formula One will either become a historical formula, die, or adopt whatever the new dominant power form is. I give it roughly 33/33/33 odds on each option.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
moby wrote:
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/opinion/f1/who-owns-formula-1


this is fascinating, so liberty doesnt even "own" all the shares? (unless they have bought the other 65% share since)

the one shareholder i find bizarre is the teachers retirement system of texas?! F1 profits go to paying for teachers pensions? is this linked to the gp in austin?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 7764
F1 MERCENARY wrote:
No it isn't. Fe fills the electric niche just fine.
the day F1 moves to all-electric exclusively is the day it will lose the bulk of its fans and likely Ferrari.


Have you seen this?

http://auto.ferrari.com/en_EN/sports-cars-models/car-range/laferrari/

If the whole game shifts, Ferrari will move with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1094
As stated, the FIA owns Formula One. The commercial rights were leased for 99 years to first Bernie, who sold off shares, where the present situation is that Liberty own a controlling interest in the commercial rights.

If one reads the Formula One regulations published by the FIA, they fall into two distinct areas, the technical and sporting regulations. The technical regulations specify the technical layout of the cars, the materials, basically what can or cannot be done in the design of the cars. The sporting regulations apply to how teams and drivers must conduct themselves while participating in this FIA sanctioned event. The drivers must hold a Superlicence, the must attend certain press events, the starting procedure, that they must attend the podium ceremony if they qualify. For example, the blue flag rule is in the sporting regulations.

The commercial rights are the money side of the business, which Liberty control. This covers television rights, schedule, negotiations with tracks, payments, season end payouts, the money side of the business. As far as the Concorde Agreement, this is the contract/agreement that binds each team to participate in Formula One. Each team must make an investment in the sport, but because they do so, they receive a handsome payout for participating and many other sources of revenue. And when the Concorde Agreement expires and it's time to renew, this becomes a very complex and lengthy series of negotiations and deals between all the major parties involved in Formula one.

I have attempted to simplify things, because now it gets complicated. So far we have the FIA and the commercial rights holder. But there are also many other parties involved in the game, the most prominent the factory teams and suppliers. They (for example Ferrari) voice their concerns and opinions on how the sport must be run. In the same manner that the EPL listen to prominent coaches and players, their input carries weight, even though they are not involved in writing the rules.

The introduction of the halo in 2018 highlights the complexity of how things are run within Formula One. In July 2016 the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association expressed to FIA President Jean Todt that some form of frontal protection be implemented as soon as possible. The F1 Strategy Group and the F1 Commission held a series of meetings, and one month later the F1 Commission confirmed a commitment to introduce “some form of cockpit protection from the 2017 season”. Many of us witnessed that many different tests were performed, via videos of objects being fired against test samples, to test articles being trialed during certain practice sessions. But on July 2016 the F1 Strategy Group agreed to defer introduction of a cockpit protection system in order to provide more time to conduct track testing with the Halo device and to explore emerging alternative solutions. Have you counted how many different groups and organizations, including drivers and teams were involved in just one technical issue? And let's not forget the press and public opinion, which every party was listening to.

The point is that this sport is an incredibly complex web of connections and deals.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2236
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paulonorcatto wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is the same contract. Liberty took over BEs and CVCs shares of FOM who - through a chain of channel island companies - owns Delta Topco, which is FIAs contract partner. A bit simplified, but like this.

FIA owns the name F1 (etc) but has transferred the right to commercially exploit it exclusively to (effectively) FOM. FOM then protects its exclusive right by demanding video latforms to take down 'illegal' materials, etc.


ah thanksoy very much, this clears up a lot of my questions.

do you think the FIA get a cut of the profits?

it would seem crazy to give up the money making side of a business and get nothing in return


That's a bit fishy. That-time FIA president Max Mosley sold the rights to Ecclestone's company for a one-time lump sum fee that was less than the annual profits from the rights. The FIA got no share until two years ago when it took a 1.something per cent share in Delta Topco.

Max Mosley was Ecclestone's lawyer and legal advisor, a close ally, before he became FIA president.

There have been rumours of bribery but afaik no evidence.


I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm
Posts: 270
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
As stated, the FIA owns Formula One. The commercial rights were leased for 99 years to first Bernie, who sold off shares, where the present situation is that Liberty own a controlling interest in the commercial rights.

If one reads the Formula One regulations published by the FIA, they fall into two distinct areas, the technical and sporting regulations. The technical regulations specify the technical layout of the cars, the materials, basically what can or cannot be done in the design of the cars. The sporting regulations apply to how teams and drivers must conduct themselves while participating in this FIA sanctioned event. The drivers must hold a Superlicence, the must attend certain press events, the starting procedure, that they must attend the podium ceremony if they qualify. For example, the blue flag rule is in the sporting regulations.

The commercial rights are the money side of the business, which Liberty control. This covers television rights, schedule, negotiations with tracks, payments, season end payouts, the money side of the business. As far as the Concorde Agreement, this is the contract/agreement that binds each team to participate in Formula One. Each team must make an investment in the sport, but because they do so, they receive a handsome payout for participating and many other sources of revenue. And when the Concorde Agreement expires and it's time to renew, this becomes a very complex and lengthy series of negotiations and deals between all the major parties involved in Formula one.

I have attempted to simplify things, because now it gets complicated. So far we have the FIA and the commercial rights holder. But there are also many other parties involved in the game, the most prominent the factory teams and suppliers. They (for example Ferrari) voice their concerns and opinions on how the sport must be run. In the same manner that the EPL listen to prominent coaches and players, their input carries weight, even though they are not involved in writing the rules.

The introduction of the halo in 2018 highlights the complexity of how things are run within Formula One. In July 2016 the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association expressed to FIA President Jean Todt that some form of frontal protection be implemented as soon as possible. The F1 Strategy Group and the F1 Commission held a series of meetings, and one month later the F1 Commission confirmed a commitment to introduce “some form of cockpit protection from the 2017 season”. Many of us witnessed that many different tests were performed, via videos of objects being fired against test samples, to test articles being trialed during certain practice sessions. But on July 2016 the F1 Strategy Group agreed to defer introduction of a cockpit protection system in order to provide more time to conduct track testing with the Halo device and to explore emerging alternative solutions. Have you counted how many different groups and organizations, including drivers and teams were involved in just one technical issue? And let's not forget the press and public opinion, which every party was listening to.

The point is that this sport is an incredibly complex web of connections and deals.



whats interesting to me is that the main 2 competing factions can (and liberty probably already do) have completely different ideas and paths that they want to take f1. but there can be no f1 without the fia and no commercially viable f1 without liberty/delta topco or whoever it bloody is. now at this stage they can make it work, but if the fia start forcing f1 down a route that is proving to be detrimental to the commercial rights holders (lets say fully electric for example) in terms of falling attendances and advertising revenue and tracks pulling out of deals etc, it will be very interesting to see the power struggle which ensues. historically bernie had clout but he could be outgunned such as with the hybrids. but f1 at the moment is very profitable and so it wasnt a line in the sand that couldnt be crossed. i expect the fia to draw that line in the not too distant future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
ALESI wrote:

I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


I don't buy that answer at all. (Max's not yours!)

FIFA make huge sums from the world cup. I fail to see how the FIA and FIFA are different. They both govern their respective sports.

I'm not sure I understand your second point, are you saying that if, let's say I was a multi billionaire and decided to start up my own racing championships. Let's say the "motor racing world championship" I would have to go to the FIA first and ask for permission? Which of course would be denied as they have their own world championship series.

How would that be possible with laws on monopolies etc. Sorry if I've missed your point!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 4:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
paulonorcatto wrote:
ALESI wrote:

I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


I don't buy that answer at all. (Max's not yours!)

FIFA make huge sums from the world cup. I fail to see how the FIA and FIFA are different. They both govern their respective sports.

I'm not sure I understand your second point, are you saying that if, let's say I was a multi billionaire and decided to start up my own racing championships. Let's say the "motor racing world championship" I would have to go to the FIA first and ask for permission? Which of course would be denied as they have their own world championship series.

How would that be possible with laws on monopolies etc. Sorry if I've missed your point!


I believe FIFA are based outside of the EU so not restrained by the same competition laws. I also believe anyone could set up a motor racing championship as they wish. Not every form of motor racing falls under the FIA umbrella.

I could be completely wrong on both of the above.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 2:33 pm
Posts: 11
mikeyg123 wrote:
paulonorcatto wrote:
ALESI wrote:

I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


I don't buy that answer at all. (Max's not yours!)

FIFA make huge sums from the world cup. I fail to see how the FIA and FIFA are different. They both govern their respective sports.

I'm not sure I understand your second point, are you saying that if, let's say I was a multi billionaire and decided to start up my own racing championships. Let's say the "motor racing world championship" I would have to go to the FIA first and ask for permission? Which of course would be denied as they have their own world championship series.

How would that be possible with laws on monopolies etc. Sorry if I've missed your point!


I believe FIFA are based outside of the EU so not restrained by the same competition laws. I also believe anyone could set up a motor racing championship as they wish. Not every form of motor racing falls under the FIA umbrella.

I could be completely wrong on both of the above.



Ah ha! I always assumed FIFA was based in Paris too! (not a big football fan) I've done a bit more digging and found an article about the fia not being able to benefit from the commercial side hence the 100 year contract.

I must admit I have next to no knowledge of competition laws but it does seem grossly unfair that the FIA have created this sport called F1 and it has become a massive success bringing in billions and all of a sudden you are told you cannot benefit financially anymore and you have to give someone else the profits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:00 pm
Posts: 4504
mikeyg123 wrote:
paulonorcatto wrote:
ALESI wrote:

I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


I don't buy that answer at all. (Max's not yours!)

FIFA make huge sums from the world cup. I fail to see how the FIA and FIFA are different. They both govern their respective sports.

I'm not sure I understand your second point, are you saying that if, let's say I was a multi billionaire and decided to start up my own racing championships. Let's say the "motor racing world championship" I would have to go to the FIA first and ask for permission? Which of course would be denied as they have their own world championship series.

How would that be possible with laws on monopolies etc. Sorry if I've missed your point!


I believe FIFA are based outside of the EU so not restrained by the same competition laws. I also believe anyone could set up a motor racing championship as they wish. Not every form of motor racing falls under the FIA umbrella.

I could be completely wrong on both of the above.

For what it's worth. FIFA is based in Zurich so in Europe, but not the EU.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1094
Caserole of Nonsense wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
As stated, the FIA owns Formula One. The commercial rights were leased for 99 years to first Bernie, who sold off shares, where the present situation is that Liberty own a controlling interest in the commercial rights.

If one reads the Formula One regulations published by the FIA, they fall into two distinct areas, the technical and sporting regulations. The technical regulations specify the technical layout of the cars, the materials, basically what can or cannot be done in the design of the cars. The sporting regulations apply to how teams and drivers must conduct themselves while participating in this FIA sanctioned event. The drivers must hold a Superlicence, the must attend certain press events, the starting procedure, that they must attend the podium ceremony if they qualify. For example, the blue flag rule is in the sporting regulations.

The commercial rights are the money side of the business, which Liberty control. This covers television rights, schedule, negotiations with tracks, payments, season end payouts, the money side of the business. As far as the Concorde Agreement, this is the contract/agreement that binds each team to participate in Formula One. Each team must make an investment in the sport, but because they do so, they receive a handsome payout for participating and many other sources of revenue. And when the Concorde Agreement expires and it's time to renew, this becomes a very complex and lengthy series of negotiations and deals between all the major parties involved in Formula one.

I have attempted to simplify things, because now it gets complicated. So far we have the FIA and the commercial rights holder. But there are also many other parties involved in the game, the most prominent the factory teams and suppliers. They (for example Ferrari) voice their concerns and opinions on how the sport must be run. In the same manner that the EPL listen to prominent coaches and players, their input carries weight, even though they are not involved in writing the rules.

The introduction of the halo in 2018 highlights the complexity of how things are run within Formula One. In July 2016 the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association expressed to FIA President Jean Todt that some form of frontal protection be implemented as soon as possible. The F1 Strategy Group and the F1 Commission held a series of meetings, and one month later the F1 Commission confirmed a commitment to introduce “some form of cockpit protection from the 2017 season”. Many of us witnessed that many different tests were performed, via videos of objects being fired against test samples, to test articles being trialed during certain practice sessions. But on July 2016 the F1 Strategy Group agreed to defer introduction of a cockpit protection system in order to provide more time to conduct track testing with the Halo device and to explore emerging alternative solutions. Have you counted how many different groups and organizations, including drivers and teams were involved in just one technical issue? And let's not forget the press and public opinion, which every party was listening to.

The point is that this sport is an incredibly complex web of connections and deals.



whats interesting to me is that the main 2 competing factions can (and liberty probably already do) have completely different ideas and paths that they want to take f1. but there can be no f1 without the fia and no commercially viable f1 without liberty/delta topco or whoever it bloody is. now at this stage they can make it work, but if the fia start forcing f1 down a route that is proving to be detrimental to the commercial rights holders (lets say fully electric for example) in terms of falling attendances and advertising revenue and tracks pulling out of deals etc, it will be very interesting to see the power struggle which ensues. historically bernie had clout but he could be outgunned such as with the hybrids. but f1 at the moment is very profitable and so it wasnt a line in the sand that couldnt be crossed. i expect the fia to draw that line in the not too distant future.


Each major player in Formula One, from the FIA to Liberty to the teams to the factories to the sponsors all have one goal, to make the sport into something where many fans watch and attend.
What causes problems is that each party have different ideas on how to run the sport and it's future direction. And do not forget that the FIA created Formula E, that is where the FIA's interest in the future of electric vehicles lay. So please, do not believe the BS that the FIA may turn Formula One into an electric series, they already created one.

When the 100 year lease of Formula One expires in 2100, the FIA want very dearly for it to be a huge commercial success. You do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 26, 2017 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1094
ALESI wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
paulonorcatto wrote:
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is the same contract. Liberty took over BEs and CVCs shares of FOM who - through a chain of channel island companies - owns Delta Topco, which is FIAs contract partner. A bit simplified, but like this.

FIA owns the name F1 (etc) but has transferred the right to commercially exploit it exclusively to (effectively) FOM. FOM then protects its exclusive right by demanding video latforms to take down 'illegal' materials, etc.


ah thanksoy very much, this clears up a lot of my questions.

do you think the FIA get a cut of the profits?

it would seem crazy to give up the money making side of a business and get nothing in return


That's a bit fishy. That-time FIA president Max Mosley sold the rights to Ecclestone's company for a one-time lump sum fee that was less than the annual profits from the rights. The FIA got no share until two years ago when it took a 1.something per cent share in Delta Topco.

Max Mosley was Ecclestone's lawyer and legal advisor, a close ally, before he became FIA president.

There have been rumours of bribery but afaik no evidence.


I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


IMO all of that was a situation created by Mosley so he could sell Formula One to his buddy Bernie. He had to create some plausible story because who sells off a huge chunk of a lucrative sport and later receives a "gift" of 30 million from Bernie because they were such wonderful friends?

Of course there is no smoking gun, Max was a greasy and morally corrupt lawyer, and Bernie is made of teflon, nothing sticks to him.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 27, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2236
paulonorcatto wrote:
ALESI wrote:

I believe I read something - which may have been in Max's book - that the FIA aren't supposed to make money from F1 because they can't claim to be an independent governing body if they have a vested interest. In other words, the EU (I think it must have been) agreed to allow FIA to be the presiding european governing body but only if they got rid of their interest in F1. Because if another series came along and they HAD to go to the FIA in Europe, then they shouldn't be disadvantaged because of the FIA's special relationship with F1.

Of course in reality, I'm sure it's a whole different ballgame!


I don't buy that answer at all. (Max's not yours!)

FIFA make huge sums from the world cup. I fail to see how the FIA and FIFA are different. They both govern their respective sports.

I'm not sure I understand your second point, are you saying that if, let's say I was a multi billionaire and decided to start up my own racing championships. Let's say the "motor racing world championship" I would have to go to the FIA first and ask for permission? Which of course would be denied as they have their own world championship series.

How would that be possible with laws on monopolies etc. Sorry if I've missed your point!


I think that was the point, the FIA held a position that was a monopoly in effect, so to counter that they had to show independence... or rather the EU said you can't be an independent governing body and own the series because it's a conflict of interest. Although I think they still hold a 1% stake in F1. But it is a ridiculous situation whichever way you look at it. I gave the book away unfortunately so I can't go back and look... sorry.

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
It is correct that the European Commission requested FIA not to deter rival series from emerging. However, this focused on sports cars where, at the time around 2000, a successful series run by Stephane Ratél was driven out of the market by the FIA establishing an own series. Race tracks, teams and drivers were threatened by Mosley and Ecclestone to get banned from all and every FIA-sanctioned series/event shall they dared to participate in Ratél's series. That was indeed against competition law.

Ecclestone and Mosley saw the opportunity in that and - with the help of some smart advisors - used the sports car-focused ruling to implement the suspicious 100-year-contract regarding F1's commercial rights. Unfortunately, at the time, the EC did not spot the new anticompetitive arrangement (the 100 year gi ft from Mosley to his buddy Ecclestone).

For a long time, F1 was run as Ecclestone's private business with former Ecclestone-Brabham employees like Mosley, Whiting, Blash, etc filling the key positions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 12:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
FIFA is based in Switzerland, true, but

1. EU competition rules are applicable in the European Economic Area (EEA), which includes Switzerland.

2. As per the so-called effects doctrine the nationality of a company/organization does not matter; as long as business is done within EU, EU competition law applies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:04 pm
Posts: 1568
Paolo_Lasardi wrote:
It is correct that the European Commission requested FIA not to deter rival series from emerging. However, this focused on sports cars where, at the time around 2000, a successful series run by Stephane Ratél was driven out of the market by the FIA establishing an own series. Race tracks, teams and drivers were threatened by Mosley and Ecclestone to get banned from all and every FIA-sanctioned series/event shall they dared to participate in Ratél's series. That was indeed against competition law.

Ecclestone and Mosley saw the opportunity in that and - with the help of some smart advisors - used the sports car-focused ruling to implement the suspicious 100-year-contract regarding F1's commercial rights. Unfortunately, at the time, the EC did not spot the new anticompetitive arrangement (the 100 year gi ft from Mosley to his buddy Ecclestone).

For a long time, F1 was run as Ecclestone's private business with former Ecclestone-Brabham employees like Mosley, Whiting, Blash, etc filling the key positions.


Didnt the FIA threaten some race tracks that were flirting with hosting CART races that were outside the USA? I know that CART eventually raced in Montreal, but I seem to recall that the FIA was against CART competing with Formula One in Europe or even Asia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2017 8:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 1600
Yes, afair it was a common practice of Ecclestone/Mosley. Unlike Ratél, CART did not complain to the European Commission afair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 5:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 7:52 pm
Posts: 680
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.

And when do you think that will be? Not any time soon, from what I can tell, and more likely not ever imho. EVs have lots of big hurdles to overcome before that can even be possible, and they still comprise less than 1% of cars on the road and less than 1% of market share of new vehicles sold.

_________________
On Twitter, follow me @GPAmericas for all the latest breaking news and current photos...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 6716
hairy_scotsman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.

And when do you think that will be? Not any time soon, from what I can tell, and more likely not ever imho. EVs have lots of big hurdles to overcome before that can even be possible, and they still comprise less than 1% of cars on the road and less than 1% of market share of new vehicles sold.

Well I'm no expert but you've got all of the manufacturers joining FE, governments starting to implement cut off dates for petrol/diesel cars (the UK banning production from 2040 for example) and statements from manufacturers like Volvo who say they won't produce a purely petrol/diesel car from 2019.

I have no idea if battery technology can evolve to the point that it becomes the main power source for cars, or whether it will be something else like hydrogen but no matter which way you look at it I think the writing is on the wall for petrol and diesel.

Edit: I should also point out in my first post regarding electric in F1 I did try to put a disclaimer of 'if' electric power becomes ready, but looking back it's not very clear. As I said I'm no expert but looking from the outside it seems pretty clear that electricity is the way the automotive industry is moving. Partly by choice, partly by government enforcement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
hairy_scotsman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.

And when do you think that will be? Not any time soon, from what I can tell, and more likely not ever imho. EVs have lots of big hurdles to overcome before that can even be possible, and they still comprise less than 1% of cars on the road and less than 1% of market share of new vehicles sold.


Within the next 15 years - Maybe 10 years, the majority of new cars sold will not be primarily ICE powered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20899
mikeyg123 wrote:
hairy_scotsman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.

And when do you think that will be? Not any time soon, from what I can tell, and more likely not ever imho. EVs have lots of big hurdles to overcome before that can even be possible, and they still comprise less than 1% of cars on the road and less than 1% of market share of new vehicles sold.


Within the next 15 years - Maybe 10 years, the majority of new cars sold will not be primarily ICE powered.

I can see that in Europe, but what about e.g. the States? Or Australia? Some of the vast and sparsely populated distances in those countries tells me that the humble ICE will be fairly prevalent there for a good while yet. And I'm only guessing here but I can't imagine Asia being ready to convert en masse to electric only power for a while. Or Africa. And countries like Brazil don't have the finances to implement an electric charging infrastructure on the scale that would be needed in order to phase out ICE vehicles. F1 may have issues from a European perspective, but I can't see the rest of the world following suit in the short or even medium term


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12274
Zoue wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
hairy_scotsman wrote:
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
I don't think that F1 is pioneering with regards to engines or anything like that but when the majority of road cars are electric F1 will start to look outdated. Then when engine regulations come up for renewal manufacturers will start pushing for electric power IMO, there may be resistance at first but ultimately I can't see a future for F1 that doesn't involve all electric power.

And when do you think that will be? Not any time soon, from what I can tell, and more likely not ever imho. EVs have lots of big hurdles to overcome before that can even be possible, and they still comprise less than 1% of cars on the road and less than 1% of market share of new vehicles sold.


Within the next 15 years - Maybe 10 years, the majority of new cars sold will not be primarily ICE powered.

I can see that in Europe, but what about e.g. the States? Or Australia? Some of the vast and sparsely populated distances in those countries tells me that the humble ICE will be fairly prevalent there for a good while yet. And I'm only guessing here but I can't imagine Asia being ready to convert en masse to electric only power for a while. Or Africa. And countries like Brazil don't have the finances to implement an electric charging infrastructure on the scale that would be needed in order to phase out ICE vehicles. F1 may have issues from a European perspective, but I can't see the rest of the world following suit in the short or even medium term


True I am only looking at it from a European perspective. However I do believe that major car manufactures will only be releasing green energy cars to the market in the near future. Volvo have recently announced they will not be releasing non electric or hybrid cars from 2019. Other manufactures will follow suit. I don't think it's a big statement to say most if not all major car manufacturers will not be making ICE powered cars by 2030.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: P-F1 Mod and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group