Bernie Ecclestone sinks to new low....
Discussion
Interesting response from Liberty boss Carey to Ecclestone's comments.
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/04/chase-carey...
I wonder if “The (Ecclestone) comment on profits is very telling; is it about short term profits? No. We’ve been very clear; we think it’s about building long term value. Investing money does not mean we don’t care about profits.” is any more truthful than previous statements from those in control.
The picture out of The Sopranos is a bit spooky though.
https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2017/04/chase-carey...
I wonder if “The (Ecclestone) comment on profits is very telling; is it about short term profits? No. We’ve been very clear; we think it’s about building long term value. Investing money does not mean we don’t care about profits.” is any more truthful than previous statements from those in control.
The picture out of The Sopranos is a bit spooky though.
So, Bernie apparently said:
“The only thing that would be good for everyone would be if we could charge the promoters a lot less money. I charged them too much for what we provide.
“I did some good deals commercially. They are paying a lot of money, and most of them, if not all of them, are not making any money. Quite the opposite.
“Sooner or later I’m frightened that the governments behind them will say enough is enough, and bye-bye."
That is all absolutely true. But that's easy for him to say now that it is no longer his problem isn't it.
“The only thing that would be good for everyone would be if we could charge the promoters a lot less money. I charged them too much for what we provide.
“I did some good deals commercially. They are paying a lot of money, and most of them, if not all of them, are not making any money. Quite the opposite.
“Sooner or later I’m frightened that the governments behind them will say enough is enough, and bye-bye."
That is all absolutely true. But that's easy for him to say now that it is no longer his problem isn't it.
My word he is disingenous - he has milked the cash cow dry . primarily for his own benefit and CVC's but he now has post facto remorse ... And reference to 'governments'- as if taxpayers money should always be paid to host a GP . I understand why daft places like Azerbaijan want to show off to their neighbours , even if only 11 people and a dog turn up to watch the race , but why on earth Ecclestone expects European governments to add to his twenty pieces of silver escapes me . F1 can wash its own face financiallly...
coppice said:
My word he is disingenous - he has milked the cash cow dry . primarily for his own benefit and CVC's but he now has post facto remorse ... And reference to 'governments'- as if taxpayers money should always be paid to host a GP . I understand why daft places like Azerbaijan want to show off to their neighbours , even if only 11 people and a dog turn up to watch the race , but why on earth Ecclestone expects European governments to add to his twenty pieces of silver escapes me . F1 can wash its own face financiallly...
I dunno what you do for a living. But I imagine you want to get paid by your employer for doing that job. A job that no doubt involves you doing whatever it is to get income to your employer (wife if you are self employed 
)Yes, the sums are higher when were talking F1 deals. But it's the same. BE worked for CVC they want the most money possible. If he failed to do that, he'd have been released.
Direct your IRE at CVC first imo
Rich_W said:
coppice said:
My word he is disingenous - he has milked the cash cow dry . primarily for his own benefit and CVC's but he now has post facto remorse ... And reference to 'governments'- as if taxpayers money should always be paid to host a GP . I understand why daft places like Azerbaijan want to show off to their neighbours , even if only 11 people and a dog turn up to watch the race , but why on earth Ecclestone expects European governments to add to his twenty pieces of silver escapes me . F1 can wash its own face financiallly...
I dunno what you do for a living. But I imagine you want to get paid by your employer for doing that job. A job that no doubt involves you doing whatever it is to get income to your employer (wife if you are self employed )Yes, the sums are higher when were talking F1 deals. But it's the same. BE worked for CVC they want the most money possible. If he failed to do that, he'd have been released.
Direct your IRE at CVC first imo
Rich_W said:
I dunno what you do for a living. But I imagine you want to get paid by your employer for doing that job. A job that no doubt involves you doing whatever it is to get income to your employer (wife if you are self employed )
Yes, the sums are higher when were talking F1 deals. But it's the same. BE worked for CVC they want the most money possible. If he failed to do that, he'd have been released.
Direct your IRE at CVC first imo
Oh come off it- that's exactly the 'who me ? ' crap he was spouting the other day. Read some F1 history - he was making a bloody fortune decades before CVCC appeared and how do you think they got the rights ? )Yes, the sums are higher when were talking F1 deals. But it's the same. BE worked for CVC they want the most money possible. If he failed to do that, he'd have been released.
Direct your IRE at CVC first imo
coppice said:
Oh come off it- that's exactly the 'who me ? ' crap he was spouting the other day. Read some F1 history - he was making a bloody fortune decades before CVCC appeared and how do you think they got the rights ?
In fairness, so were the teams - Ron, Sir Frank, etc. didn't become millionaires many times over by themselves. The first cash bonanza for them was advertising (specifically Tobacco); the second was Bernie's negotiation around TV rights and hosting fees. Bernie's view - not entirely unreasonably - was that he should share in the wealth. The fact that he arguably negotiated better than the teams is neither here nor there - it is, after all, a free market.I simply don't believe that F1 would ever have achieved the status it now has without Bernie. He accurately calculated that many of those who paid a lot of money for rights would then invest heavily in promoting it to a much wider audience, in order to justify their expenditure for the rights. He was the "market maker" and it worked well.
Could the balance have been a little different? Sure, of course it could have been. But all this argument is about how to split the spoils that I believe he in the main engineered into existence. That fault lies at the door of the FIA, the teams, etc.
skwdenyer said:
I simply don't believe that F1 would ever have achieved the status it now has without Bernie. He accurately calculated that many of those who paid a lot of money for rights would then invest heavily in promoting it to a much wider audience, in order to justify their expenditure for the rights. He was the "market maker" and it worked well.
Oh, this is certainly true. Bernie made F1 the business it is today, there is no doubt about that. But he sadly became a bit of a dinosaur and in his latter years seemed to spend more time talking F1 down and dissing it, than promoting it. But F1 definitely owes him a debt of gratitude. I'm cautiously optimistic about the new guys, if only for the fact that they seem to have embraced the 21st Century.
ClockworkCupcake said:
Bernie made F1 the business it is today, there is no doubt about that. . But F1 definitely owes him a debt of gratitude.
Well, I can see why Ronzo et al do - but I certainly don't . Thin grids , insanely complex cars, unaffordable budgets, little overtaking and races in places we had never heard of on joke circuits with no spectators . It's just great .To be fair , for once , I can see why so many might feel that F1 today is the best of all possible worlds , given the blanket TV coverage. But as I think motorsport on TV is usually dire, and rarely more than mediocre, I would far rather be able to see more F1 racing live , at affordable prices and I'd happily forgo most TV coverage .
Motorsport TV coverage is - unless you're covering Brands Hatch or oval racing - expensive and difficult. Many cameras, action all over the place, no idea where to focus next. Perhaps golf is comparable in complexity, but little else.
Spectating is almost as bad - most of what you want to see isn't happening near you.
That circuit racing has become at all a TV sport is almost remarkable. Essentially it has to become "too big to fail" to justify the expense and difficulty of making it into a meaningful spectacle. But that also makes it expensive and complex - there *need* to be vested interest involved to make the whole thing fly.
I *want* thin grids if it means that the drivers have to crawl over broken glass to get a seat: I *want* it to be a best of the best of the best type of discipline.
The only reason it has gone wrong now IMHO is that it is too expensive for a team to get from, say, 12th to 3rd consistently. There's little opportunity for an inspired engineering moment; that's why so many of us rooted for JB and BGP in their year - we *wanted* the cunning underdog to find a way around the entrenched positions of the grandee teams.
The test that Liberty failed was not finding a way to save Manor; they could - they should - have sent a powerful message that their approach was focussed on building long-term value for "franchise owners" - and they flunked that test. It was that moment when they ceased to able to "sell me hope" in their vision.
Why does that matter? Because they fired Bernie and claimed to be different; they strutted into town playing the "big I am" when there was little or no need for it.
Since I know someone well who (a) was heavily involved financially in F1 in recent years, and (b) has had business dealings with Chase in the past, none of that last surprises me. I'm not at all convinced that they're any better than BE for the sport.
Spectating is almost as bad - most of what you want to see isn't happening near you.
That circuit racing has become at all a TV sport is almost remarkable. Essentially it has to become "too big to fail" to justify the expense and difficulty of making it into a meaningful spectacle. But that also makes it expensive and complex - there *need* to be vested interest involved to make the whole thing fly.
I *want* thin grids if it means that the drivers have to crawl over broken glass to get a seat: I *want* it to be a best of the best of the best type of discipline.
The only reason it has gone wrong now IMHO is that it is too expensive for a team to get from, say, 12th to 3rd consistently. There's little opportunity for an inspired engineering moment; that's why so many of us rooted for JB and BGP in their year - we *wanted* the cunning underdog to find a way around the entrenched positions of the grandee teams.
The test that Liberty failed was not finding a way to save Manor; they could - they should - have sent a powerful message that their approach was focussed on building long-term value for "franchise owners" - and they flunked that test. It was that moment when they ceased to able to "sell me hope" in their vision.
Why does that matter? Because they fired Bernie and claimed to be different; they strutted into town playing the "big I am" when there was little or no need for it.
Since I know someone well who (a) was heavily involved financially in F1 in recent years, and (b) has had business dealings with Chase in the past, none of that last surprises me. I'm not at all convinced that they're any better than BE for the sport.
skwdenyer said:
The test that Liberty failed was not finding a way to save Manor; they could - they should - have sent a powerful message that their approach was focussed on building long-term value for "franchise owners" - and they flunked that test. It was that moment when they ceased to able to "sell me hope" in their vision.
Why does that matter? Because they fired Bernie and claimed to be different; they strutted into town playing the "big I am" when there was little or no need for it.
Agreed. Of course Bernie helped a few teams in the past financially and put deals together to benefit individual teams.Why does that matter? Because they fired Bernie and claimed to be different; they strutted into town playing the "big I am" when there was little or no need for it.
He wouldn't help Manor and I think his reasons were valid. They knew how much money they had available and how much they potentially had coming in. They chose to overspend. I don't think you can bale out teams or circuits on that basis.
You may as well put Corbyn in charge.
coppice said:
Well, I can see why Ronzo et al do - but I certainly don't . Thin grids , insanely complex cars, unaffordable budgets, little overtaking and races in places we had never heard of on joke circuits with no spectators . It's just great .
Your selective quoting rather alters what I was saying, and also misses the point of what I was saying. I'm not saying that Bernie was great right up to the end, and I'm not saying that the current state of F1 is great either. But he has been the custodian of F1 for almost 40 years and to judge him on the last few years of his reign is to ignore the history of F1 and his contribution to it.
ClockworkCupcake said:
Your selective quoting rather alters what I was saying, and also misses the point of what I was saying.
I'm not saying that Bernie was great right up to the end, and I'm not saying that the current state of F1 is great either. But he has been the custodian of F1 for almost 40 years and to judge him on the last few years of his reign is to ignore the history of F1 and his contribution to it.
That's bit like judging a driver on the fact that he drove safely for 99% of the journey but unfortunately eventually crashed and destroyed the vehicle.I'm not saying that Bernie was great right up to the end, and I'm not saying that the current state of F1 is great either. But he has been the custodian of F1 for almost 40 years and to judge him on the last few years of his reign is to ignore the history of F1 and his contribution to it.
Everything he did right up the crash was great.
There is no doubt Bernie transformed F1 from what it was in (say) 1972. Howerver, if HE hadn't done what he did, the sport would have evolved in some other way - which might even have been better. We just don't know.
What we do know is that, at this moment, we have a sickly patient that has lots of problems - many of them being from what Bernie set in motion over 20 years ago. And he has to take responsibility and be prepared to accept that he was part of those problems.
Eric Mc said:
1. There is no doubt Bernie transformed F1 from what it was in (say) 1972. Howerver, if HE hadn't done what he did, the sport would have evolved in some other way - which might even have been better. We just don't know.
2. What we do know is that, at this moment, we have a sickly patient that has lots of problems - many of them being from what Bernie set in motion over 20 years ago. And he has to take responsibility and be prepared to accept that he was part of those problems.
1. There's little evidence it would have done better, imo. What other form of motorsport has? Rallying is dead in terms of spectator interest compared to years ago, Indycar has suffered badly over the past decade or so. Nascar has done well but is emphatically not global, and I think Le Mans has done a great job too but nobody watches those cars away from Le Mans, and in the face of stiff competition (from activities unrelated to motorsport) I think F1 has done bloody well.2. What we do know is that, at this moment, we have a sickly patient that has lots of problems - many of them being from what Bernie set in motion over 20 years ago. And he has to take responsibility and be prepared to accept that he was part of those problems.
2. I disagree it's a sickly patient. Global interest is well, global, and huge, compared to when it used to be a fairly parochial, chiefly European interest.
Look how the world has grown since the 50s - 80s. To keep the sport high up in people's interests globally, to manage all those people, the global media and tv rights, governments, manufacturers and so on.
I'm sorry, there isn't a scintilla of evidence that anyone else could have done such a job.
We'll have to agree to differ.
You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
Global interest might be huge- even though the size of the crowd in most places outside F1's stamping ground of Europe, Aus, Japan and the Americas is pitiful but so what? How does that make it better for me, and other people who actually like watching races from trackside ? I can't really afford to go to Grands Prix as the prices have risen tenfold (and that is after inflation) , there are fewer European races and I couldn't give two hoots about 'the brand ' as I'm not on bloody Dragons Den . Am I supposed to be grateful for the fact that Ecclestone's worth billions and those who haven't been bankrupted in their early years by the sports insane costs have then gone on to make millions ?
Eric Mc said:
We'll have to agree to differ.
You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
In what way has F1 lost it's way in the last 20 years? What would you rather it had become?You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
The Moose said:
Eric Mc said:
We'll have to agree to differ.
You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
In what way has F1 lost it's way in the last 20 years? What would you rather it had become?You obviously have powers of deduction beyond mere mortals in that you can see alternative futures clearly.
I would argue that Bernie's machinations with the FIA have helped other forms of motor sport decline too - so I'll blame him for that as well.
I genuinely think that the years 1997 to the present day were the years where F1 began to lose its way big time - and Bernie was firmly at the helm for most of those years..
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff