Discussion:
EU Parliament supports investigation into F1
Add Reply
Bobster
2017-02-14 17:35:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18683422/european-parliament-backs-investigation-f1
John
2017-02-14 20:08:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
F1 needs to equally distribute it's TV and other money and put a "luxury tax" on teams that spend excessively.
Bobster
2017-02-14 20:53:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John
F1 needs to equally distribute it's TV and other money and put a "luxury tax" on teams that spend excessively.
I wouldn't got that far.

Distribution shouldn't be equal. There should be an incentive. Even if there are 10 teams, you want Sauber to be going flat out to beat Haas (or whoever the bottom two are).

What I do think is that the extra payments, particularly to Ferrari, should stop. Let's be honest, Bernie used to pay Ferrari extra to get them on side and prevent the teams taking a united stand.

In the Premier League, the payments to the teams are not equal, but Manchester United don't get money just for being Manchester United - at least not from the league.

A financial tax won't help. Not with manufacturer teams. If they get hit with, say, $50 million, but they are happy with the publicity they get and the R&D they get to do, then it's money well spent. It will kill a Force India, but be an entry in the books for Mercedes.

OK... if the "tax" is a sporting one, then that would have teeth. The problem with FOTA was that if you overspent there was no meaningful penalty. FOTA could't deduct points. They would reduce your budget for the next year, but if you overspent again?

So let's split it in two. FOM need to not equalise the payments, but reduce the gap. And FIA need to impose a budget cap and have a way of making it hurt if you exceed that.
Bruce Hoult
2017-02-14 21:14:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by John
F1 needs to equally distribute it's TV and other money and put a "luxury tax" on teams that spend excessively.
I wouldn't got that far.
Distribution shouldn't be equal. There should be an incentive. Even if there are 10 teams, you want Sauber to be going flat out to beat Haas (or whoever the bottom two are).
What I do think is that the extra payments, particularly to Ferrari, should stop. Let's be honest, Bernie used to pay Ferrari extra to get them on side and prevent the teams taking a united stand.
In the Premier League, the payments to the teams are not equal, but Manchester United don't get money just for being Manchester United - at least not from the league.
A financial tax won't help. Not with manufacturer teams. If they get hit with, say, $50 million, but they are happy with the publicity they get and the R&D they get to do, then it's money well spent. It will kill a Force India, but be an entry in the books for Mercedes.
OK... if the "tax" is a sporting one, then that would have teeth. The problem with FOTA was that if you overspent there was no meaningful penalty. FOTA could't deduct points. They would reduce your budget for the next year, but if you overspent again?
So let's split it in two. FOM need to not equalise the payments, but reduce the gap. And FIA need to impose a budget cap and have a way of making it hurt if you exceed that.
Budget caps aren't remotely possible unless teams are absolutely firewalled from their parent companies, and can only use as inputs parts&materials that are freely available on the open market to any other team at the same price.

I don't know why Ferrari or Mercedes would want to play in that game.
Bobster
2017-02-15 02:46:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bruce Hoult
Budget caps aren't remotely possible unless teams are absolutely firewalled from their parent companies, and can only use as inputs parts&materials that are freely available on the open market to any other team at the same price.
A few years ago when the idea was first proposed, Mosley felt that it was possible because FIA had gone over McLaren with a fine tooth comb. He knew what sort of detailed records were kept.

Remember that the cap is on the car. You can have as much money coming in as you want, and can pay to get the drivers and designers you want, but only so much gets on the car.

The teams manufacture a lot of parts. Engine deals would have been given a standard cost. Wind tunnel time would have been costed according to a formula.

So all that has to be ring fenced are the accounts for building the car.
Post by Bruce Hoult
I don't know why Ferrari or Mercedes would want to play in that game.
Bigbird
2017-02-15 10:13:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Bruce Hoult
Budget caps aren't remotely possible unless teams are absolutely
firewalled from their parent companies, and can only use as inputs
parts&materials that are freely available on the open market to any
other team at the same price.
A few years ago when the idea was first proposed, Mosley felt that it
was possible because FIA had gone over McLaren with a fine tooth
comb. He knew what sort of detailed records were kept.
He may have "felt" that but he is not a management accountant.
Post by Bobster
Remember that the cap is on the car. You can have as much money
coming in as you want, and can pay to get the drivers and designers
you want, but only so much gets on the car.
...and here your understanding is already falling apart. How can you
exclude staff costs from the costings?
Post by Bobster
The teams manufacture a lot of parts. Engine deals would have been
given a standard cost. Wind tunnel time would have been costed
according to a formula.
So all that has to be ring fenced are the accounts for building the car.
They have already tried some capping in a piecemeal way i.e. windtunnel
and CFD, I'm not sure it has been successful in reducing expenditure or
narrowing the gaps.

I think a cap would be good because. There is simply no rhyme or reason
to the kind of expenditure we see in F1. Mosley failed because his
expectations were unrealisitic and punitive for some unfathomed
egotisitcal reasons.

I certainly don't imagine it is simple and to be done equitably would
take some years of planning and implementation.
Edmund
2017-02-15 07:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by John
F1 needs to equally distribute it's TV and other money and put a
"luxury tax" on teams that spend excessively.
I wouldn't got that far.
Distribution shouldn't be equal. There should be an incentive. Even if
there are 10 teams, you want Sauber to be going flat out to beat Haas
(or whoever the bottom two are).
What I do think is that the extra payments, particularly to Ferrari,
should stop. Let's be honest, Bernie used to pay Ferrari extra to get
them on side and prevent the teams taking a united stand.
Wow THAT is an interesting point of view from you.
So now you are saying he is used to bribing parties as he sees fit.
Well that is exactly what all the german reporters said when he bribed
his way out of a legal prosecution for...... bribing.

Edmund
Bobster
2017-02-15 14:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Edmund
Post by Bobster
Post by John
F1 needs to equally distribute it's TV and other money and put a
"luxury tax" on teams that spend excessively.
I wouldn't got that far.
Distribution shouldn't be equal. There should be an incentive. Even if
there are 10 teams, you want Sauber to be going flat out to beat Haas
(or whoever the bottom two are).
What I do think is that the extra payments, particularly to Ferrari,
should stop. Let's be honest, Bernie used to pay Ferrari extra to get
them on side and prevent the teams taking a united stand.
Wow THAT is an interesting point of view from you.
So now you are saying he is used to bribing parties as he sees fit.
No. This was not a bribe, it is stipulated in a contract. That is not a bribe. He certainly had an intent to divide and conquer, but it was not a bribe.
Post by Edmund
Well that is exactly what all the german reporters said when he bribed
his way out of a legal prosecution for...... bribing.
That wasn't a bribe either. When you bribe somebody you don't file papers in a court, in front of a judge to detail the arrangement.

It DID leave a stench of one law for the rich, and another for the poor, but it was not a bribe.
Bobster
2017-02-17 05:39:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
What I do think is that the extra payments, particularly to Ferrari, should stop. Let's be honest, Bernie used to pay Ferrari extra to get them on side and prevent the teams taking a united stand.
In the Premier League, the payments to the teams are not equal, but Manchester United don't get money just for being Manchester United - at least not from the league.
But in Golf appearance money is routine. So are historic rights for past wins. Tiger Woods used to get massive appearance money, with the tournament paying him his starting fee because he would pull a bigger crowd or, since their capacity is finite, maybe they could sell more special packages: "includes a Tiger Woods initialled tee and a 30 second selfie opportunity".

If you cast Bernie's extra payments like that - nobody would turn on if Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull weren't racing - then maybe it makes some sense.

The difference is that with Golf, individual tournaments pay these amounts. In F1 it's the commercial rights holder who is paying them a share of the TV money.

Is that a crucial difference? Presumably Woods's management had to negotiate with each tournament to see if a fee would be forthcoming.
brafield
2017-02-17 06:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:39:50 PM UTC-8, Bobster wrote:


Can someone please tie Donald Trump's Deutsche Bank loan defaults and 'Brexit' to this F1 circus?
News
2017-02-17 11:55:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by brafield
Can someone please tie Donald Trump's Deutsche Bank loan defaults and 'Brexit' to this F1 circus?
Drop a dime to Sylt?
geoff
2017-02-14 21:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18683422/european-parliament-backs-investigation-f1
So what happened - Bernie's regular payments to EU have now ceased ?

geoff
Sir Tim
2017-02-16 13:43:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18683422/european-parliament-backs-investigation-f1
I see that Chris Sylt is still trying to spread alarm and despondency in F1
circles:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/#43f0d42956ab

Whether he is acting on instructions from his malevolent puppet master or
simply flailing about on his own in a fit of pique at having been so often
wrong remains to be seen
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
News
2017-02-16 16:39:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18683422/european-parliament-backs-investigation-f1
I see that Chris Sylt is still trying to spread alarm and despondency in F1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/#43f0d42956ab
Whether he is acting on instructions from his malevolent puppet master or
simply flailing about on his own in a fit of pique at having been so often
wrong remains to be seen
Interesting reportage portfolio: "auto racing and theme parks"
build
2017-02-17 22:34:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bobster
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18683422/european-parliament-backs-investigation-f1
I see that Chris Sylt is still trying to spread alarm and despondency in F1
http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/#43f0d42956ab
Whether he is acting on instructions from his malevolent puppet master or
simply flailing about on his own in a fit of pique at having been so often
wrong remains to be seen
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
Sir,
Has anyone pointed out how many of the EU Parliament recommendations are taken up by the EU Commission? It's a very, very small number. Does anyone know the numbers?

tia,
build
brafield
2017-02-17 23:17:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Sir,
Has anyone pointed out how many of the EU Parliament recommendations are taken up by the EU Commission? It's a very, very small number. Does anyone know the numbers?
tia,
build
Canada is optimistic about its recent trade deal signed with the EU.

Must the thousands of testy old Britishers who fled the UK to Canada since 1973 in fear of impending communism and immigrants, now up sticks and ---- ?
Sir Tim
2017-02-18 20:36:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Has anyone pointed out how many of the EU Parliament recommendations are
taken up by the EU Commission? It's a very, very small number. Does
anyone know the numbers?
Presumably the large majority in favour of the Dodds amendment will give
the recommendation extra traction but the Commission does have considerable
latitude and can even reject a complaint for "lack of EU interest" after an
investigation has started.

Joe Saward summarises the situation rather well:

"The EU is not looking at this beyond the fact that the distribution of
revenues may be deemed to be anti-competitive. However, with the arrival of
Liberty, which is a listed company and keen to do things properly, this
problem will solve itself and thus the EU does not have to get involved.
The Competition people were slow to react to the complaints from the small
teams because they did not want to be involved. They want to be involved
even less now – because they can see that the problem will be solved. The
MEPs who are involved are going through the motions so as not to be accused
of not doing anything, but there is zero enthusiasm for this. In the worst
case scenario the problem would be easily solved with the $70 million going
into a fund for grassroots development, which no-one at the EU would object
to."

I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
~misfit~
2017-02-19 05:26:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
Has anyone pointed out how many of the EU Parliament recommendations
are taken up by the EU Commission? It's a very, very small number.
Does anyone know the numbers?
Presumably the large majority in favour of the Dodds amendment will
give the recommendation extra traction but the Commission does have
considerable latitude and can even reject a complaint for "lack of EU
interest" after an investigation has started.
"The EU is not looking at this beyond the fact that the distribution
of revenues may be deemed to be anti-competitive. However, with the
arrival of Liberty, which is a listed company and keen to do things
properly, this problem will solve itself and thus the EU does not
have to get involved. The Competition people were slow to react to
the complaints from the small teams because they did not want to be
involved. They want to be involved even less now - because they can
see that the problem will be solved. The MEPs who are involved are
going through the motions so as not to be accused of not doing
anything, but there is zero enthusiasm for this. In the worst case
scenario the problem would be easily solved with the $70 million
going into a fund for grassroots development, which no-one at the EU
would object to."
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
... hopefully *after* the Ferrari backhander is removed from the payouts.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
Bobster
2017-02-19 13:47:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ~misfit~
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
Has anyone pointed out how many of the EU Parliament recommendations
are taken up by the EU Commission? It's a very, very small number.
Does anyone know the numbers?
Presumably the large majority in favour of the Dodds amendment will
give the recommendation extra traction but the Commission does have
considerable latitude and can even reject a complaint for "lack of EU
interest" after an investigation has started.
"The EU is not looking at this beyond the fact that the distribution
of revenues may be deemed to be anti-competitive. However, with the
arrival of Liberty, which is a listed company and keen to do things
properly, this problem will solve itself and thus the EU does not
have to get involved. The Competition people were slow to react to
the complaints from the small teams because they did not want to be
involved. They want to be involved even less now - because they can
see that the problem will be solved. The MEPs who are involved are
going through the motions so as not to be accused of not doing
anything, but there is zero enthusiasm for this. In the worst case
scenario the problem would be easily solved with the $70 million
going into a fund for grassroots development, which no-one at the EU
would object to."
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
... hopefully *after* the Ferrari backhander is removed from the payouts.
That'll be 2021 then.

The extra payments - Ferrari are not the only team to get what amounts to appearance money - are included in contracts that run until December 2020.

It's not a backhander really. Everybody knows about it and it's stipulated in a contract. One might argue that it's unfair or anti competitive, but more than that is stretching the point.
Bobster
2017-02-20 03:10:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
The extra payments - Ferrari are not the only team to get what amounts to appearance money - are included in contracts that run until December 2020.
And I wonder how this is going to pan out. Those teams will not just say "oh alright" if they are presented a new contract without those payments included. How do FOM get away from this situation?

Actually a finding might do them a favour. "Sorry, but you know what that Commission ruled."
Sir Tim
2017-02-27 18:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
Looks like it has:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Darryl Johnson
2017-02-27 18:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Is it just me, or does the headline seem to refer
only to the takeover by Liberty? I can see nothing
that indicates an investigation into the financial
distribution of money or anything else that the
smaller teams were complaining about. Yes, the
article does mention the complaints, in passing,
but does that mean that those complaints are
similarly to be left "as is"?
Sir Tim
2017-02-27 22:08:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darryl Johnson
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Is it just me, or does the headline seem to refer
only to the takeover by Liberty? I can see nothing
that indicates an investigation into the financial
distribution of money or anything else that the
smaller teams were complaining about. Yes, the
article does mention the complaints, in passing,
but does that mean that those complaints are
similarly to be left "as is"?
This article by Joe Saward explains in more detail:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/no-eu-investigation-into-f1-sale/
--
Sir Tim
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional"
Bobster
2017-02-28 02:51:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214

The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into the sale.

Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
build
2017-02-28 05:21:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214
The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into the sale.
Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
Yes. The EU Commission has not indicated anything in relation to any investigation, one commissioner, Margrethe Vestager has ruled out an investigation into the sale of F1 and nothing in relation to other matters. So, if anything at all will happen in relation to the inequitable imbalance in distribution of funds as backed by the EU Parliament, that is still quite distant.
Sir Tim
2017-02-28 09:57:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by build
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214
The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for
and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into the sale.
Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
Yes. The EU Commission has not indicated anything in relation to any
investigation, one commissioner, Margrethe Vestager has ruled out an
investigation into the sale of F1 and nothing in relation to other
matters. So, if anything at all will happen in relation to the
inequitable imbalance in distribution of funds as backed by the EU
Parliament, that is still quite distant.
I imagine they assume that Liberty will sort that out - by 2020 if not
before.
build
2017-03-02 05:08:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by build
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214
The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for
and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into the sale.
Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
Yes. The EU Commission has not indicated anything in relation to any
investigation, one commissioner, Margrethe Vestager has ruled out an
investigation into the sale of F1 and nothing in relation to other
matters. So, if anything at all will happen in relation to the
inequitable imbalance in distribution of funds as backed by the EU
Parliament, that is still quite distant.
I imagine they assume that Liberty will sort that out - by 2020 if not
before.
Sir,
I reckon your imagination is astute. And, I hope FWON (Liberty) sort it, fingers crossed.

The EU Parliament may have an abundance of wankers but the Commission is where the real power is and it's more astute and effective.

beers,

Sir Tim
2017-02-28 11:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214
The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into the sale.
Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
I would refer you to Joe Saward's article concerning the earlier BBC report:

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/02/15/tosh/
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Bigbird
2017-02-28 17:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Sir Tim
I'm sure the whole thing will fizzle out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/39108841
Ugh. Shoddy work. Contrast that article with it's predecessor at
http://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/38971214
The writer also doesn't seem to understand that what Dodds called for
and MEPs backed, is not the same as the alleged investigation into
the sale.
Sometimes I think Trump has got a point about the press.
Conflated possibly but hardly FAKE.
Loading...