|
The 2015 F1 revenue pool was $860 million. For the NFL, in 2016, it was 7.1 billion. Both of these figures are the amount that was distributed to the teams. And yes, this isn't a super fair comparison, because the NFL holds way more events. But F1 is global, and the NFL is not. Regardless, the difference is incredible.NtotheTC posted:I'd happily pay £10 to watch a race if I got to bypass handing money over to Sky. That's quite a lot more than the £0 I currently give F1. All sports need to sell ONLY their broadcast rights to free to air channels, keep the streaming rights, and run their own streaming service. Hate to keep using American sports comparisons, but several college sports conferences started their own TV networks years ago, and it made them all rich as gently caress.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
TurboDrizzle posted:It really outrages me that people actually think ferrari is that important to f1 in a way that lotus, march or cooper are not and deserve this treatment. Especially when they are taking in all that money to produce Force India-like results overall while Manor and Good Lotus go bust. (admittidly they have been on a 3 year upswing in form, but it wont last). Their precious 1950-2017 streak wont even be left when they gently caress off to WEC. They are. Lotus has gone through periods where they were extremely competitive, but also periods where they were at the tail end of the grid. The real Team Lotus died in 1994 (or 1995 but it's painful to think about, really). March was a midfield to lower midfield team for it's entire existence. They faded into nothing at the end of 1992 and I doubt anybody other than diehards like us even remember them. Cooper led the rear-engined revolution, yes. They are important. But, like March, faded and vanished shortly into the 3.0L era. Like March, they are merely a footnote now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
F1 could've got on without Ferrari in the Turbo era or early 90s but that ship is sailed and this series doesn't have enough drawing power to survive without the history Ferrari brings anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Ferrari is not going to leave F1, ever. Liberty can call their bluff. But again, they wouldn't need to, because in the long run they'd be giving Ferrari even more money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Human Grand Prix posted:They are likely going to make some special Ferrari agreement. I agree. Even if Liberty is able to magicly grow the sport on the way some people expect, Ferrari will still lose under any setup that approaches equal revenue sharing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
daslog posted:I agree. Even if Liberty is able to magicly grow the sport on the way some people expect, Ferrari will still lose under any setup that approaches equal revenue sharing. So you're saying Ferrari want to be perceived to be making more money as opposed to to actually making more money? Like, making £100 profit is fine so long as everyone else is making £80? I'd mock but actually that does sound like something Ferrari would do now I think about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Ferrari has changed from 10 years ago. They're a smaller publicly traded company that does this on the basis that they get given the money for doing it, they don't have a blank cheque from Fiat anymore. I think any sort of scenario involving serious financial commitment from Ferrari to be a front running team is going to make them leave in the medium to long term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:So you're saying Ferrari want to be perceived to be making more money as opposed to to actually making more money? Like, making £100 profit is fine so long as everyone else is making £80? If Ferrari gives up the revenue then they are betting a lot of money on Liberty's ability to grow the sport. I guess I'm the only one here who thinks Liberty got fleeced by Bernie. I see little chance of F1's revenue growing by the amount required to justify an investment like the Ferrari would be making by giving up that revenue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
daslog posted:I guess I'm the only one here who thinks Liberty got fleeced by Bernie. I see little chance of F1's revenue growing by the amount required to justify an investment like the Ferrari would be making by giving up that revenue. That suggests that F1 is in a good place right now though. It's not like Bernie sold at "peak F1" and it's all going to come crashing down, it's already down it just depends whether liberty has the money (they do) and the motivation (pretty sure they do) to inject into the sport to make it more popular again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
daslog posted:I guess I'm the only one here who thinks Liberty got fleeced by Bernie. I see little chance of F1's revenue growing by the amount required to justify an investment like the Ferrari would be making by giving up that revenue. It just baffles me that anyone could think F1 is currently at peak popularity/revenue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:That suggests that F1 is in a good place right now though. It's not like Bernie sold at "peak F1" and it's all going to come crashing down, it's already down it just depends whether liberty has the money (they do) and the motivation (pretty sure they do) to inject into the sport to make it more popular again. I do think Bernie sold at Peak F1, but that does not mean F1 has to come crashing down. It's possible for a long slow decline that takes over a decade.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
How does Ferrari transferring their ownership into FWONK shares factor into this Ferrexit theory crafting? I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussed about that. Also, they're still getting a "totally not sponsorship" cheque from Marlboro, right? I imagine that would vanish if they left F1.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Ferrari should move to nascar. Imagine how much cheating they could get away with there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Ferrari are totally gearing up to quit F1, that's why they were the first team to buy shares...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
daslog posted:If Ferrari gives up the revenue then they are betting a lot of money on Liberty's ability to grow the sport. Based on the 2016 number posted, Liberty would basically have to double revenue from $965M to $1.92B, that is IF we are trying to split the revenue evenly among the teams, and match Ferrari's current amount of $192M. Realistically, there are a lot of problems with that idea. It would take probably a decade or more to achieve that growth I'd guess, which would mean Ferrari's $192M by then would actually be worth a lot less. It's in Ferrari's interest not only to retain their special money, but to retain a huge advantage over what the other teams receive to stay ahead of them on track. Their financial advantage is also a shortcut competitive advantage that's probably just as important. Imagine watching the pretty red cars trundling around behind Force Indias, Saubers, and Renaults on a regular basis. The tears would be epic. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm all for it. But being realistic, I think the best we can hope for is a "more equitable" split that would keep the special red babbys ahead of the game, but give the other teams a chance to get competitive at least. Then again, if they did quit it means a lot more money to go around and probably much more competitive racing, so 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
A healthier sport also attracts sponsors who are willing to pay more to be on the side of a car. Ferrari will be banking on making up some of the losses in revenue split with gains in sponsorship income.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
If we stop racing in third world shitholes with questionable human rights records and start racing where people actually want to watch the races, the sponsors will come flooding back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
CratSock posted:Based on the 2016 number posted, Liberty would basically have to double revenue from $965M to $1.92B, that is IF we are trying to split the revenue evenly among the teams, and match Ferrari's current amount of $192M. Realistically, there are a lot of problems with that idea. It would take probably a decade or more to achieve that growth I'd guess, which would mean Ferrari's $192M by then would actually be worth a lot less. It's in Ferrari's interest not only to retain their special money, but to retain a huge advantage over what the other teams receive to stay ahead of them on track. Their financial advantage is also a shortcut competitive advantage that's probably just as important. Imagine watching the pretty red cars trundling around behind Force Indias, Saubers, and Renaults on a regular basis. The tears would be epic. Christ, it's just so much nonsense. For one, you don't necessarily have to double revenue to double the payout to the teams; you can make a huge impact just by skimming less off the top. This would be a particularly effective scheme for Liberty, since it would mean placating the teams in the short-term while giving themselves the bulk of the benefits from long-term growth*. And two, it doesn't take 10 years to achieve this goal. This isn't a regular business and I have no idea why you think it is. There's not steady, annual growth. You get growth in huge chunks whenever you renegotiate TV deals. The Premier League went from 5.5b to 8.3b practically overnight. I can't say the word "baffling" enough. We talk for years about how Bernie is driving the sport into the ground - and he clearly was - but then sing his praises once he's gone and act like he's totally maxed out the amount of money F1 can generate. Guys, for gently caress's sake, he didn't have one single person signing sponsorship deals at FOM. It was entirely him! There's hundreds of millions of dollars to be made there alone. *Please try to remind yourselves that Liberty is a large public company whose sole goal is to increase their stock value. For them, F1 is an asset that can encourage that growth. Its value is not simply the X amount of profit it provides them. wicka fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Formula One 2017: Liberty Media is saving/killing F1
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:If we stop racing in third world shitholes with questionable human rights records and start racing where people actually want to watch the races, Obligatory 'but enough about the USGP' comment goes here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
I think it makes sense to race in places that have a motorsport culture. I think China and India are getting there but it will be some time yet before it truly takes off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
F1 2017: Actually racing is about long essays I can't be bothered to read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
I still can't get over listing March as being as important or prestigious as Ferrari, Lotus, or even Cooper. What the hell did they accomplish? Historically finishing in 6th place and scoring a podium twice a decade?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
With all this discussion of unfair profit distribution and the NFL I thought this detailed economic analysis of NFL and MLB was relevant. Ferrari are the Yankees, obviously. An irredeemable yet unstoppable evil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb9JMno7g7Y
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
So historic the new owners changed the name to a Japanese real estate company immediately after buying it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:F1 2017: Actually racing is about long essays I can't be bothered to read. Give him his dues, wicka was actually speaking a lot of sense and wasn't frothing at the chops in that last post  So, who's mug enough to sort out the new thread? edit: actually gently caress it, I'll do it, suggestions for thread titles anyone? I'm a humourless fuckwit and will end up picking something like "F1 2017: What a crock of poo poo" and what the bollocks do I even put in it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
I assumed Tsaedje was going to start the thread like he usually does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Tsaedje would certainly carve the turkey if this thread celebrated Thanksgiving.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
F1 2017: If you know what I mean fellas
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
F1 2017: gently caress you Tsaedje! I'M AN ADULT NOW I CAN DO WHAT I WANT! Ok ok fine, I just started writing one out and it seems like way too much effort and I can't help but be bitter and cynical about it which no one wants to read so I'll leave it to the veterans. edit: I have only one request, and that is that this gets added to the op: quote:WANTED: INFORMATION ON THE WHEREABOUTS OF THREAD REGULAR EL HEFE, come back you filthy Mexican, we love you really
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
enri posted:Give him his dues, wicka was actually speaking a lot of sense and wasn't frothing at the chops in that last post My issue isn't with Wicka, he's about the only person I'll write up something like that for since he will usually respond pretty elquently with his side and if we don't agree then there isn't some grudge, it's with everybody else that has some really laughable arguments when I can be bothered to skim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:01
|
|
|
Thread titles? ehh? *Shakes magic 8 ball*quote:Formula 1: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of Bernie" or quote:Formula 1: "Those who trade Bernie for Liberty deserve neither. I posted this before but please throw this in the new OP. Would be good to get new posters an idea of the drivers and teams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7G6bdrGnS0&t=5s (Especially aspie verstappen playing alone on the floor with a ball or staring at his phone) Flesh Croissant fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Ferrari is run by the Stronzo in the Sweater and is a publicly listed company. Ferrari's F1 income is retardedly bolstered by the lovely "historic entrant" clause in the Concorde Agreement that no other team receives - even McLaren, who arguably fit the bill. So the agreement which guarantees that clause is between the FIA and the Constructors. Liberty cannot trigger a renegotiation of the Concorde Agreement until December 2020, unless the FIA or the Constructors agree to do so. Which means this is a pointlessly speculative discussion that bears no relevance to the immediate future of F1. F1 Offseason 16/17 Thread: I can't loving wait until Friday
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:17
|
|
|
F1 2017: The return of Ross the Boss
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Formula 1: Those who trade Bernie for Liberty deserve neither. I like this one
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Australian Grand Prix this weekend. AUSTRALIAN GRAND PRIX.... THIS WEEKEND...... I am psyched. Pumped. Up. Ungh, gonna loving pump some coffee in me and have a fruit'n'fibre muffin cause Australian Grand Prix this weekend!! Whoo!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
It's gonna suck. Lewis is gonna win.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
I've never tried to monopolise making the thread, just ended up being the person with time to do it. I'm pretty busy this time round so I'm more than happy for someone else do do it for a change!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Tsaedje posted:I've never tried to monopolise making the thread, just ended up being the person with time to do it. I'm pretty busy this time round so I'm more than happy for someone else do do it for a change! Err, im gonna get started i guess if nobody else objects. Throw me any big technical poo poo/pepe memes you feel should be thrown in. Flesh Croissant fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
I object to you using a probation evasion account to do the OP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
