F1 conflicts of interest, Chapter 142
Discussion
I’m none to good at cutting and pasting quotes so please excuse me not quoting individuals.
I have no knowledge of this subject; this is just a subjective opinion.
Why don’t I think The Bolt is going to buy into Ferrari while he’s in charge at FOM!
1) I would cause him problems with regard to conflict of interest. With the CVC thing at Brussels and earlier EU investigations he’d be pushing his luck. Maybe not in the strictest sense but to the spirit of things and he’s not going to bugger a big deal like the CVC thing so he can own a bit of a car firm. Maybe in retirement i.e. post FOM he would do it.
2) He said he was interested. BCE is a deal maker, he likes to buy low and sell high (although he rarely sells the silverware, he usually rents it out). The last thing he would do is declare an interest if there was one.
3) He didn’t really say he was interested. He said he was interested if the price was right. Which gives him the ultimate get out clause ‘cos the only judge of that would be him.
Who is Mr Matchstick?
1) As someone guessed he is the co-owner of Red Bull. 49% as I understand it.
2) I also heard that he was interested in buying Ferrari but that could be idle gossip.
Who is The Laughing Cavalier?
1) The Laughing Cavalier is a painting by Franz Hals. When it was put up for auction Hals was not a revered or wealthy painter but two rich and powerful men took a fancy to the painting and entered a bidding war. As a result the painting far exceeded all expectations and Hals fortune and reputation was made overnight.
2) www.wallacecollection.org/c/w_a/p_w_d/d_f/p/p084.htm
The other questions were really about finding out whether Bolt or Matchstick had the wonga to buy Ferrari and which of them was worth more. I’m surprised that Matchstick isn't but maybe in time that will be reversed.
I have also noted that Max seems to be rather fond of Matchstick and in the light of his controversies with The Bolt recently I wondered if money had been his motivation. It would seem not so, perhaps it’s the Austrian Connection.
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Thursday 16th March 11:45
I have no knowledge of this subject; this is just a subjective opinion.
Why don’t I think The Bolt is going to buy into Ferrari while he’s in charge at FOM!
1) I would cause him problems with regard to conflict of interest. With the CVC thing at Brussels and earlier EU investigations he’d be pushing his luck. Maybe not in the strictest sense but to the spirit of things and he’s not going to bugger a big deal like the CVC thing so he can own a bit of a car firm. Maybe in retirement i.e. post FOM he would do it.
2) He said he was interested. BCE is a deal maker, he likes to buy low and sell high (although he rarely sells the silverware, he usually rents it out). The last thing he would do is declare an interest if there was one.
3) He didn’t really say he was interested. He said he was interested if the price was right. Which gives him the ultimate get out clause ‘cos the only judge of that would be him.
Who is Mr Matchstick?
1) As someone guessed he is the co-owner of Red Bull. 49% as I understand it.
2) I also heard that he was interested in buying Ferrari but that could be idle gossip.
Who is The Laughing Cavalier?
1) The Laughing Cavalier is a painting by Franz Hals. When it was put up for auction Hals was not a revered or wealthy painter but two rich and powerful men took a fancy to the painting and entered a bidding war. As a result the painting far exceeded all expectations and Hals fortune and reputation was made overnight.
2) www.wallacecollection.org/c/w_a/p_w_d/d_f/p/p084.htm
The other questions were really about finding out whether Bolt or Matchstick had the wonga to buy Ferrari and which of them was worth more. I’m surprised that Matchstick isn't but maybe in time that will be reversed.
I have also noted that Max seems to be rather fond of Matchstick and in the light of his controversies with The Bolt recently I wondered if money had been his motivation. It would seem not so, perhaps it’s the Austrian Connection.
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Thursday 16th March 11:45
Just nicked this from another site, comments?:
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Wednesday 15th March 14:42
www.grandprix.com said:
Ecclestone looks at Ferrari
There have been reports that Bernie Ecclestone is considering buying a share in the Ferrari company. Fiat owns 56% of Ferrari and thus remains in control but banks now own much of the rest, although Piero Ferrari still holds 10% of the business. Commerzbank in Germany owns 12.5%, Lehmann Brothers owns 6.5% and Mubadala, an investment group run by the Abu Dhabi royal family, owns 5%. This last-named deal valued Ferrari at $2.78bn in August 2005. Mediobanca holds 10% but rumours in Italy suggest that Ecclestone may be buying these shares, which would cost at least $278m, based on last year's valuation. Mediobanca bought 34% of the company in 2002 for $768m.
Ecclestone can no doubt afford it but this does not mean that a deal will go ahead as such an arrangement is likely to attract the attention of competition authorities as it may be seen as being a clash of interest. Having said that, if Ecclestone does become a minority shareholder in Alpha Prema, the company that is buying F1, it may be possible for him to hold Ferrari shares as well.
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Wednesday 15th March 14:42
Robbie,
I can't see how Bernie buying the 10% held by Mediobanca would be subject to competition rulings. he's no significant holdings in any other car manufacturers has he?
And after all he's not buying into the team just the car company which is theoretically different. Clash of interest has never worried them before. the topical Berlusconi is a fine example of that.
I thought Flemke valued Mr Red Bull at about 1/2 billion lower than Bernie but I didn't reread that?
Anyway thats not really how you'd go about buying Ferrari. If you're sensible you put up as little of your own cash as poss' and leverage off of the value of the target to raise the proceeds needed. Philip Green for example was worth tuppence when he bought the storehouse group, he did it by using leverage.
so for example if ferrari is valued at 2.78b then you would need to have about $6,900,000 of your own and raise the balance in debt and equity participation deals from the banks.
Just like the Dragons Den if you've ever watched that(the dragons being the banks)?
If you then securitise that against future income/financing schemes the deal would in fact pay for itself. That being said you've then got to hope the rates don't go up too much and you can't repay the debt.
thats why ManU were so worried about the Glazer bid
I can't see how Bernie buying the 10% held by Mediobanca would be subject to competition rulings. he's no significant holdings in any other car manufacturers has he?
And after all he's not buying into the team just the car company which is theoretically different. Clash of interest has never worried them before. the topical Berlusconi is a fine example of that.
I thought Flemke valued Mr Red Bull at about 1/2 billion lower than Bernie but I didn't reread that?
Anyway thats not really how you'd go about buying Ferrari. If you're sensible you put up as little of your own cash as poss' and leverage off of the value of the target to raise the proceeds needed. Philip Green for example was worth tuppence when he bought the storehouse group, he did it by using leverage.
so for example if ferrari is valued at 2.78b then you would need to have about $6,900,000 of your own and raise the balance in debt and equity participation deals from the banks.
Just like the Dragons Den if you've ever watched that(the dragons being the banks)?
If you then securitise that against future income/financing schemes the deal would in fact pay for itself. That being said you've then got to hope the rates don't go up too much and you can't repay the debt.
thats why ManU were so worried about the Glazer bid
Mikey,
You are right about flemke's valuation, it was a typo. on my part, I put "is" instead of "isn't". Corrected now.
I can see your point about buying into Ferrari not being a conflict, especially considering the road car aspect. My point was that although it wouldn't be a true conflict it would raise questions - just like it has here - and as it's not The Bolts prime deal at the moment he wouldn't persue it. I'm sure his mate Luca will hold on to them for him, he's probably already paid for them twice over with the additional payments FOM have made via the Concord agreement to Ferrari for thier "special place" in motor raciing history.
I'm afraid you lost me a bit on the financial mechanics, I'll re-read a few times an see if I can work it out.
You are right about flemke's valuation, it was a typo. on my part, I put "is" instead of "isn't". Corrected now.
I can see your point about buying into Ferrari not being a conflict, especially considering the road car aspect. My point was that although it wouldn't be a true conflict it would raise questions - just like it has here - and as it's not The Bolts prime deal at the moment he wouldn't persue it. I'm sure his mate Luca will hold on to them for him, he's probably already paid for them twice over with the additional payments FOM have made via the Concord agreement to Ferrari for thier "special place" in motor raciing history.
I'm afraid you lost me a bit on the financial mechanics, I'll re-read a few times an see if I can work it out.
Robbie don't worry about the financial mechanics part I only know it because the people who really understand it are my clients and I don't want to look too stupid when I talk to them. If I really knew it well I wouldn't own the car I do.
I see your point. I think as you do it is more an ethical point that would stop him buying Ferrari but I'm not so sure anything ethical is enough. And if he did I too think that Luca would bend over backwards to make it all go smoothly.
Either way. Nice problem to have. I dream of having A Ferrari and he's thinking of buying the lot!
I see your point. I think as you do it is more an ethical point that would stop him buying Ferrari but I'm not so sure anything ethical is enough. And if he did I too think that Luca would bend over backwards to make it all go smoothly.
Either way. Nice problem to have. I dream of having A Ferrari and he's thinking of buying the lot!
I fear the valuation of the wealth of Dietrich Mateschitz may be incorrect.
I worked for them for 4 years, when I joined in 2001 world wide sales were at the 1 billion can mark. Distribution is farmed out nationally or continentally, eg there is a Red Bull UK run by the same American gentleman that brought Budweiser to the UK.
1.4 billion would be a fair estimate on currect worldwide sales. Wholesale price of Red Bull from UK cash and carries is itro £0.60 a can. Someone with a better knowledge of wholesale will be able to tell me how you would need to remove wholesalers margin, transport costs, customs charges (all cans worldwide are manufactured in Austria) and you'd be left with the profit he can expect per can. Last time I was given the company history he was still quotes as sole owner. So, $0.05 profit per can and you could put it at $70,000,000 profit per annum pre-tax. Thats a complete guess. The marketing of the brand within the country of sale is the responsability and burden of the regional distributor, and they are bound to sticking to Austria's guidelines and all the advertisements are controlled from Red Bull's HQ.
However, you should appreciate, he doesnt just own Red Bull, there are various other brands that are his. There is a new winebar special mini wine about to be launched in the UK thats his doing (the name eludes me at the moment), Kombucha, Carpe Diem, Luna-Aqua. So his income form them should also be considered plus who knows what he has stacked away in terms of property. Certainly Fuchal-Am-See, the town where Red Bull is based in Austria, is pretty much Red Bull town.
However, he has other interests that arent exactly cheap that he pursue's, these would include and extensive collection of vintage aircraft (and not the airfix variety either!).
Undoubtably the man is wealthy, but there is very little information regarding the Red Bull buyout. Was it the company, Dietrich Mateschitz or both?
Realistically, only the removal of the current gentlemans club that control the sport will be for its long term benefit. Regardless of commercial rights, unless the sport becomes exciting to watch, it will become ever more boring. From an unbiased point of view, I do see Ferrari favouritism in the sport, and if Ecclestone bought the company, how could anyone honestly not say it would become more pronounced?
I worked for them for 4 years, when I joined in 2001 world wide sales were at the 1 billion can mark. Distribution is farmed out nationally or continentally, eg there is a Red Bull UK run by the same American gentleman that brought Budweiser to the UK.
1.4 billion would be a fair estimate on currect worldwide sales. Wholesale price of Red Bull from UK cash and carries is itro £0.60 a can. Someone with a better knowledge of wholesale will be able to tell me how you would need to remove wholesalers margin, transport costs, customs charges (all cans worldwide are manufactured in Austria) and you'd be left with the profit he can expect per can. Last time I was given the company history he was still quotes as sole owner. So, $0.05 profit per can and you could put it at $70,000,000 profit per annum pre-tax. Thats a complete guess. The marketing of the brand within the country of sale is the responsability and burden of the regional distributor, and they are bound to sticking to Austria's guidelines and all the advertisements are controlled from Red Bull's HQ.
However, you should appreciate, he doesnt just own Red Bull, there are various other brands that are his. There is a new winebar special mini wine about to be launched in the UK thats his doing (the name eludes me at the moment), Kombucha, Carpe Diem, Luna-Aqua. So his income form them should also be considered plus who knows what he has stacked away in terms of property. Certainly Fuchal-Am-See, the town where Red Bull is based in Austria, is pretty much Red Bull town.
However, he has other interests that arent exactly cheap that he pursue's, these would include and extensive collection of vintage aircraft (and not the airfix variety either!).
Undoubtably the man is wealthy, but there is very little information regarding the Red Bull buyout. Was it the company, Dietrich Mateschitz or both?
Realistically, only the removal of the current gentlemans club that control the sport will be for its long term benefit. Regardless of commercial rights, unless the sport becomes exciting to watch, it will become ever more boring. From an unbiased point of view, I do see Ferrari favouritism in the sport, and if Ecclestone bought the company, how could anyone honestly not say it would become more pronounced?
200. Bernard Ecclestone and family, 75, $3.4, Formula One
317. Dietrich Mateschitz, 61, $2.4, Red Bull
www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/03/09/ap2584447.html
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Tuesday 21st March 14:04
317. Dietrich Mateschitz, 61, $2.4, Red Bull
www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/03/09/ap2584447.html
>> Edited by RobbieMeister on Tuesday 21st March 14:04
My God Robbie you have been doing your homework!
bernie the bolt is 200th most wealthy man i the world? wow.
That being said in those Sunday times polls and things they absolutely miss out a whole load of people who are earning $2.5 million plus p.a that I know of working in banks. Just not famous enough to get noticed usually. And I guess that might go for the less conspicuous spenders at the top as well.
bernie the bolt is 200th most wealthy man i the world? wow.
That being said in those Sunday times polls and things they absolutely miss out a whole load of people who are earning $2.5 million plus p.a that I know of working in banks. Just not famous enough to get noticed usually. And I guess that might go for the less conspicuous spenders at the top as well.
RobbieMeister said:Robbie,
200. Bernard Ecclestone and family, 75, $3.4, Formula One
317. Dietrich Mateschitz, 61, $2.4, Red Bull
www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2006/03/09/ap2584447.html
Those Forbes numbers could be right or wrong - I have no idea.
What I do have an idea of is some of the other estimates in Forbes, The Times "Rich List", etc., and I can say for certain that some of them are wildly wrong.
The people who compose these lists don't know diddly. They have no access to bank and brokerage accounts, P&Ls (in most cases), % ownerships, payoffs to ex-wives and so on.
Furthermore, ivory tower journalists almost always ignore the small detail of taxes. They look at the shares in something that someone may own and simply tack on their gross value, although most people most of the time have to pay some sort of tax when they monetise an asset.
Sure, we know that Bill Gates is richer than Bernie, who is richer than Ron, who is richer than Hakkinen, who is richer than the corner news agent. but the specificity of these lists is a flight of fancy.
Not posting those numbers as a point of fact, just as a reference point. I agree that they don't mean much in absolute terms but they may give a relative guide.
My main interest is really to see if Max has kicked Bernie into touch in favour of Matchstick 'cos the Red Bull man has more wonga. Not that I think such a pillar of integrity would stoop so low.
I came on them by accident whilst trying to find FOH's address and ended up on Bernies page of Wikipedia. From there was a link to Forbes. Interestingly these numbers are updates from the 2004 ones they gave out in which Matchstick was quoted as 1.4.
My main interest is really to see if Max has kicked Bernie into touch in favour of Matchstick 'cos the Red Bull man has more wonga. Not that I think such a pillar of integrity would stoop so low.
I came on them by accident whilst trying to find FOH's address and ended up on Bernies page of Wikipedia. From there was a link to Forbes. Interestingly these numbers are updates from the 2004 ones they gave out in which Matchstick was quoted as 1.4.
mikeyboy said:They should talk to me.
Flemke,
I would say there is a belief amongst a certain number of journalists that there remain various ways of not paying any tax hence factoring it out of calculations.
MikeyBoy
Yes, there are ways sometimes, depending on the source of the gain and the application of the funds monetised. On the other hand, for many people (such as all Americans) and many applications, although they might be able to reduce the tax bite they cannot escape it entirely.
Your use of the word "belief" is apposite. Journalists are much more likely to report their beliefs than they are to report facts and insight. Unfortunately they try to present the former as the latter, and we readers don't know better.
We cannot expect journalists in this case to know the tax status of their subjects; I don't criticise them for that. I criticise them for saying that Bernie Bloggs is worth £3.40 billion, or whatever, which suggests a degree of precision that a journalist cannot come close to achieving.
Journalists are not in the business of relating all the facts. They are in the business of telling interesting stories that someone will pay to read. They will take a modicum of time trying to assemble whichever facts will help to build that interesting story.
If a fact contradicts the story it typically is omitted. If there aren't enough facts to hand even to compose an interesting story, the writer will rely on what is commonly called journalistic licence, which is a euphemism for "making it up".
RobbieMeister said:That was and is understood. I hope that my comment did not appear to imply criticism of your post; none was intended.
Not posting those numbers as a point of fact, just as a reference point. I agree that they don't mean much in absolute terms but they may give a relative guide.
Any and all criticism was meant for the "reporters" who write the stories that are foisted upon us.
Cheers.
The Economist news magazine a few years ago had a special on Bernie and how he was avoiding taxes via a number of entities one or more of them based in Luxembourg. Of course he must pay some taxes. I think it was in 2000 and it was a few pages long. Sorry, bit O/T.
>> Edited by pib on Wednesday 22 March 03:25
>> Edited by pib on Wednesday 22 March 03:25
Well it looks like CVC have got the go ahead and plan to keep Bernie
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4[/url]
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4[/url]
pib said:
The Economist news magazine a few years ago had a special on Bernie and how he was avoiding taxes via a number of entities one or more of them based in Luxembourg. Of course he must pay some taxes. I think it was in 2000 and it was a few pages long. Sorry, bit O/T.
>> Edited by pib on Wednesday 22 March 03:25
Oh I didn't mean it wasn't possible to avoid paying tax. Just that it isn't possible to completely avoid paying all taxes.
mikeyboy said:
The Economist news magazine a few years ago had a special on Bernie and how he was avoiding taxes via a number of entities one or more of them based in Luxembourg. Of course he must pay some taxes. I think it was in 2000 and it was a few pages long. Sorry, bit O/T.
>> Edited by pib on Wednesday 22 March 03:25
Oh I didn't mean it wasn't possible to avoid paying tax. Just that it isn't possible to completely avoid paying all taxes.
I wasn't questioning what you said-just pointing out the article to see if anyone read it. The gist was he was avoiding some substantial taxes and the EU regulators were not doing enough to stop him IIRC.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff