F1 After Ecclestone

[Clark]

I did a quick search and didn't see anything.

After just reading in the 'Bahrain GP Cancelled' thread, I was thinking about this.

How does everybody think F1 will change after Bernie has erm, stopped managing it?

I for one hope that the next management concentrate less on it being a business and going to rich places and 'gaining new audiences', as most of the time the fanbase is a fraction of that for races that no longer take place.

Prime example is Imola, they can't pay the extortionate fees to hold a GP, but everybody knows there would be a sea of fans going to the GP's. Compare this to the not even half filled grandstands/circuits in places like Turkey. Not to mention that the more classical tracks are usually more enjoyable for fans and drivers, and often produce better races than the new tracks engineered for good racing.

 

[astrosdude91]

There is no doubt that Bernie was good for F1. The sport wouldn't be near as big without him. But I think at this point, we could do without him. He's coming out with all these weird ideas and aspirations for the sport.

Didn't he already pick his successor?

 

[Clark]

Yeah I don't mean he's been bad for the sport, he's done wonders for it. The past few years however I don't think things have really helped improve the sport for the fans.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The economics of supply and demand dictate that Formula 1's commercial side will alrgely run itself the same way it does now.

In any one year, there can only be a maximum of 52 Grands Prix - one per week. Because teams and drivers need a break between seasons and time to test and develop new cars, we have to take out three months, or 12 weeks, meaning there can only be 40 races. And because the teams need time to move between events and set themselves up, we need to space the races out. Most races have a two-week gap between them, so that means there can only be a maximum of 20 races. With a little bit of creative organisation, you might be able to blow that out to 25 Grands Prix (but the teams will resist it).

Now, when you have a limited, fixed supply like that, demand will increase. Certain races - Monaco, Silverstone, etc. - will remain on the calendar for years to come, so there is less potential for availablity in the future. Essentially, it will come down to one or two free spaces at any one time. Since limited supply equals increased demand, you'd be mad not to sell to the highest bidder. Especially since circuit sancitoning fees are recycled back into the sport. If, for example, some of that money was to find its way back to the teams, they'd naturally protest if it meant they took less from year to year.

The suggestion that races could be established on the basis of event popularity and projected crowd turnouts rather than money is foolish in the extreme (especially since television audiences almost always dwarf physical attendance). There would be little to stop people from establishing one-off races (an Azerbaijan Grand Prix, anyone?) for the sake of making a quick dollar and then leaving the calendar once their pockets are lines. That's the entire point of Bernie's seasonal multiplier - it guarantees that anyone who signs a contract will be committed for the long run. Plus, some of the circuits you mention are in no condition to host a race.

Besides, if Bernie "stopped managing" tomorrow, then I fully expect Formula 1 to be a self-sustaining entity, able to run itself.

 

[Ardius]

People don't understand Bernie, it doesn't help that the media always throw his name in as the "ruler of F1" and paint him as a man that does nothing but screw F1 over.
The first thing to understand about Bernie is - don't take his words literally or seriously 100% of the time. His favourite tactic for getting what he wants is to state extreme and aggressive views in public media to show that he doesn't have any restraint with talking and also to show that F1 still is in the headlines.

The second thing to understand about Bernie is, and this is a common mistake made by many people, he doesn't have a say in the sporting regulations of the sport. Don't like the tiny turbo engines for 2013? Not Bernie's fault.
Its easy to get confused because they both start with "F" but Bernie is not in anyway involved with the FIA decision making process.
FIA = governs the sport.
FOM (Bernie)= takes care of the marketing of the sport.

Thirdly, I don't think anyone will ever be able to replace Bernie. He is a very unique character and a master of manipulation and negogiation. Many people want the power that Bernie has (control over the marketing of F1) and there will be a very large fight for power when he is gone.
Remember the FOTA/FIA war in 2009? Without Bernie, there would have been a split, no doubt. It was Bernie who forced the teams and the FIA to sort it out because it was bad for everyone if there was a split. The need for more power from the FIA and from the teams is something that Bernie is currently keeping level.

While Bernie does obviously pocket a lot of money from his dealings and the TV money (among other things) clearly isn't particularly fairly split. He is running a very successful business that is still appearing to grow. One only has to look to other World motorsport series to see how easily it can go wrong and how well Bernie has done to keep F1 at the top of motorsport. Currently we can see MotoGP, WTCC and WRC suffering with participants, only NASCAR is still going pretty strong.

While I have not ever met Bernie and I can never claim to know it all about him, I have read many opinions on him from inside and outside the F1 paddock. You will find he is very highly regarded from team owners down to drivers, even though he is screwing them from some of the cut.

Personally I'd rather F1 is continued to run as it is, in many countries across the world, and with a very strong field even in tough economic times as this. Even if that means we end up with a few dud tracks in places with few fans, Bernie has shown he does realise and value the European audience and knows that he has to have a balance of traditional circuits with exciting layouts with new circuits which pay the money and open up new markets.
Basically, if not racing at Imola means F1 can continue to survive, then I will happily keep watching Valencia and Abu Dhabi. 👍

Bernie is not the most evil person ever, he makes many disgusting statements which I obviously don't agree with, but there is a "greater good" in all this.

The only successor I can think of is someone like Gerhard Berger.

 

[Clark]

Ardius I was never on about the technical side, I've just had enough of the countless new venues paying for Bernie's retirement. Meanwhile proper circuits can barely afford to pay for the right to host the race, and in comparison get pittance for the tickets etc.

 

[astrosdude91]

Yeah, I think Bernie is here to stay. He's probably immortal too.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I've just had enough of the countless new venues paying for Bernie's retirement.

It's a myth that all of the money from sanctioning fees goes into Bernie Ecclestone's back pocket. Some does, but most of it is put back into the sport.

Meanwhile proper circuits can barely afford to pay for the right to host the race, and in comparison get pittance for the tickets etc.

That's just the way the world works: the economics of supply and demand.

 

[Ardius]

Ardius I was never on about the technical side, I've just had enough of the countless new venues paying for Bernie's retirement. Meanwhile proper circuits can barely afford to pay for the right to host the race, and in comparison get pittance for the tickets etc.

Well he can hardly charge Bahrain lets say for arguments sake, £100 million for the race while only charging Silverstone £50 million just to keep the circuit on the calendar.
Would you rather he said no to the money from Abu Dhabi or America and the sport ran out of steam? He already does make concessions for Silverstone, etc. While we could argue he should make further concessions, you've got to keep in mind what is good for the sport as a whole and the affects of basically ignoring the big money.
Like I said, he should obviously keep in the mind the excitement of the older circuits and their current fanbase. But he can hardly ignore and screw over the higher paying countries in countries which could be grown into major motorsport fans - which leads to more sponsors, more drivers, more teams possible. Look at Malaysia, before we had a race there, there was very little involvement at all, now we have Proton and entrepreneurs like Tony Fernandes getting involved, bringing in new teams and more sponsorship.

My second half of that previous post covered that, considering we are talking successor, I felt it was necessary to make clear the current opinions of Bernie are not necessarily held by all of us and sometimes based on misinformation. I wasn't suggesting you thought he governed the sport, but there are people out there who will no doubt post in this thread who think he does.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Ardius it is true that he has no "formal" say in the sporting regulations, but there's a bit more to it than "formal" rules. As you know, Bernie has a seat in the WMSC (I think it is there, but if it's another FIA board sorry for the mistake) and as you know also F1 (and the FIA) stops to hear when he speaks.

And he often speaks about regulations, and the mere fact that he talks about them makes them being discussed and considered by teams, drivers, media and ... the FIA. Formally and publicly addressing his personal proposals (as it happened about the "medal system", the first I'm remembering now).

 

[RTSolvalou]

First Bernie said F1 "does not need" the Australian GP, now he's saying it's as important as Monaco.
so... F1 doesn't need monaco then, eh Bernie?

 

[Northstar]

First Bernie said F1 "does not need" the Australian GP, now he's saying it's as important as Monaco.
so... F1 doesn't need monaco then, eh Bernie?

He has basically said that before.

Link

 

[aarror]

First Bernie said F1 "does not need" the Australian GP, now he's saying it's as important as Monaco.
so... F1 doesn't need monaco then, eh Bernie?

I just don't understand this, how can he be so greedy? As a fan, I want to watch races on the classics, like Monaco, Spa, Monza and the like, not see races on some boring new track somewhere in the middle east. The new Abu dhabi track is a bore-fest, and if it wasn't the season opener, I wouldn't have care if Bore-ain got cancelled. Bernie neads to learn that F1 is for the fans, not his wallet...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

First Bernie said F1 "does not need" the Australian GP, now he's saying it's as important as Monaco.
so... F1 doesn't need monaco then, eh Bernie?

Dude, read between the lines. Right now, the strongest critic of the Australian Grand Prix is Robert Doyle, the Lord Mayor of Melbourne. He's lobbying hard for it to be dropped. I don't know how much you know about Australia, but Melbourne prides itself on being a cosmopolitain city, and Doyle is a failed politician who settled for the title of Lord Mayor when he realised that's how far his political star was going to rise. He'll sway whichever way the voters want him to. By suggesting that Melbourne is as important as Monaco, Bernie isn't saying the sport doesn't need Monaco. What he's doing is stroking Doyle's ego. As the self-proclaimed most cosmopolitain city in Australia, suggesting that the Australian Grand Prix - and therefore the city of Melbourne - is as important to the sport as one of the world's most famous races, Bernie is telling Mebourne exactly what they want to hear: that they're important. So important that if they were to stop hosting the race, it would be a bitter disappointment for the rest of the Formula 1 community. Thus, Bernie is trying subconsciously change the perception of the sport in Melbourne in order to preserve the race.

He needn't bother, though; reports have emerged suggesting that Doyle is the only person of the Melbourne city council who wants the Grand Prix to end. Every other city councillor supports it. He's trying to get the public on his side to put through a change he wants to make (which is the opposite of what he should be doing; politicians represent the people - the people do no represent politicians), to curry favour with Ted Ballieu and Barry O'Farrell, the leaders of the Liberal parties in Victoria and New South Wales. Ballieu is the incumbent Victorian Premier, and while O'Farrell is currently the NSW opposition leader, Kristina Keneally and her Labor government are widely expected to be voted out of office in a landslide next week. O'Farrell has been a constant critic of the Labor government's expenditure in recent years and when he takes office, he's really going to clamp down on unnecessary government expenditure. Doyle is trying to do the same in Victoria by bringing the Australian Grand Prix to an end to bring Victoria in line - at least in spirit - with Barry O'Farrell's position, thus shoring up Libral control of Victoria and New South Wales, Australia's two most-populated states. If Ballieu came out tomorrow and announced that he was a Formula 1 fan and the race should stay in Melbourne for the next century, you can bet Doyle would change his opinion on the spot (and then pretend he'd been a supporter of it all along).

But once again, I see people are constructing Bernie's comments to reflect poorly on him.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

It's interesting that the common misconceptions still apply even here where there are a lot of folk seriously knowledgeable about F1.

Bernie does not control FOM. In May 2000, Bernie sold a significant holding in SLEC (which owned FOM) to EM.TV, then owned by Leo Kirch, who was big in media. Kirch's empire failed however, and when it failed, loans owed BayernLB (Bayerische Landesbank) were reclaimed, transferring ownership of the shares to BayernLB. BayernLB appointed a chap by the name of Gribowski - formerly their risk manager - to run the business.

Other banks (I believe JP Morgan was one) also owned shares in SLEC, and latterly the rest of Bernie's shares were spun out to a new entity, Bambino Holdings, which is still under Ecclestone's control

In 2005, the bankers realised they didn't want such an asset on their hands, and united to sell all their shares in SLEC (and thus FOM) to CVC Capital Partners, a venture capital organisation.

And now CVC is trying to recoup its investment.

Under the terms of the current Concorde agreement between the teams and FOM, revenues from TV deals and circuit hosting fees are split, with 50% going to the teams and 50% going to FOM.

Any of that 50% that FOM doesn't require as running costs (essentially FOM's profit) is being funnelled out to CVC, and is thus lost to the sport. Also, in this arrangement, Bernie is little more than a hired hand to CVC.

CVC aren't stupid, and they'll be well aware that going to high-paying circuits where the racing is drab and the fans are absent is not sustainable as a business model. My guess is that they've tasked Bernie with doing whatever it takes to recoup their capital as quickly as possible, and then they'll be able to reconfigure the sport to maximise its appeal to the fans. We have to hope that they're able to do this before those high-paying countries implode politically (c.f. Bahrain) or realise that the Grand Prix is actually something they don't need (China).

 

[Ardius]

^Who said he controlled FOM?

Ardius it is true that he has no "formal" say in the sporting regulations, but there's a bit more to it than "formal" rules. As you know, Bernie has a seat in the WMSC (I think it is there, but if it's another FIA board sorry for the mistake) and as you know also F1 (and the FIA) stops to hear when he speaks.

And he often speaks about regulations, and the mere fact that he talks about them makes them being discussed and considered by teams, drivers, media and ... the FIA. Formally and publicly addressing his personal proposals (as it happened about the "medal system", the first I'm remembering now).

Sure, Bernie and FOM obviously have some say in the way the sport is run because they are the ones trying to make the profits. They wouldn't want the FIA or FOTA to take steps against their interests, such as the 2009 split talk.
But at the same time, he does not control F1. It seems to be a popular opinion in the wider public eye that he controls the sport and his more bizarre ideas (medals, shortcuts, articial wet races, etc) are likely to implemented. While the FIA and FOTA will obviously hear him out, its not up to him to ultimately decide what is best, only from a marketing point of view. This mostly comes from Mosley-era FIA, where, as we all know, Max is/was best buddies with Bernie and appeared to wield full power in the FIA.
While he is a very manipulative man by all accounts, Jean Todt's FIA and FOTA have shown they can make their own decisions.

 

[RTSolvalou]

Why so serious.

Anyways, half of the F1 news that appears (not here, I mean in general) is unnecessary sand-shaking or small talk, which inevitably leads to them saying something silly in a round about way.
I don't really have anything against Bernie, but he's been going off on a tangent recently.
I see him as the kind of man who has his own hidden agenda, and rightly so.
I wouldn't be surprised if he was going to the effort of making provision so that the Formula 1 that continues on after he retires is nothing like the formula 1 he will be remembered for. He knows that it will change more and more over time and doesn't want any of the greener-energy future pitfalls (and possibly less exciting 'show') of the sport to be on him.