Murdoch (AUS/USA) planning bid to take over F1

[Oldtony]

If you are posting from the UK you have every right to say anything you like to protect your own viewing, but please don't deny that doing so is insular. Not sure of the figures but I would guess that the UK audience would make up something like 5% of the world wide viewing of F1 races. It is very much an international sport. Remember that the BBC and it's license fee based funding is unique. Just doesn't happen in the rest of the world. Now it is arguable that it is a great system, but it just doesn't operate anywhere else and F1 has to deal with the fact that it must operate in a commercial world.
The main point in this whole thing is that FTA terestial TV is a diminishing audience as technology delivers smarter platforms for delivery. News Corp has a huge level of expertise, and a lot of subsidiarys and partner right round the world capable of delivering F1 on everything from TVs to Ipods and tablets by satelite, optic cable, copper landline or FTA broadcasting.
Sorry, the UK audience might love it's Beeb, and even they are getting into internet delivery. bu the world is changing.
Now I can understand that Rupert can be off-putting, and like most Australians I am glad he chose to become an American so that we can deny responsibility, but there is no doubt he offers a big opportunity for F1.
By the way I wonder if Bernie has been checking security on his voice mail lately?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

If you are posting from the UK you have every right to say anything you like to protect your own viewing, but please don't deny that doing so is insular.

I think insular is the wrong word to use. It implies narrow mindedness and a blinkered approach. I think people in the UK are merely commenting on how TV is broadcast over here and in the case of F1 there's nothing insular in wanting to watch a race uninterupted and many wthin the the F1 community think the FTA covergage the BBC provide, is the best way to present the sport. Murdoch is no fool and will hopefully have uninterupted coverage and pack the TV commercials either side of the broadcast as he does with the Sky movie channels, thus solving the problem; providing he buys F1 in the first place.

[Félix]

Originally Posted by JamesH

I suppose I could care about what happens in other countries with regard to F1 broadcast (rather than, for example, Human rights abuses which I do care about in other countries), but for the life of me, cannot think of a reason to do so when it is of no benefit to me whatsoever. Insular? No not really. Sensible would be a better description. I don't want to spend £25/race. Live with it.

Brits are very good at trying to do everything for maximum profit and growth, that's their version of "common sense". Well if there are more quids to be made by squeezing money out of the people who care enough to complain about a possible move that would deprive them from their god-given right to watch F1 on the public "telee" network, someone will do it. It's the same everywhere else in the world, especially in places where growth potential is enormous. England is a detail really. Because that's common sense, of course!

*Common sense also dictates that the sponsors who benefit from the current situation making McLaren the national team won't want things to see things change for the worst. In the end, money will talk...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Félix

Brits are very good at trying to do everything for maximum profit and growth, that's their version of "common sense".

That's not true, look at Aston-Martin for example, in fact look at the British car industry, or lack of it.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's not true, look at Aston-Martin for example, in fact look at the British car industry, or lack of it.

I thought that was as a result of trying to dress up 20 year old technology with no quality control, and sell it as a supercar with an outrageous price tag!

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

I thought that was as a result of trying to dress up 20 year old technology with no quality control, and sell it as a supercar with an outrageous price tag!

That's what I'd call a bad business model.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's what I'd call a bad business model.

Which it would seem followed directly from Felix's

Brits are very good at trying to do everything for maximum profit and growth, that's their version of "common sense".

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wnut

Which it would seem followed directly from Felix's

Brits are very good at trying to do everything for maximum profit and growth, that's their version of "common sense".

I don't see how that follows. A bad business model won't produce maximum profit or growth. If you translate that into the world of TV, the BBC is reliant on revenue from the TV Licence and exporting its programmes abroad. However if you start to pay some of your executives and your presenters large salaries, less money is now available for programme production. The BBC has now had to make cuts to salaries and to some productions because of those exhorbitant salaries it once payed. Not much maximising of growth or profit there.

[wnut]

Sorry for the confusion BJ, the point I was trying to get across is that they are so busy trying to pursue their maximum profit and growth (read greed) business model; cut costs at every opportunity (no R&D or product development) and trying to charge as much as possible for everything they do produce (luxury branding and marketing spin) that they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs when their customers lose interest in their shoddy offerings.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

Sorry for the confusion BJ, the point I was trying to get across is that they are so busy trying to pursue their maximum profit and growth (read greed) business model; cut costs at every opportunity (no R&D or product development) and trying to charge as much as possible for everything they do produce (luxury branding and marketing spin) that they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs when their customers lose interest in their shoddy offerings.

And that is more Harvard business school than a UK approach anyway, so really not sure what Felix is on about.

I've worked for a UK company that was taken over by an American one - they did exactly as above - cut cut cut. Loads of people left (including me), and their development slowed to a crawl because all the best people were elsewhere.

Now I work for a American company in the UK that takes a more Google approach, lots of spend on R&D for example. Much nicer place to work, and some strikingly good product.

Anyway, thats a bit off topic.

Back on it - I find it surprising that my wanting F1 to stay FTA here in the UK is regarded as insular. Surely wanting something to stay free is a fairly global desire? Paying for it here makes no difference to my viewing pleasure, so I would simply be paying £25/race to see exactly what I see now. Some arguments seem say that it woudl bring more money in and make the sport better. How? What possible difference does it make to me a current FTA viewer, apart from increasing costs? None. None whatsoever.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Félix

Brits are very good at trying to do everything for maximum profit and growth, that's their version of "common sense".

I kind of get your point but you speak of it as something that has been ever-present whereas I think of it as something that it rapidly becoming apparent.
Britain is arguably still a mixed economy, much like yours in Canada due to institutions like the National Health Service which have nothing to do with growth and profit. The sad thing is when these institutions start losing money (look at the British Automobile industry and the de-nationalisation of key-industries) we start to abandon them and spread them to private companies which then do persue maximum profit margins.

[Marbot]

After reading this > http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/0...rmula-1-teams/, it's difficult to understand why the teams, particularly the top teams, aren't happy with what they've got.

[Oldtony]

I think Sylt tends to suffer from that disaster inflicting many in the finance world!
It somehow goes that if I put a compounding factor into my Excel speadsheet the world will actualy behave that way.
The major inflator in the income projections used by Sylt, and quoted by Allen, are that the sanction fee for races will continue to rise. Just a quick look at that indicates that sort of rise drops Turkey and Australia very quickly because they won't pay. Monaco is a special case that doesn't pay anyway. Spa and Germany are already in fiscal strife. Canada and the US have this aversion to using government money to subsidise private sporting events so when Montreal and Austin find the price of sanction goes beyond the amount they can recover it's bye bye Bernie. The Singapore government are about the smartest negotiators in the business so you can expect them to make some fairly rational judgements.
Now where does that list leave us? If just half of those depart the attractiveness of F1 as a status building excersise would be limited to oil rich Middle Eastern countries, and we can see the risks in that right now!

[Casper]

I could never get the concept that a payment has to be made in order to procure the services of F1, to me it does not gel. If a promoter elects to import entertainment he must make it pay from bums on seats and then pay the entertainer out of the audience income. Why does F1 expect an up front fee to provide the entertainment? It seems like the concept got screwed around 180 degrees to me. If Bernie wants to run in a country let him promote and run it and generate the income stream from where ever he can to make it all work. Somehow he has hoodwinked everyone to pay him and then he also takes the income stream from electronic and other sources, talk about have your cake and it eat, what a scam!

As for Murdoch, I doubt anyone except News can see where they are going. I would reckon there are methods of delivery we have not even thought of involving the internet and phones as well as the existing TV methods used now.

[fomoco]

This will be intersting to follow. News Carp and associated Companys, do seem to get what htey are after, even if Rupert Goes, will News corp change it's business model, I doubt it. They are tending to push the flow of media were they operate, Rupert has regulary told the Aust Govt, they are to restrictive and they media should be able to control themselves.

This of course is not to similar to F1 being controlled by one organisation and a WMC wich will do Bernies begging.

If they suceed, will it be for the better or will we watching F1 like some meetings from the comfort of home, phone, internet. PAY PER VIEW, instead of buying tickets for Fri, Sat, Sun, with just the teams, sponsors, media and some diehards attending.

Could be a bit like Death Race 2000, the ratings are up , when Team India take out Team Red Bull.

[thebear]

The Formula One empire of Bernie Ecclestone is under fire on several fronts. Rupert Murdoch and investment firm Exor are trying to take it over, while the racing teams, unhappy that Ecclestone gets so much of the profits, want more money. But the wily auto-racing mogul has proved hard to beat in the past.

Three screen story HERE.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Bernie must be under some pressure from Murdoch as, he's trying to get the BBC to continue broadcasting F1.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/9517174.stm

[thebear]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Bernie must be under some pressure from Murdoch as, he's trying to get the BBC to continue broadcasting F1.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/9517174.stm

Rich or poor, it's nice to have money.