planetf1.com

It is currently Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:19 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
Hi everyone!
I have been reading so much these days that F1 needs to incorporate a shared revenue model much like US-NFL or Champions League Football in UK. and also NASCAR.

I totally disagree and my reasons are simple. F1 is so different than any other business model or sports model including NASCAR. If F1 starts to use a NASCAR model for rules then revenue sharing is workable. Basically a NASCAR chevy is no different than a NASCAR Ford. Engines are sourced by a few builders not even manufactures and its a cheap V8 using no advanced electronics or KERS etc. The Chasis is shared and common. so in that respect it makes sense to share revenue because all you are doing is having the same cars round a circle and everyone is happy, except the F1 fan.

US Football- same thing basically as NASCAR, all have the same equipment all play in stadiums that seat about the same and revenue is shared for each game played at home or away venues plus the TV contracts.

F1 is different and thats why we love it. Ferrari builds the engine, the chassis the components as much as they can. these are for the most part different hundreds of millions are invested to build engine alone, MB, Renault have same costs. why on earth would a MB be paid the same as a Force India? Haas? any other team? this makes no sense and therefore no basis for reality.

If revenue sharing came into play whats the alarm if MB decides to not invest millions upon millions it takes to shave hundreds of a second off qualifying runs? they get the same money as the 20th place team? why invest? the thing that will happen is you dummy down the sport.

I would encourage Ferrari, MB to leave F1 if this became a serious threat.

Breakaway!! I have been saying this on this board for 10 years now maybe more.
Why does Bernie before and now Liberty deserve billions of dollars in revenue from the investment MB made??

Get a series where all the teams own the sport, they owners then cut commercial media rights directly to networks etc. that is really how NFL makes its money, why does Liberty derive anything? lets the Concorde agreement run out start a new series and move on...Liberty losses Billions...I would love to see that.

Ferrari is the key..if they move everyone moves Bernie knew this and that is why the get an extra 100Million per year its simple. Ferrari is the key and everyone who understands this business understand this as well.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
While not suggesting it's bad or good, Ecclestone ran F1 as a monopoly. You wanna play, give Bernie his due or take a hike. Liberty may own it now, but it's still a monopoly.

Ferrari's price for agreeing to be under the heal of a monopoly is currently $100M a year. They can choose to leave in 2021 and start their own monopoly, presumably providing Ferrari engines to all 20 participants as the incentive to join the "Tifosi Racing League." (I doubt other engine manufacturers will jump ship.) I doubt it will work, no matter how loyal Ferrari thinks its fans are. Loyalty doesn't provide money.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
I don't think Ferrari will do that. I do however think a new formula with Ferrari, MB, Renault McLaren, Williams for sure would go over with all these teams actually owning the show. Then selling viewing rights to TV providers around the world, and then also have promoters in the venues...you can bring costs down at circuits with all teams owning the rights. why does Liberty need to make hundreds of millions off the investments of the manufactures and teams?

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2905
Location: UK
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I don't think Ferrari will do that. I do however think a new formula with Ferrari, MB, Renault McLaren, Williams for sure would go over with all these teams actually owning the show. Then selling viewing rights to TV providers around the world, and then also have promoters in the venues...you can bring costs down at circuits with all teams owning the rights. why does Liberty need to make hundreds of millions off the investments of the manufactures and teams?

Somewhat ironically this sounds rather like the arrangement Bernie originally had in mind in the 1980s when he owned the Brabham team. Sadly the rest of the teams at the time weren't interested in messing around with TV rights and just wanted to concentrate on racing, so they let Bernie sort it for them. And today's situation is the result.

Overall I agree though. Those who actually create the show should be reaping the financial reward, Liberty seem to be a bit of a pointless 'middle-man' taking a large share of the proceeds for little benefit to the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 253
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
This was essentially done in America when the teams split from the Tony George monopoly at Indy, creating the CART consortium, separate from Indycar. It might serve better in F1, but American Indycar racing has not been the same since that split, now a shadow of its former self.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
j man wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I don't think Ferrari will do that. I do however think a new formula with Ferrari, MB, Renault McLaren, Williams for sure would go over with all these teams actually owning the show. Then selling viewing rights to TV providers around the world, and then also have promoters in the venues...you can bring costs down at circuits with all teams owning the rights. why does Liberty need to make hundreds of millions off the investments of the manufactures and teams?

Somewhat ironically this sounds rather like the arrangement Bernie originally had in mind in the 1980s when he owned the Brabham team. Sadly the rest of the teams at the time weren't interested in messing around with TV rights and just wanted to concentrate on racing, so they let Bernie sort it for them. And today's situation is the result.

Overall I agree though. Those who actually create the show should be reaping the financial reward, Liberty seem to be a bit of a pointless 'middle-man' taking a large share of the proceeds for little benefit to the sport.


This applies everywhere though. You need a body which holds everyone together.

Now Liberty may not be perfect, but they at least seem intent on taking F1 forward. You need someone who will invest in the show, promote & market it, hold all the teams together, and all the other stuff that the teams aren't responsible for.

You have the NFL (football), the FA/EPL (real football), the SFA/SPFL (realest football), UEFA/FIFA, NBA, so on and so forth. All these exist to create a competition, have their competition be highly thought of, and get investment in to their competition. F1 is not massively different in this regard.

I think what they do is often understated and undervalued. Although the biggest property they own is a brand, and the emotional attachment which drives the prestige of that brand.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Hi everyone!
I have been reading so much these days that F1 needs to incorporate a shared revenue model much like US-NFL or Champions League Football in UK. and also NASCAR.

I totally disagree and my reasons are simple. F1 is so different than any other business model or sports model including NASCAR. If F1 starts to use a NASCAR model for rules then revenue sharing is workable. Basically a NASCAR chevy is no different than a NASCAR Ford. Engines are sourced by a few builders not even manufactures and its a cheap V8 using no advanced electronics or KERS etc. The Chasis is shared and common. so in that respect it makes sense to share revenue because all you are doing is having the same cars round a circle and everyone is happy, except the F1 fan.

US Football- same thing basically as NASCAR, all have the same equipment all play in stadiums that seat about the same and revenue is shared for each game played at home or away venues plus the TV contracts.

F1 is different and thats why we love it. Ferrari builds the engine, the chassis the components as much as they can. these are for the most part different hundreds of millions are invested to build engine alone, MB, Renault have same costs. why on earth would a MB be paid the same as a Force India? Haas? any other team? this makes no sense and therefore no basis for reality.

If revenue sharing came into play whats the alarm if MB decides to not invest millions upon millions it takes to shave hundreds of a second off qualifying runs? they get the same money as the 20th place team? why invest? the thing that will happen is you dummy down the sport.

I would encourage Ferrari, MB to leave F1 if this became a serious threat.

Breakaway!! I have been saying this on this board for 10 years now maybe more.
Why does Bernie before and now Liberty deserve billions of dollars in revenue from the investment MB made??

Get a series where all the teams own the sport, they owners then cut commercial media rights directly to networks etc. that is really how NFL makes its money, why does Liberty derive anything? lets the Concorde agreement run out start a new series and move on...Liberty losses Billions...I would love to see that.

Ferrari is the key..if they move everyone moves Bernie knew this and that is why the get an extra 100Million per year its simple. Ferrari is the key and everyone who understands this business understand this as well.


You're being very selective with your comparisons. The NFL is probably one of the most equal sports in the world - but htey still have massively varying stadiums, merchandise, etc - and they can invest in coaches, infrastructure, people and aim to get the best players. The draft makes this a bit different, but they are another sport trying to maximise revenue streams and reinvest this in the right areas for success.

I think the EPL is a model I'd much prefer to follow. Success is rewarded, but not with the huge disparities that we see now that essentially locks people in to where they are. The higher you are, the more money you get, but there is a limit to it. If you have a great brand and following, like Ferrari, you still have all this ability to create merchandise and cash in in other ways further driving home your advantage (although difference is, F1 don't get stadium revenue).

In the EPL the ratio of earnings is 1.6:1 from top to bottom, across 20 different clubs. In F1, it was 9.5:1 (3.7:1 if you exclude Haas). Getting this closer to even 2:1 would, IMO, create a more competitive field, give us more opportunity for upsets - even the odd mid-pack team winning due to them having the package for a specific weekend - which would encourage more people to watch, drive more revenue overall, and teams like Ferrari would turn out with more money than they do under this uneven distribution model.

A big sport of sport is tension and competition. We need it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 1:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
I am not being selective. purely looking at this from an investment side. in NFL or other Leagues. You have fixed costs. A coach has a salary range, all costs in those sports are measured against the other teams. NFL for example has position players with a cost associated with that player (there is no real investment made other than paying a salary...no investment in building his legs or arms or the technology around creating this person. (extreme example I know but thats the point).

These teams (at least the teams that have been in this for some time Ferrari, Williams, McLaren etc) have IP that is valuable. whatever you may want to call this IP maybe its history, maybe it is off the backs of these teams the smaller younger teams are trying to make a buck from. again in the NFL a new team wants to come into the league they pay BILLIONS of dollars to the league (the league then equally distributes this initiation fee to the existing teams) thats how it works. Thats is essentially what Ferrari and other re getting per year for the right to race against these existing teams.

Why should Williams , Ferrari and others give this up? if say HAAS or other want to come in...ok instead of paying a fee to the FIA pay a fee to each team...that makes more sense to me.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Hi everyone!
I have been reading so much these days that F1 needs to incorporate a shared revenue model much like US-NFL or Champions League Football in UK. and also NASCAR.

I totally disagree and my reasons are simple. F1 is so different than any other business model or sports model including NASCAR. If F1 starts to use a NASCAR model for rules then revenue sharing is workable. Basically a NASCAR chevy is no different than a NASCAR Ford. Engines are sourced by a few builders not even manufactures and its a cheap V8 using no advanced electronics or KERS etc. The Chasis is shared and common. so in that respect it makes sense to share revenue because all you are doing is having the same cars round a circle and everyone is happy, except the F1 fan.

US Football- same thing basically as NASCAR, all have the same equipment all play in stadiums that seat about the same and revenue is shared for each game played at home or away venues plus the TV contracts.

F1 is different and thats why we love it. Ferrari builds the engine, the chassis the components as much as they can. these are for the most part different hundreds of millions are invested to build engine alone, MB, Renault have same costs. why on earth would a MB be paid the same as a Force India? Haas? any other team? this makes no sense and therefore no basis for reality.

If revenue sharing came into play whats the alarm if MB decides to not invest millions upon millions it takes to shave hundreds of a second off qualifying runs? they get the same money as the 20th place team? why invest? the thing that will happen is you dummy down the sport.

I would encourage Ferrari, MB to leave F1 if this became a serious threat.

Breakaway!! I have been saying this on this board for 10 years now maybe more.
Why does Bernie before and now Liberty deserve billions of dollars in revenue from the investment MB made??

Get a series where all the teams own the sport, they owners then cut commercial media rights directly to networks etc. that is really how NFL makes its money, why does Liberty derive anything? lets the Concorde agreement run out start a new series and move on...Liberty losses Billions...I would love to see that.

Ferrari is the key..if they move everyone moves Bernie knew this and that is why the get an extra 100Million per year its simple. Ferrari is the key and everyone who understands this business understand this as well.


You need to understand why things are the way they are.

Once upon a time Formula One was a fringe sport, not watched by many. Those that were brave enough had to endure weekends camping out in some farmer's field. Then came TV, and soon after the ability to broadcast between continents. Bernie had placed himself in the position of making TV happen for Formula One, and he set up businesses and dummy corporations so that he essentially became a billionaire overnight. Revenue sharing was not a concept in Bernie's mind, he made the money, the teams raced. Bernie doled out money to who pleased him, or he had to bride someone or some team.

In other sports mentioned, and their business model, each and every one of them had a devout local following, and it was the team owners meeting and agreeing to form a league and share TV revenue. From the beginning it was a partnership, one of sharing TV exposure and revenue.

There is a very basic differences between Formula One and other sports, of equal revenue sharing. Healthy sports franchises that grow and prosper all enjoy an equitable revenue sharing. Formula One does not share revenues, and Formula One is not a healthy business model. How can one hope to attract serious business partners when new start-ups are driven out of business, and lesser teams have to beg, borrow, and steal to survive one more year?

In NASCAR, the cars are bespoke. The engines for any manufacturer are custom designed and built, they have minimal in common with production engines. So why is that in any way different than Ferrari? Audi raced LeMans, everything in their cars was just as custom as any Formula One Ferrari.

So what makes Ferrari special? Because they say they are. No other reason.

Unlike other top end manufacturers, Ferrari sell only one thing, passion. They exist on sex appeal, the flashy Italian badge, and loads and loads of BS. Some Ferrari models are pure crap. But that is overlooked because.. they are Ferrari. And this persona spills over into Formula One, where if results are not going the way Ferrari want it, they pile on more manure or threaten to take their toys and go home.

Liberty are going to get their way, and if Ferrari leave, then the sport will be better off without them.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I am not being selective. purely looking at this from an investment side. in NFL or other Leagues. You have fixed costs. A coach has a salary range, all costs in those sports are measured against the other teams. NFL for example has position players with a cost associated with that player (there is no real investment made other than paying a salary...no investment in building his legs or arms or the technology around creating this person. (extreme example I know but thats the point).

These teams (at least the teams that have been in this for some time Ferrari, Williams, McLaren etc) have IP that is valuable. whatever you may want to call this IP maybe its history, maybe it is off the backs of these teams the smaller younger teams are trying to make a buck from. again in the NFL a new team wants to come into the league they pay BILLIONS of dollars to the league (the league then equally distributes this initiation fee to the existing teams) thats how it works. Thats is essentially what Ferrari and other re getting per year for the right to race against these existing teams.

Why should Williams , Ferrari and others give this up? if say HAAS or other want to come in...ok instead of paying a fee to the FIA pay a fee to each team...that makes more sense to me.


Well in football you need to pay a transfer fee to sign someone, that is an investment up front. Millions (sometimes billions) spent on stadiums, millions more spent on training complexes, state of the art training equipment, gyms, monitoring, coaches, psychologists.. there's a lot of investment there beyond salaries. To ignore this is a bit like ignoring the R&D that F1 teams can invest in, including wind tunnels, etc.

I still can't quite figure out your justification of top teams being locked in to being the top teams forever at the expensive of something resembling competition. NFL may have a fee to join, but they also have one of the most equal leagues in the world once you're there. I won't pretend to have a full understanding of why, but their salary cap goes a long way. Despite the Cowboys having revenue 2x that of many others, they can still only pay roughly the same out in salaries. That leads to competition. Are you saying we should make a spending cap in F1, and the teams like Ferrari can take their excess profits back to their shareholders?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2905
Location: UK
Ennis wrote:
j man wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I don't think Ferrari will do that. I do however think a new formula with Ferrari, MB, Renault McLaren, Williams for sure would go over with all these teams actually owning the show. Then selling viewing rights to TV providers around the world, and then also have promoters in the venues...you can bring costs down at circuits with all teams owning the rights. why does Liberty need to make hundreds of millions off the investments of the manufactures and teams?

Somewhat ironically this sounds rather like the arrangement Bernie originally had in mind in the 1980s when he owned the Brabham team. Sadly the rest of the teams at the time weren't interested in messing around with TV rights and just wanted to concentrate on racing, so they let Bernie sort it for them. And today's situation is the result.

Overall I agree though. Those who actually create the show should be reaping the financial reward, Liberty seem to be a bit of a pointless 'middle-man' taking a large share of the proceeds for little benefit to the sport.


This applies everywhere though. You need a body which holds everyone together.

Now Liberty may not be perfect, but they at least seem intent on taking F1 forward. You need someone who will invest in the show, promote & market it, hold all the teams together, and all the other stuff that the teams aren't responsible for.

You have the NFL (football), the FA/EPL (real football), the SFA/SPFL (realest football), UEFA/FIFA, NBA, so on and so forth. All these exist to create a competition, have their competition be highly thought of, and get investment in to their competition. F1 is not massively different in this regard.

I think what they do is often understated and undervalued. Although the biggest property they own is a brand, and the emotional attachment which drives the prestige of that brand.

I agree that you do need an impartial body to run the show; the teams cannot run the sport through consensus as each will only look after their own interests. However I see no problem with the teams owning the commercial side of things, with the FIA running all sporting matters. Interesting that you cite the English Premier League; I absolutely believe this is the model that F1 should operate under, where the Football Association exists as a non-profit organisation to take care of all sporting matters while the Premier League exists as a corporation that owns the commercial rights and of which the competing teams are shareholders. The financial structure, both in terms of the proportion of the total TV revenue is awarded to the teams and how evenly it is distributed so that everyone gets a fair chance to compete, is perfect for keeping the league competitive. If it weren't for the UEFA Champions League money and a few oil sheiks writing blank cheques, the Premier League would be very even.

However that is not the model that F1 follows at the moment, the Premier League does not have some fatcats at the top skimming off half the revenue to stuff in their pockets.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
when people say F1 will be better off without Ferrari then why in the world would Bernie who by all accounts is a master negotiator pay 100Million per year to them? The only logical conclusion is because with Ferrari Bernie could make more money than without them. Also to protect F1 from Ferrari moving to a breakaway series, thats the only justification possible.

going back to the NFL, or NHL, or NBA the teams that were orginal or founding teams they were the ones who made the sacrifices, made the investment built a brand for that they get new teams into the league and over time these new teams paid for the right to play in the league today these fees are worth Billions of dollars, this is what I am saying that is why these teams Ferrari, McLaren,Williams get these annual fees perhaps not as large as Ferrari its because they have more value over time and they made F1 what it is today. So charging these Billions lets say in F1 and have these fees go to the teams is essentially what is happening.

Again my point is that F1 or the teams who fight for the F1 championship DO NOT need Liberty, they don't. They lose out on the naming rights for F1 (Max sold that to Bernie for power at the FIA years ago) so they can't race under F1 but they could under anything else. Eventually when Liberty see's the billions of lost investment this would be they will cave and give Ferrari and others the money they feel they deserve or breakaway...its easy to do, Ferarri and others can easily take ownership and create a league of teams call it Racing 1 or anything and build a business like NBA,NHL,NFL, ,MLB, English premierleasgue etc.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2032
1. I agreee that all revenues from F1 should be allocated to the teams (instead to CVC's, Ecclestone's, Liberty's etc pockets)!

2. However, a fair distribution of these revenues among all teams is necessary in order to create a financially sound and sustainable competitive championship. Thus, the extra payments must go as well as any extra influences on rules and enfocement.
Individual revenues of the teams (sponsors, merchandise, etc) are not shared and should not be shared among the teams IMO. Teams with more fans rightfully earn much more here than less popular teams.
However, since this already creates significant inequality and imbalance, the common revenues (TV money, etc) need to be distributed much more equally among the teams. A healthy championship needs the superstar teams as much as a healthy full grid (12-13 teams = 24-26 cars IMO), therefore the second pillar of common revenues must not further increase the already existing imbalance.

8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2032
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
when people say F1 will be better off without Ferrari then why in the world would Bernie who by all accounts is a master negotiator pay 100Million per year to them? The only logical conclusion is because with Ferrari Bernie could make more money than without them. Also to protect F1 from Ferrari moving to a breakaway series, thats the only justification possible.



The special Ferrari extra payment were " negotiated" when the teams were uniting to form a breakaway series. It was Ecclestone's bribe to make Ferrari betray their breakaway partners and sign with Ecclestone/FOM again. Ferrari was the first to jump ship, thus, the highest extra payment.

Now, is really anyone surprised that other teams do not trust any Ferrari breakaway talk anymore? :lol:

The chance for a team-owned breakaway was there but Ferrari blew it for purely egoistic interests. Sad but true.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
going back to the NFL, or NHL, or NBA the teams that were orginal or founding teams they were the ones who made the sacrifices, made the investment built a brand for that they get new teams into the league and over time these new teams paid for the right to play in the league today these fees are worth Billions of dollars, this is what I am saying that is why these teams Ferrari, McLaren,Williams get these annual fees perhaps not as large as Ferrari its because they have more value over time and they made F1 what it is today. So charging these Billions lets say in F1 and have these fees go to the teams is essentially what is happening.

Again my point is that F1 or the teams who fight for the F1 championship DO NOT need Liberty, they don't. They lose out on the naming rights for F1 (Max sold that to Bernie for power at the FIA years ago) so they can't race under F1 but they could under anything else. Eventually when Liberty see's the billions of lost investment this would be they will cave and give Ferrari and others the money they feel they deserve or breakaway...its easy to do, Ferarri and others can easily take ownership and create a league of teams call it Racing 1 or anything and build a business like NBA,NHL,NFL, ,MLB, English premierleasgue etc.


You place an asset value on an original team where there is no reason. Original teams were nothing special, just like today the owners make money and the teams race. They did not sacrifice for the future, they raced for that day. You quote the NBA, NFL, and NHL. None of the original teams enjoy any special status. They just enjoy parity with everyone else. And how can you argue that in any of those leagues a team is worth a heck of a lot of money, and people are standing in line to buy teams?

Let us examine the proposition on Ferrari leaving and forming a rival series. First off, they must secure a lucrative international TV deal. With FOM already locked in with many TV providers, convincing someone like Sky to shell out huge bucks and schedule an unknown product in prime time is a huge ask. How can Ferrari convince Sanada's largest sports provider TSN not to show the races delayed until 2:00 AM? What tracks can Ferrari get hold of? The list of FIA/F1 spec tracks is a short one, and most are already booked. What other teams can Ferrari convince to go with them, promising nothing?

Mercedes? Red Bull?

Why would Dietrich go to all this trouble when it is possible Red Bull plan to leave Formula One within the next ten years? Same goes with Mercedes.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
j man wrote:
Ennis wrote:
j man wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I don't think Ferrari will do that. I do however think a new formula with Ferrari, MB, Renault McLaren, Williams for sure would go over with all these teams actually owning the show. Then selling viewing rights to TV providers around the world, and then also have promoters in the venues...you can bring costs down at circuits with all teams owning the rights. why does Liberty need to make hundreds of millions off the investments of the manufactures and teams?

Somewhat ironically this sounds rather like the arrangement Bernie originally had in mind in the 1980s when he owned the Brabham team. Sadly the rest of the teams at the time weren't interested in messing around with TV rights and just wanted to concentrate on racing, so they let Bernie sort it for them. And today's situation is the result.

Overall I agree though. Those who actually create the show should be reaping the financial reward, Liberty seem to be a bit of a pointless 'middle-man' taking a large share of the proceeds for little benefit to the sport.


This applies everywhere though. You need a body which holds everyone together.

Now Liberty may not be perfect, but they at least seem intent on taking F1 forward. You need someone who will invest in the show, promote & market it, hold all the teams together, and all the other stuff that the teams aren't responsible for.

You have the NFL (football), the FA/EPL (real football), the SFA/SPFL (realest football), UEFA/FIFA, NBA, so on and so forth. All these exist to create a competition, have their competition be highly thought of, and get investment in to their competition. F1 is not massively different in this regard.

I think what they do is often understated and undervalued. Although the biggest property they own is a brand, and the emotional attachment which drives the prestige of that brand.

I agree that you do need an impartial body to run the show; the teams cannot run the sport through consensus as each will only look after their own interests. However I see no problem with the teams owning the commercial side of things, with the FIA running all sporting matters. Interesting that you cite the English Premier League; I absolutely believe this is the model that F1 should operate under, where the Football Association exists as a non-profit organisation to take care of all sporting matters while the Premier League exists as a corporation that owns the commercial rights and of which the competing teams are shareholders. The financial structure, both in terms of the proportion of the total TV revenue is awarded to the teams and how evenly it is distributed so that everyone gets a fair chance to compete, is perfect for keeping the league competitive. If it weren't for the UEFA Champions League money and a few oil sheiks writing blank cheques, the Premier League would be very even.

However that is not the model that F1 follows at the moment, the Premier League does not have some fatcats at the top skimming off half the revenue to stuff in their pockets.


Oh I agree that this is not the F1 model at the moment, but the EPL still needs their share of money to function and has their large salaries to take (but don't have to show a 'profit' to shareholders).

How could we do this in F1 though? F1 has no promotion & relegation, so straight away you can't tell who has a 'right' to be at the table (although I'd love if it did). Ferrari would no doubt try to get a special veto and the large teams would not accept the small teams having just as much of a say in things as they do.

But overall I agree - perfect world, it would be a better style of model for F1 to follow. But then Liberty have just invested billions, they're going to need to get that back somehow...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
when people say F1 will be better off without Ferrari then why in the world would Bernie who by all accounts is a master negotiator pay 100Million per year to them? The only logical conclusion is because with Ferrari Bernie could make more money than without them. Also to protect F1 from Ferrari moving to a breakaway series, thats the only justification possible.

going back to the NFL, or NHL, or NBA the teams that were orginal or founding teams they were the ones who made the sacrifices, made the investment built a brand for that they get new teams into the league and over time these new teams paid for the right to play in the league today these fees are worth Billions of dollars, this is what I am saying that is why these teams Ferrari, McLaren,Williams get these annual fees perhaps not as large as Ferrari its because they have more value over time and they made F1 what it is today. So charging these Billions lets say in F1 and have these fees go to the teams is essentially what is happening.

Again my point is that F1 or the teams who fight for the F1 championship DO NOT need Liberty, they don't. They lose out on the naming rights for F1 (Max sold that to Bernie for power at the FIA years ago) so they can't race under F1 but they could under anything else. Eventually when Liberty see's the billions of lost investment this would be they will cave and give Ferrari and others the money they feel they deserve or breakaway...its easy to do, Ferarri and others can easily take ownership and create a league of teams call it Racing 1 or anything and build a business like NBA,NHL,NFL, ,MLB, English premierleasgue etc.


It was a bribe to prevent a breakaway. Nowadays, can we see any teams banding together? They might pretend to if they think they can all get more out of Liberty, but the second they get offered something else to stay...

They didn't make 'sacrifices'. They raced. Everyone showed up, everyone raced. Some were better at it than others. Some had more resources than others. And over the years some came, some went away.

I have no idea how or why the NFL have that type of fee. From what little I've seen, the NFL manages to operate in a way even more political than F1. Again, I'm not sure why this is cited as a model to follow. Most sports you get to the top on merit, and you may need some hella resources to get the performance levels required to get there on merit, but there's not a committee sitting to decide whether you're good enough or not. Your performances and results dictate how high you go. Also, unlike other sports, owning an NFL club seems a good way to make money for money's sake - this means people will invest to make money. Is F1 a money-maker for owners? Indirectly, maybe... but its not a sound investment plan, you need to come in here with a love of competition and a love of motorsport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 427
Location: USA
Bribe? when Ferrari negotiates a deal its a bribe but when Red Bull gets money its to a bribe? This is one of my most critical points....Bernie knew that getting Ferrari on board would then get the rest on board. the issue with breakaway series from a few years ago was Bernie..now today you can get Bernie to be the commissioner of the new series etc...the chances are better today.

As for NFL no the original teams did get status..they get a share of the billions every time a new team comes on board...they got a larger slice as teams were few to smaller slice as teams are now 30 plus...but they were just by being there the longest getting additional fee income, thats never in dispute.

Getting GP's is snot the problem F1 can get to 30 races in a season no issue...FIA can sanction a race track easily, you think there are only 19 GP circuits in the world approved by FIA? Promoters would negotiate with the league not with a commercial rights owner..so again it would be easy to stage a GP in any city hosting a current F1 GP...Image Monaco hosting a F1 race with saber, Torro Rosso, Force India and few weeks later hosting a GP with Ferrari, MB< Williams, McLaren...which one would you go to??

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


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: Black_Flag_11, Lotus49, thegamer23 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