The 2-race meeting format would suit me. A qualifying race on Saturday and the long race on Sunday. Doing away with practice when there is already a ban on testing is going too far, IMO. But Liberty wants to increase the calendar to 25 GPs. That seems too much to me. The teams already have a problem with 20. Teams will need 2 teams of mechanics alternating duties to cover 25 meetings all over the world, to comply with employment laws in Europe. More staff would increase the budget, and go against what they are aiming at, IMO.
British Grand Prix: Silverstone race 'under threat because of costs' - BBC Sport How about a fee cap so we dont lose great races Liberty!
Agreed. But same tune from Silverstone every. Single. Year. Saying you'll leave constantly but never doing it and at some point no one takes your threat serious anymore.
The fees are bonkers - I agree. It sounds like in the US, their idea is to sell the naming of the GPs to major corporations like we do with Stadiums here. Not the sexiest thing ever, but if it gets more good races on the calendar, I really don't care. Examples: The Verizon GP of NY, The PPG GP of Pittsburgh, etc. etc. Not sure if/how that might work in Europe or the UK... Also keep in mind that if they bring up revenue from new, online services, they may be able to lower fees on the venues.
haha, thanks! I'll take Bas as my technical advisor... ; ) I'm hopeful Liberty will implement some things that have been proven to work in team sports here in the US for the good of the league and fans...which ultimately end up benefiting the teams as well. But I'm sure it will be difficult for them.
That's not a new idea, some of the Grand Prix's have had race sponsors for years now. Here are the 2017 examples: 2017 FORMULA 1 ROLEX AUSTRALIAN GRAND PRIX 2017 FORMULA 1 HEINEKEN CHINESE GRAND PRIX 2017 FORMULA 1 GULF AIR BAHRAIN GRAND PRIX FORMULA 1 GRAN PREMIO HEINEKEN D'ITALIA 2017 2017 FORMULA 1 SINGAPORE AIRLINES SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX 2017 FORMULA 1 PETRONAS MALAYSIA GRAND PRIX 2017 FORMULA 1 ETIHAD AIRWAYS ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX
First of all, it's Liberty's idea, not mine. Who is the sponsor on the US GP? Secondly - how much does it cost and who does the naming revenue go to? I don't know, I'm asking.
Where did I say it was your idea? The idea of having race sponsors is not Liberty's idea either - As I have already posted, it's been done at certain races for years/decades now! Well now that's the strange thing! You post how in the USA they have this great idea of getting corporations to sponsor major events, and yet the US Grand Prix is one of the one's that has no sponsor! Now if the USA is such a great pioneer of this idea, why does the the US GP have no sponsor? You'd have to ask Bernie Ecclestone on that one - I suspect though that any money made from the sponsors goes to the owners of F1 (which will be Liberty once they take control of F1). Where does the money go from all of the stadiums and other events in the USA that have corporate sponsorship?
It's so weird to me that people have a need to make this a USA vs. other countries thing. Shouldn't you be interested in what makes the sport the best rather than where the idea comes from? That's not at all what I posted. There's a reason no one would want to sponsor the US GP - more people watch a Thursday night football game in the NFL. That's the whole point and why there is only one GP in the US - it's a terrible investment. The money for the stadium naming in the US goes to the owner and/or operators of the stadium, not the league in which they play. This offsets the huge cost of building and operating the stadiums. That's why it would be a good idea for F1 since we constantly hear how difficult it is to make money on an event when you need to pay 20m+ a year for one short event.
...and here's the relevant article concerning GP naming rights: F1's next goal? Become a destination Excerpt: "One of Liberty's aims is to sell naming rights to grands prix, as is par for the course in US sports, and the revenues generated through such sales should give the sport's new owners wiggle-room when it comes to negotiating with recalcitrant circuits in desirable markets."
JANUARY 19, 2017 F1 teams back away from buying shares F1 teams are backing away from new owner Liberty's offer of shares in the sport they compete in. We have reported that Liberty is offering up to 20pc of the sport's commercial rights to the teams on favourable terms, although the stake would not include voting rights. The teams have until the end of January to decide. "I honestly don't know if I should buy shares," Red Bull and Toro Rosso team owner Dietrich Mateschitz told Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper this week. Michael Schmidt, the respected correspondent for Auto Motor und Sport, now reveals that F1 teams expressed "little interest" in buying shares as the Strategy Group and F1 Commission met in Geneva on Wednesday. A source at one top team said: "Without influence on the future direction and marketing of formula one, purchasing shares is not very attractive for us."
JANUARY 25, 2017 Teams turned down offer of F1 shares says Wolff F1 teams turned down Liberty Media's offer to become co-owners of the sport. That is the news from Toto Wolff, boss of the championship winning Mercedes team. As the American company Liberty Media took over F1 this week, it urged the teams to consider an offer to buy up to 20 per cent. But we reported that because the teams were not being offered voting rights, they turned it down. Wolff confirmed to Germany's DPA news agency: "It was offered to us, but no team took it up. "There wasn't time," the Austrian explained, "and the conditions are not yet fully aligned between the interests of the selling shareholder CVC and the long-term interests of the teams, which are first and foremost about the sport and its sustainability. "Now we need to work with Liberty," Wolff added. Wolff said he expects that forthcoming talks with Liberty will be fruitful. "Liberty is aware of the fact that, together with the drivers, the teams are an essential part of the show. "At the same time, we must be aware that there is an entertainment factor and we are competing with anyone who has a video on Youtube," he said.
The e-cigarette companies are mostly owned by the tobacco companies, if you want a lesson in capitalism they are well shaped to show us all. I'm a smoker, but it wasn't cos of f1. These so called experts call for bans on smoking, drinking, sugar anything, but the fact is, moderation with most things is fine (even smoking, my grandad smoked all his life and died naturally at 97), and that's 99.9% of us, the ones with a problem will just divert their bad habit to something else. If you take the nice things out of life (and that's why sugar is popular, it makes tasty food )
Governments call for bans on smoking, drinking and sugar because they are the ones that end up footing the bills in medical costs. Most ailments treated in hospitals relate to tobacco, alcohol abuse and obesity. I am vegetarian, teetotaller, I don't smoke and avoid sugar, yet I don't think I am missing anything in life. I wouldn't call something that would damage my health a "nice thing". I find most people are conditioned by their environment, advertising, peer pressure, family tradition, etc... It's very sad ...
Here we go again.................."Budget Cap Redux' or 'Part 2." Budget cap: Carey turns up the heat on F1 teams Formula 1 CEO Chase Carey, supported by the FIA, has put the pressure on the sport's top teams to accept a revised budget cap set to be introduced from 2021. After a year of talks, mediation and endless negotiations over the future of Grand Prix racing between F1's commercial rights holder, the FIA and the teams, Liberty Media got tough last week in Geneva at an F1 Strategy Group meeting. According to reports from Auto Motor und Sport's Michael Schmidt, Mercedes and Ferrari's hopes of securing an increase of the final threshold of F1's prospective cost cutting plan from $150m to $200m have been trounced by Liberty's unilateral decision to cap the upper limit at $135m! However, a three-year glide path will remain in order to facilitate the teams' progressive reduction in resources. Spending will be capped at $185m in 2021 and at $160m in 2022, with the final $135m limit implemented in 2023. While Liberty and the FIA appeared last week to go for a resolute 'take it or leave it' approach, the details of what exactly the digressive numbers shall include in terms of exemptions have yet to be finalized. Reporting from AMUS suggests that Formula 1's managers have run out of patience with the teams. With a June 30th deadline - as determined by the FIA's 18-month notification rule with regard to major changes to F1's sporting and technical regulations - looming, Liberty feared that F1's top teams were attempting to prolong talks to gain time and enforce a status quo of F1's state of affairs come the end of June. Crunch time is nearing for F1's teams and Chase Carey has taken off his hat. It's about time, and as all parties enter the final stretch to finalize the future of Formula 1, one can only hope that the American executive's tough guy routine will pay off! http://f1i.com/news/328189-budget-cap-carey-turns-up-the-heat-on-f1-teams.html
He lacks the teeth to be a 'shark' in F1. They can plan all they want for a budget cap. The top 3 must agree or its game over and welcome spec series lol
That sounds bonkers to me. Liberty logic: if we impose a budget cap, we won't have to redistribute so much money at the end of the year, and we will maximise our profits. It's so obvious why they want it. This could be the end of F1 as we know it.
Im not sure what leverage in real terms Carey has. The identity of the sport has very little to do with Liberty as an entity. Any realistic 'cap' needs to also assist promoters of events as well. Those fee's are not sustainable for more than a few races that matter. Liberty paid too much for a sport that was not at all 'growing' outside of dictatorial or public financed events in questionable locations.
It's difficult for me to fathom out how teams like Ferrari and Mercedes which are spending something like $400/500m a year (Red Bull $320m) now could cut their cost to fall in like with Liberty's projections: [$185m in 2021 and at $160m in 2022, with the final $135m limit implemented in 2023.] They would have to give up so much to get to that level, that they may as well leave F1 and join/form another series, or ... go home. We may as well enjoy the next 2 years to the full, because 2021 could be the end of an era.
Liberty clearly have no clue what they are dealing with, and what effect such stupid restrictions would do to the sport.... they want to have a formula with no value, go ahead and do it liberty, the teams will simply pack up and create something new. What a load of outright bollocks. Liberty clearly couldn’t organise an orgy in a brothel
