|
Norns posted:What tracks do you want to see? Istanbul was easily in the top 5. I also quite liked the Korean track, although I know many didn't.
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
You Am I posted:Looks like the weather is going to be nice for the race weekend, mid 20s at the moment. Good stuff, Sydney's had like 5 inches of rain over the last fortnight. 24 hour Fox F1 channel has started, currently watching 1984 USA GP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 08:21
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:Istanbul was easily in the top 5. I also quite liked the Korean track, although I know many didn't. Istanbul was good, Korea always seemed like it had been made to steal the character of other circuits whilst having none of its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
Ross Brawn wants F1 to be more like FOOTBAWL:quote:Liberty's involvement in several American sports has prompted comparisons between F1's business model and other major entities, and Brawn hinted that the most successful teams could learn from the benefits that were felt when payments were evened up in the NFL. sure, let's do it
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Equalizing the revenue split should be the very first thing Liberty does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
What two NFL teams got all the money?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
AgentJotun posted:What two NFL teams got all the money? His statement is a little misleading. Revenue sharing has always been equitable in the NFL. What Brawn is referencing is the time period before the NFL signed TV contracts league-wide. Each team negotiated their own TV contracts; some had no games televised, and most only had a few. He's presumably referring to the two teams who were lucky enough to have every game televised. I think one of them was the Rams.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Finally, the end is in sight.... it's race weekend this weekend baby!  
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
This is my first year watching NBCSN through PS Vue. Do they show all the practices and everything and does anyone know if it is all on demand or if I have to set it up to (fake) record it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
wicka posted:Equalizing the revenue split should be the very first thing Liberty does. Renegotiating Concorde Agreement three years ahead of schedule will be tough. I'll be thoroughly impressed if they manage that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
enri posted:Finally, the end is in sight.... it's race weekend this weekend baby!  I'm backing my boys Herr Vettel and Maximum Verstrappon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Rich people just want exclusive areas the poors can't get in. (See also; Monaco) Give them the corporate boxes along the pit lane and the paddock club. Run events/talks and serve the prawn cocktail sandwiches for them in there before the race while the pit lane is open to the public, and they can look down and say aren't we lucky to be in here and not out there, look Joffrey that man has face paint on haw haw haw. Ironically Monaco is one of the best races for fan access outside of race day. I bumped into Coulthard, Lauda and Button just wandering around the town, and was able to walk into the paddock and down the pitlane to chat to engineers on the Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18957746/max-verstappen-art-overtakingquote:Under F1's new laissez-faire attitude to wheel-to-wheel racing this year, it is not yet clear whether moving under braking will incur the wrath of the stewards (the Article referred to by Whiting in Austin last year has been removed and replaced with a regulation that says no penalty will be issued unless a driver is "wholly or predominantly to blame for an incident").
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 13:29
|
|
|
td4guy posted:http://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/18957746/max-verstappen-art-overtaking The rules are very clear: If you're Verstappen it's allowed because Red Bull have hyped you up as some sort of all time great before you even got in F1, if you're anybody else it's not allowed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:01
|
|
|
It's allowed for Verstappen because it's an extremely dangerous move and they just want him to hurry up and die already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Basically what will happen is that it will create a raft of aggressive overtakes and ducking/weaving and people will go "wow so exciting! Why didn't we do this sooner?" and then some idiot in a midfield car will try it on a championship contender, ruining their race or a potential exciting battle, and get away scot free and everyone will go "gently caress why is this idiot allowed to do this? I feel cheated bring back rules"
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
NtotheTC posted:Basically what will happen is that it will create a raft of aggressive overtakes and ducking/weaving and people will go "wow so exciting! Why didn't we do this sooner?" and then some idiot in a midfield car will try it on a championship contender, ruining their race or a potential exciting battle, and get away scot free and everyone will go "gently caress why is this idiot allowed to do this? I feel cheated bring back rules" Just call him Lance Stroll. That is his name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
That name again is Lance Stroll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
wicka posted:It's allowed for Verstappen because it's an extremely dangerous move and they just want him to hurry up and die already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
wicka posted:Equalizing the revenue split should be the very first thing Liberty does. It is the right thing to do but that is a lot of revenue for the top teams to give up. I don't expect they will willingly give it up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Stop wishing the death of children thread. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
gently caress Lance Stroll tho
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
daslog posted:It is the right thing to do but that is a lot of revenue for the top teams to give up. I don't expect they will willingly give it up. they only need to be convinced that a more competitive field is also beneficial to their bottom line in the long run, and there's a lot of precedent to point to in the world of sports
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
wuffles posted:they only need to be convinced that a more competitive field is also beneficial to their bottom line in the long run, and there's a lot of precedent to point to in the world of sports Exactly, that's the point Brawn is trying to make. They'll be given equal shares of a much larger revenue pool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
1500quidporsche posted:The rules are very clear: I'm ok with this just because it annoys you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Is there finally a race coming up or something? We ran out of things to talk about in the worst thread about 4 pages ago.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
CratSock posted:Is there finally a race coming up or something? We ran out of things to talk about in the worst thread about 4 A little bit more accurate, and yes, there's finally a race coming up this weekend. Hurrah! Now for our annual 'wait until someone offers to write a new OP for the new season' game of chicken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
I think I might blog F1 this year, for myself mainly. Just my thoughts on the races on Monday morning, which is when I usually get a chance to watch them. I wrote something today about how I felt about some things in my life and I found it was really positive, so if I'm going to waste hours watching something, I may as well get the good feeling from considering and condensing my views. If people want to read and comment too that'll be great. I won't be linking it here for obvious reasons, first of which is that although I love you all, you're all the worst people. If I don't do that, I'll probably just watch the highlights.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Yeah we are all pretty much garbage people
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Myself included, I make no bones about that. I'll need a URL. Does the FIA still go after anyone using F1 in their title?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
The FIA seems to have stopped hurrassing people momentarily. At least poo poo like 2017 liveries and cars aren't being aggressively pulled from sim racing sites like last year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Norns posted:Yeah we are all pretty much garbage people Some of us are hot garbage 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
I think McLaren might force Honda to seek outside help.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Norns posted:The FIA seems to have stopped hurrassing people momentarily. At least poo poo like 2017 liveries and cars aren't being aggressively pulled from sim racing sites like last year. Perhaps they've managed to shrug off the "They're STEALING from us somehow" mentality of Bernie and ilk and recognise it for the free advertising and interest that it is. Not everything is a licensing opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
wuffles posted:they only need to be convinced that a more competitive field is also beneficial to their bottom line in the long run, and there's a lot of precedent to point to in the world of sports I googled this, so it its wrong just fill in the right information. In 2016, Ferrari received 192 million from F1. The rest of the teams received 773 mill combined, for a total of 965 million. If the revenues were split evenly across the top 10 teams, Ferrari would instead receive 96.5 mill. In other words, they would lose 95.5 million per year in revenue. Given that Ferrari's total revenue is 3.4 billion for 2016 (car sales, etc) that would amount to ferrari giving up 2.75% of their total corporate revenue. I would be very surprised if they agree to that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
They are likely going to make some special Ferrari agreement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
daslog posted:If the revenues were split evenly across the top 10 teams, Ferrari would instead receive 96.5 mill. No, they would have received 96.5m. The point everyone keeps trying to make, which you repeatedly just brush off, is that long-term they would actually just be getting a smaller share of a much larger revenue pool. This the whole point of Brawn's NFL example. E: Please don't post any more silly poo poo about how you can't possibly fathom getting more revenue out of a wildly popular sport that has been grossly mismanaged for 20 years, it should be obvious to literally everyone that the F1 revenue pool is nowhere near as big as it could be. wicka fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
daslog posted:
Well, if thats the case  if they are short sighted enough to see they can make money by losing a little bonus payment.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. Flesh Croissant fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
daslog posted:I googled this, so it its wrong just fill in the right information. You'd be very surprised because you can't seem to grasp the idea that corporations can look any farther into the future than the current year. You also assume Ferrari has no way of writing down that lost revenue, which is also silly. And to go one step further, just like the last time someone was arguing with you about this, you only look at one side of the equation and go "LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY THEY ARE LOSING THERE'S NO WAY!" That 192 million is only a part of the money Ferrari makes from participating in F1. You assume Liberty is going to walk up to them and ask them to take a 2.75% yearly hit without showing them how they plan to offset those losses over X number of years and eventually have Ferrari making MORE money. You also assume that any change in distribution would be immediate rather than graduated over time toward greater parity (not full equity). And finally, you assume that Ferrari believes the current situation is sustainable indefinitely and don't see that 192 million diminishing rapidly in the future as the F1 field continues to shrink and viewership declines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
wicka posted:No, they would have received 96.5m. The point everyone keeps trying to make, which you repeatedly just brush off, is that long-term they would actually just be getting a smaller share of a much larger revenue pool. This the whole point of Brawn's NFL example. 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.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2017 18:07
|
|