CVC is ruining F1
- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
As you know, CVC holds the commercial rights of F1 and Ecclestone basically works for them.
Since then, Bernie tries to make everything to money, as CVC wants to refinance the money with which they bought the rights.
So instead of bringing the money back into the sport, to the teams etc. a large chunk goes to CVC.
In my opinion this is ruining the sport, as before CVC came along Bernie always tried to make a compromise to keep a Grand Prix or help an underfunded team (Minardi for example). NOw he obviously has no choice.
There is no French Grand Prix anymore, Germany is in danger as is Monza. Monaco does not pay as much as other GPs so how long will it survive, whereas plenty of new GPs are coming to the calendar from countries which do not have a big motorsport scene like China, Bahrain etc.The teams also struggle more and more and I wouldn’t wonder if at the end of this or next season more teams will go bankrupt.
The FIA does as much as nothing, they gave away their control of the technical side to the strategy group which is insane in my opinion.
The big teams ignore the big picture of the state of this sport and only have eyes for their own interests.If this goes on F1 will ruin itself in the short term in my opnion.
My solution would be, that the commercial rights must be bought back by FOM and thus establishing a culture of keeping the generated money in the sport, for the teams and the tracks with a fair distribution of prize money for the teams.
The FIA has to get back the control and regulation of the technical side of F1 with no strategy group or influence from the teams whatsoever.
Furthermore the FIA should try to establish a cost cap for the teams combined with technical regulations which can be more liberal than the current one.
A cost cap could be adapted via an american salary cap, with which the teams are forced to keep their staff to a limit to a specific number like 200-250. Big teams, with big budgets have to cut down their staff and cannot outdevelop other teams as they do not have the staff anymore with which they can work on several things.
So this are my thoughts on the current situation and I am open for other views on this matter.
You are 100% right. The power in Formula 1 has definitely gone to the wrong people.
People think Bernie is getting extra greedy at the moment but the fact is that he is leaned on heavily by CVC who sole objection with F1, as with any investment firm is to make as big as profit as possible. The history of Formula 1 is meaningless to them, as there is little money to be made out of it.
You’re bang on with the Strategy Group as well. Putting the power with the elite is just going to widen the gap between the have and have nots. It’s an inevitability.
But the problem is that those who have power will not want to give it up. CVC are still getting a hell of a lot of money from F1 and the offer to buy back FOM would have to be simply enormous. Even harder is wrestling control back from the Strategy Group. Strategy Group teams are not going to accept terms that are worse than what they have now and been too forceful, you run the risk of losing half of the current F1 teams and the iconic teams like Williams, Ferrari and McLaren.
First of all thank you for your post and your opinion!
I think F1 needs to bang head on into the wall, it would be the only way that the people who are in charge of realise the current situation and can move on with a reboot.
The only problem would be if they just doctor around the current situation in the way that nothing really changes except that the “end” is just postponed for a little while.
I agree F1 needs a serious re think, as the way it is going i can genuely see F1 far from being the pinicle of motorsport it ends up like A1 motorsport series (not worth fincialy contiuning as all major sponsers etc pull out). As there are ways that F1 can stop this happening, but due to a few people reluctant to change with the times or curcumstances its not going to happen sadly. I feel that senior, powerful people are addicted to money or just greedy
In my opinion an ideal setup would be this:
Commercial rights are owned collectively, half by the teams and half by the FIA. Teams could appoint a group whose role it is to promote the sport and their brands, so that sponsors get maximum exposure and that the sport is always visible and attractive. This group would be appointed from outside of F1, possibly in the form of a marketing company, to avoid any one team’s interests being promoted above the rest. The FIA’s stake can be in controlling race organisation and promotion; dealing directly with the circuits and the TV companies. TV rights could still be sold, but I would prefer if circuits are simply appointed and not charged hosting fees. In exchange, the circuits are dressed with the board and banner promotions by the FIA and their commerical partners, plus they would control the naming rights to the GP. Circuits don’t have to pay, so they are free to simply make money from ticket sales and concessions, securing their long term viability and generating money for the upkeep of the track and facilities. Contractually there would need to be penalties for any track or competitor which failed to fulfil their obligations.
Prize money is given on a per-race basis, with a constructors’ championship bonus being given out at the end of each year. Prize money would be determined solely on finishing position in the race and the championship; no team would be given a larger prize than any other finishing in the same position. This would be in addition to 50% of the TV rights money, which would be shared equally between every team regardless of finishing position.
The FIA would have complete technical control of the sport and would have the ultimate responsibility for setting technical and sporting regulations. Any changes to the sporting or technical rules would need to be ratified at least two calendar years before the start of the season in which they will be introduced, so that every team has enough time to fully understand the requirements. Each set of amended technical regulations would need to run for a period of at least two seasons before they can be changed. The calendar would need to be ratified before the final race of the preceeding season, with no calendar changes allowed past this date. The FIA could appoint a strategy group consisting of representatives from every team, but this would only be in an advisory capacity. Rule changes made in emergency conditions (i.e. after the two-year cutoff point) would only be allowable on the grounds of safety, though under certain conditions the rules could be modified with the unanimous agreement of the FIA and all of the teams.
Teams may be allowed to run only one car, though preference would be given for entries running two cars if the entry list is full. All teams committing to running two cars would be expected to compete for an entire season, though independant teams (commercially distinct from any other competitors) could lodge entries for single events if they are running only a single car. As the rules need to be in place for at least two consecutive years, after the first year, used chassis (bare and un-dressed) can be sold to independant teams for one-off entries. These one off entries would need to pay an entry fee to the FIA, though they would be elligible for any prize money for the event they enter. They would not receive a share of the TV money. These teams would be allowed to enter up to five events per year. Beyond that, they would need to construct their own chassis and commit to competing for the entire season. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the FIA if there are more than four vacant slots on the grid. All teams would need to qualify for each event by posting a time within 115% of the fastest time set during either FP or qualifying. The time can be set at any point during any of these sessions. If weather conditions prevent this from being possible, entry may still be granted at the discretion of the FIA. The fastest time for each car will only be accepted if the car is run in full compliance with the technical regulations.
Those are my thoughts anyway. Eliminate the commercial rights holder as a discreet entity. Even if this does mean that less money is made from TV rights and race hosting fees, it means that all of the money going into the sport stays wiht either the temas or the FIA. By making sure that each team has an equal commercial stake, you ensure that there is a certain baseline amount of money each team will have to start a season, and by giving out prize money throughout the year, it means that each team has a steady income to make sure that bills are paid. By ensuring that the commercial interests of all entities are represented, it means that sponsorship should be easier to attract. The single entry independents would help bolster the number of cars on the grid, while potentially giving an opportunity for drivers to build up more experience and help develop their careers. The sale of used chassis would also be another potential revenue stream for constructors.
I’m sure it’s full of holes, but I think that’s a decent framework for a top level motorsport. And similar to how things used to be 20 years ago. Will it ever happen? No way, it’s pure fantasy.
Hey^^
Sorry for the late response but I forgot to reply!Interesting Idea, I have to admit that I like it how you would run the technical regulations and the commercial side, but I doubt that splitting the commercial rights between the FIA and the teams would be a good idea. It would end in a war of self-interest about who gehts a better market exposure etc.
In my opinion either the FIA should hold all the Rights and distribute more money to the teams or go back to the pre CVC time where Bernie more or less worked for himself and the FIA on a gentleman’s agreement basis.
Obviously I would prefer anything where an investment company is not involved in any formin the sport as this kind of people are all the same, trying to squeeze everything out of it to reinvest the money.Also 115% is a bit brave in my opinion, 107% would be fine I think, back then HRT almost qualified although they had no testing and build the car just before qualifying.
Sorry didn’t spot that you had replied. The 115% concept is deliberate. You look at sportscar racing and there’s no reason why the faster cars can’t negotiate their way around slower traffic. It would mean more cars on the grid, which inevitably means more action on track.
I am aware that there is no problem with overtaking in traffic, but in my opinion Grand Prix racing should not have such slow competitors that it becomes a two class field, therefore a 107% rule is fine for me.
But I am sure that we agree that something has to happen on the commercial side of F1.
Perhaps things need to get worse before they get better? If the grid drops to 10 cars, perhaps that will force a change in administration and the gumption for real change.
If they want a quick fix, invite GP2 teams in with a low-cost division 2 championship with ‘off the shelf’ parts in the existing F1 races we already have. Which will eventually put the division 1 championship out of business!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.