Bernie Ecclestone says F1 be sold this year.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Sometimes it's hard to know what's behind some of Bernie Ecclestone statements. He holds his cards very close to his chest. On the other hand, he is getting on; 85 this month, so is there anything to this?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121179

[Greem]

Interesting, especially if the American sports/business community get involved. They (whoever "they" would be) will certainly have an interesting take on things; the various big successes in the USA (NFL, NBA etc) are massively popular outside of their home turf.

The question is, could that sort of owner make the reverse happen or would they just be pouring money into a hole from which nothing returns?

[Nikki Katz]

It can't possibly continue much longer with Bernie in charge due to his age. It seems that cvc want out also. But I'm not sure who'd want to buy f1, what they'd try to do to it or how much resistance they'd face from the teams. Recently it seems that they'd rather see the series fail than give up a competitive advantage as they've sunk too much money into it to surrender it to a competitor.

[Nicholosophy]

I wouldn't put it beyond Dorna to come in and buy it.

Owning arguably the top two-wheel and four-wheel world championships could provide some interesting marketing tie ins.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Nicholosophy

I wouldn't put it beyond Dorna to come in and buy it.

Owning arguably the top two-wheel and four-wheel world championships could provide some interesting marketing tie ins.

I didn't know Dorna were involved in four wheels, I thought it was just two wheels?

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I didn't know Dorna were involved in four wheels, I thought it was just two wheels?

Just because they aren't doesn't mean they can't.

[Armco Bender]

in the USA (NFL, NBA etc) are massively popular

F1 races would be 7 hours long in the NFL get hold of them,and 6 of them would be ad breaks.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Armco Bender

F1 races would be 7 hours long in the NFL get hold of them,and 6 of them would be ad breaks.

It'll probably be more like IndyCar, where they cut to the commercial break after all the pitstops are done, only to rejoin as a full course yellow is underway because of some 'debris' on the track.

[Mike Harte]

This is probably about the third time over recent years that BCE has made the statement (or possibly just replied to an off-chance question from a "media" type with an off the cuff reply) that F1 was likely to be sold that year. And don't forget that it was all ready to be listed on the Singapore stock exchange in 2012, I think, but was withdrawn because of the potential meltdown of the Eurozone, if I remember correctly.

A sale by CVC of it's remaining holding must be completed by 2018 as this was a clause written into the original funding package by their investors of the stand-alone fund where F1 is held; that cannot be changed, except if ordered by a court, which is highly unlikely.

The teams, although they can moan about a possible sale or a prospective buyer, have no real say in the matter. I don't believe that any of them have any shareholding in F1, although some may have invested in some of the hedge funds that really control the sport. The big idea was that when it was floated in 2012 that the teams would have the opportunity to take or be given some of the equity in F1, but it never happened.

The largest concern that I have, as one of those who have followed F1 for over 50 years, is that it is bought by a media conglomerate because they would certainly not have the sports best interests at heart. Unfortunately, one of the alleged prospective purchasers is thought to be the company behind the Discovery Channel (who I believe also own Virgin Media), but I think that they may be just running a spoiling campaign to stop News Corp/Fox (that's Sky to you and me) getting their hands on it! Nothing good, as far as I can see it, would come of F1 in the hands of either of these two massive corporations.

[JoshuaLeMans]

This is very interesting. Would this mean the end of the reign of Bernie?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The largest concern that I have, as one of those who have followed F1 for over 50 years, is that it is bought by a media conglomerate because they would certainly not have the sports best interests at heart. Unfortunately, one of the alleged prospective purchasers is thought to be the company behind the Discovery Channel (who I believe also own Virgin Media), but I think that they may be just running a spoiling campaign to stop News Corp/Fox (that's Sky to you and me) getting their hands on it! Nothing good, as far as I can see it, would come of F1 in the hands of either of these two massive corporations.

Seriously how much worse could F1 get, no matter who owned it or how stupid the regulations became?

At this point I am willing to try any form of change!

[SWCRacing]

Thanks to Mike Harte for stating that CVC has to sell by a certain date. This info is in the public domain if you look hard enough

As for speculation that Dorna might buy the shares, CVC used to own Dorna as well, and had to sell that company in order to satisfy EU competition regulators when they purchased the controlling interest in Delta Topco, and therefore F1

If you read the articles on this, BCE has clearly stated that the front-runners would want him to continue running the commercial side of things....

What is the French saying..... plus ca change?

[SWCRacing]

Originally Posted by Nicholosophy

Just because they aren't doesn't mean they can't.

Actually, in the case of a Global motorsports championship, yes it does.....

[Mekola]

Formula 1 must be back at FIA control, not under scoundrels interests.

[SWCRacing]

It still is under the control of the FIA, the only thing that CVC control are the Commercial Rights. The FIA "control" the governance and regulation of the sport. That is as a direct result of the last EU investigation.

The principal activity of Formula One World Championship Limited, as stated in their accounts, is "the continued exploitation of the commercial rights to the Formula One World Championship". And they are pretty good at that.... They have all the competitors contractually tied in to the championship until 2020 under various agreements, and I would expect that there would be very serious penalty clauses for braking those agreements. (I have seen reports of the Red Bull "break clause" being in the region of $1bn reducing by $100m per year)

The current EU investigation is probably going to go nowhere, as (and I hate myself for this) I agree with BCE that ALL of the teams knew what the terms where when they signed. A more pertinent question for the EU is "Why does the FIA now own a percentage of Delta Topco, when the original agreement with the EU, FIA and CVC etc was to split the ownership and regulatory powers form the commercial rights, ie separate the power from the cash

[chillibowl]

say what you will about Murdoch and News Corp, Fox has been great in terms of their sports coverage, particularly for motorsports in N.America. we dont have access to Sky here so i cant comment on that, but Fox Sports and what was formerly Speed Channel offered us a level of coverage that no one over here has since been either able to or willing to match.

F1 could do a lot worse then partner with a company in the business of and actually interested in promoting sport imo.

[SWCRacing]

Sky / Fox, like BT Sport in the UK, are in the business of increasing subscriber numbers. They have no interest in the promotion of the sports that they cover beyond that....

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by SWCRacing

Sky / Fox, like BT Sport in the UK, are in the business of increasing subscriber numbers. They have no interest in the promotion of the sports that they cover beyond that....

indeed, they wish to increase their subscriber base by offering top level sporting competition. and if the quality of the product is better they get more subscribers.

how is this not a better arrangement then we have now?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by SWCRacing

It still is under the control of the FIA, the only thing that CVC control are the Commercial Rights. The FIA "control" the governance and regulation of the sport. That is as a direct result of the last EU investigation.

The principal activity of Formula One World Championship Limited, as stated in their accounts, is "the continued exploitation of the commercial rights to the Formula One World Championship". And they are pretty good at that.... They have all the competitors contractually tied in to the championship until 2020 under various agreements, and I would expect that there would be very serious penalty clauses for braking those agreements. (I have seen reports of the Red Bull "break clause" being in the region of $1bn reducing by $100m per year)

The current EU investigation is probably going to go nowhere, as (and I hate myself for this) I agree with BCE that ALL of the teams knew what the terms where when they signed. A more pertinent question for the EU is "Why does the FIA now own a percentage of Delta Topco, when the original agreement with the EU, FIA and CVC etc was to split the ownership and regulatory powers form the commercial rights, ie separate the power from the cash

Although in theory you are correct that the FIA retains regulatory control over Formula 1, the sad reality is that they have, de facto, delegated virtually all their powers to BCE and the Strategy Group, and the World Council just acts as a rubber stamp. It is true that Todt and others at the FIA made the decision that the rules for F1 should be changed, but they then left it to the “wonks” in the teams to pretty well devise those rules. And yes, Charlie Whiting, the FIA’s delegate, does issue “new” rules/regulations from time to time, but they are often just knee jerk reactions to public or media concerns, and sometimes in response to pressure from one team or another.

An example of this is to know why the FIA have delegated the power to choose which company/ies supply tyres for Formula 1? Surely this should be a principle concern for the regulators, not left to the man who is responsible for selling advertising space around the circuits?

BCE’s latest contracts with the teams were all conducted in secret and individually with each team, and were initiated as part of his “divide and rule” policy. FOCA, at the time when all the teams were still members, were negotiating with BCE to redefine the new Concord Agreement. Whilst this was happening, BCE and Ferrari came to a separate agreement; Ferrari left FOCA, signed a still secret contract with FOM, Red Bull also withdrew from FOCA and did a deal with him, and left the other teams to negotiate the best deals that they could squeeze out of FOM that they could individually.

My own view is that an investigation may well have legs, one for the reason that state about the shareholding, but also because I think that the contracts may well be deemed unfair. Time will tell.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

indeed, they wish to increase their subscriber base by offering top level sporting competition. and if the quality of the product is better they get more subscribers.

how is this not a better arrangement then we have now?

Living in the UK, I cannot comment on how viewing is arranged in North America, but here it may be different. Sky and BT (part of what used to be known as British Telecomm (or even the GPO for us of a certain age)) are engaged in a running battle of trying to outbid the other for virtually every sporting event, whether it be football (soccer), rugby, tennis and even golf. All of these used to be part of the backbone of free to air TV in the UK, but initially Sky, but now both companies, are pricing these sports out of the reach of the terrestrial TV producers. Because of reduced overall costs, I chose to purchase my TV via a bundle with Virgin Media, but if I wish to watch all F1 races live, plus live qualifying, then I would have to pay a further £25 per month for the privilege, and possibly cutting my nose off to spite my face, I refuse to do so. I am sure that I could trawl the internet for a way around this, but in all honesty, I can't be arsed (mods, please excuse my language, but there isn't another word that really describes my view - bothered just doesn't cut it).

Sky or others if they take over will just push the cost on to the viewer/subscriber. The media companies are already doing this in the UK; monthly fees are constantly rising, and in their battle to win new subscribers with free this and free that, etc., it is their existing customers who are picking up the tag. In the meantime, people like BCE and the top sports people are getting richer by the minute at our expense - just look at what is happening in the world of soccer (FIFA) right now.

[chillibowl]

for me i have always been paying for my cable subscription including the specialty channels so i guess i just find this a normal practice now.

anyways there is a thread for this elsewhere so dont want to derail this thread with my reasoning why pay TV offers a better level/quality of coverage compared to FTA.

more on topic, i trust in the cable providers desire to make money off of sports and recognize that they cant do that with a broken and non competitive sport.

rather, since the primary concern of cable providers is to increase subscription then i have more trust in them to want to create a sport that allows for a greater level of competition among a greater number of teams and who have a resistance for allowing one team to hold an advantage for anything longer then a single season because doing so makes the sport more entertaining and creates more of a demand among subscribers.

to be honest i think this is a crucial element/mindset in forcing the types of change being talked about in several other threads.

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

...and possibly cutting my nose off to spite my face, I refuse to do so. I am sure that I could trawl the internet for a way around this, but in all honesty, I can't be arsed (mods, please excuse my language, but there isn't another word that really describes my view - bothered just doesn't cut it)....

Mike, I echo your sentiments exactly (including your moderators justification!). If/when F1 finally does go behind a paywall I may then become sufficiently arsed* to trawl the internet for a way around it, or more likely, I will just stop watching Formula One altogether.
*see above.

[Paradise City]

PTA is damaging for the sport generally and unnecessary in many cases. It's just another contemptible example of this sports greed and lack of vision.

[chillibowl]

imo PTV is damaging the sport because the current promoter doesnt really care about how many people watch. he signs the TV deal and then couldnt be bothered how many watch or how boring it is because he already made his money via the up front contracts.

teams suffer for lack of sponsors and tracks suffer as they get squeezed for more money all the while there is no incentive for the current owners to improve the quality of the show because success for them is measured in terms of their annual % return on their investments and not in terms of how many watch.

all things being equal i would much prefer a company in charge whose financial interests are more directly tied into the audience enjoying the programming they hope to make profit from.

we certainly dont have that now and i hope that is something that changes if and when F1 passes on to a new ownership group. it doesnt have to be Fox though

as an aside, people should pay for TV. having it for free

[bjohnsonsmith]

I wonder how much the recent EU complaint brought by Sauber and Force India has to do with Bernie saying F1 could be up for sale?

This article is worth reading.

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/fe...580.1443053678