The Belgian Grand Prix weekend was pretty much devoid of any real celebrity spectators, with the exception of Sir Richard Branson, if one considers him in such a light. There was, however, a lot of quiet talking going on as Bernie Ecclestone continues to try to nail down a Concorde Agreement, in order to have the financial structure of the sport solid between 2013 and 2020.
If he can do that then the sport will be a lot more stable and presumably the investors can then play games with their shareholdings and make themselves more money. The problem is that the Formula One Group is still trying to find a solution with Mercedes-Benz and with the FIA. All the other parties now seem to have been pinned down and are ready to sign. From what I hear, Ecclestone and FIA President Jean Todt are basically in a financial discussion, but they have very different ideas about how much the FIA should get from the sport. The federation did land around $300 million for the 100-year lease of the commercial rights to the Formula One group, about 10 years ago, but that money was locked into a foundation and the FIA does not get much of it.
The federation has considerable costs and feels that when its commercial rights holder is generating more than $1.1 billion in revenues from broadcasters, promoters and official partners and suppliers, there should be a little more money handed over to the FIA to help it cover its costs. With around half the money going to banks and investors; and the other half going to the teams, the federation is somewhat squeezed in the middle, but it has a significant involvement (being the owner of the sport) and has lots of good causes that need to be funded, notably road safety and environmental initiatives. This is not unreasonable, even if the FIA really has only itself to blame for allowing the commercial rights to have been leased so cheaply.
From what I hear, Todt has been asking for an annual lump sum of around three percent of the revenue, which would suggest a figure of around $40 million. Ecclestone is not interested and is believed to be saying that he will give the FIA one and a half percent, and the federation can get the rest from the teams. That is not really unreasonable given that they are getting about half the revenues. The teams don’t really have much choice but to do what they are told because the FIA owns, makes and polices the rules. Todt is rumoured to have come up with a structure that is designed to be a bit like income tax and he will charge the richer teams more than the smaller ones using the World Championship points as the deciding factor. The exact figures are not clear, but with the FIA looking to generate around $20 million from this exercise, it is logical to suggest that this would boil down to an average of about $900,000 per car. The current entry fee is about a third of that.
Using the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 points system and working on around 20 races a year this means that there are 2,020 points available each year and to get $20 million, each point would have to generate something like $9,900. The problem is that when one considers that last year’s Constructors’ Champion Red Bull Racing scored 650 points, that would translate into an entry fee of around $6.4 million. Logically those teams that have scored no points would have to pay a basic figure in the hundreds of thousands.
This taxation system is not a bad idea, but obviously the big teams don’t like it. Some of them are also less than happy about the new 2014 engine regulations as they expect their engine bills to increase significantly as well, because of the federation’s desire to give the sport more industry relevance. This means that some teams may have to find as much an extra $10 million of budget in 2014. There is a sound argument that this is a good incentive for them to come up with cost-cutting ideas, but getting all the teams to agree to radical cost-cutting is very difficult because the big teams want to continue to enjoy budgetary advantages.
The hike in engine costs is also a good incentive to get the middle-ranking teams to get out there and either negotiate better deals with the existing engine suppliers, or find new automobile companies to come in and help them with their bills, while at the same time generating useful technology that the firms can then direct back into their road cars, in addition to the publicity value that F1 provides. The problem with this is that some car companies do not like F1′s image at the moment.
In any case, even if a project was agreed today, it would be 2017 or 2018 before any engines would likely appear from new manufacturers.
Maybe the FIA would need less money if it did less – less government less tax.
FIA is an international body for automobile clubs and thus for motorists. It’s not just about motor racing. They have some very worthwhile programs, such as NCAP, with the approval of the member clubs.
Joe, Are Mercedes any closer to signing up with Bernie?
Very, very interesting stuff.
I feel like I’m probably about to write words so obvious you left them unsaid as a given……..these teams don’t “have to come up with and extra $10m in 2014″ because of the engine regulations. Emphasis on the word “have”. That’s a choice. They could very well chose to reduce budget elsewhere to the tune of that $10m, perhaps over more than one year and I’m sure that’s what many of the smaller teams will be forced to do.
No, it’s their choice and ultimately if they choose to do so it’s because they CAN and if they can (if they have that kind of money to spend) then they surely will and were it not this then they would have found some other way to spend $10m to maintain their competitive advantage.
There is just no credibility in their complaints on this topic to my mind.
Joe,
Why do you think the FIA is located just next to Hotel Crillon, which is among the most expensive property in France? Could they not move to a place more similar to their Geneva offices which are grey and unshiny? Could you also elaborate on why the FIA is not getting more nowadays? How is it possible that the FIA agreed to their share in the last agreement and now they say it’s not enough?
Moreover, I just can’t understand why the engine rules were changed with the engine maker’s acceptance, and now it looks as if there are still many problems unresolved. All this never ending secretive Concorde tinkering is a bit unnerving. But then it’s always the way it was.
The corporate headquarters of any organisation is symbolic of its stature. It provides a certain gravitas. The Paris office (which is not the largest FIA office) is a part of the Automobile Club de France building and the two organisations overlap inside, although they have different entrances. The largest FIA office is round the corner from Geneva airport.
I was always bound by my late biz partner’s attitude: if you are any good, make sure you can stick at it, and that went down to policy to not even print business cards. We did pretty well, considering unimpressive digs. Stay lean.
But older now, I see more the benefit of a classy place to meet. I don’t think it’s ego, but it depends on the level of people you deal with. Or maybe simply seeking some comfort. If you operate in a political arena in any way, that front door, and that address, mean a lot.
Say you’re in London, and of course, you may take lunch at The Goring. Fine, but some people do not want to be seen, or overheard. Having a private entrance or other privacy does seem to be important to a echelon which I find difficult to level with, yet understand better as I grow up.
The first time I recognised a business hero was Andy Grove, the man who crated the modern INtel company, who sat at a normal desk on his floor. His books, High Output Management, and Only the Paranoid Survive are classics. A very personal view of his life as a refugee, Swimming Across: A Memoir, might better describe why he was happy at any desk, getting on with it.
So, I am conflicted as to flash addresses, but note the impression they can give.
The FIA have a great address, INtel have a imposing campus. Is that really so different, on the impression stakes?
A few years back, I saw a property for sale, sorry I forget the address, a block or so away from Place de Concorde, and fell in love with it. It was vast, in desperate need of repair, but came replete with conservatory ceilings and even a garden.
I think that was the only time I became jealous we simply had nothing like the money to acquire such a property. (Not least because EU law allows a special kind of firm that can be taxed where you are familiar, yet head-quartered elsewhere, so in my dreams, this was not forsaking my home, or being at the mercy of yet unfamiliar company regulations.)
Simple reason, apart from the beauty of the interiors, was that staff react positively to good environments. Usually. Of the few companies I worked for before striking out on my own, the company gained several floors in a prominent city tower. When we weren’t looking out of the window, some contingencies in middle management thought they had made it, became arrogant.
I think there is a deep connexion between social culture at work, and the built environment around them. But as for what very modern, usually web and design companies, do to their buildings, I am suspect the childish extremism is but a fad driven by the likelihood that programmer and serious geek saypes may not always have grown in a linear fashion.
But the validity in the anti posh address argument, is they are usually acquired by the wrong people, for the wrong reasons. Put a arrogant self obsessed manager into a plush new office, and not much good will happen. Some of the buildings I was taught in simply had grace, but were not furbished as a loonie high end hotelier would, for practical reasons. However I am convinced that for who is successful, being in a great building over excites the false creatures of this world, and relaxes the genuine characters. It is all down to the atmosphere created from the top.
Sorry, I could go on forever about architecture and psychology of its effects on inhabitants and visitors, but there is no direct connexion between address, posh offices, and what goes on there.
At least I have the contextual opportunity, long awaited, to recommend this, a superb documentary about Chicago’s Loop, and in it you will have much time to both enjoy, and contemplate how little has changed since the first real revolutions in modern building. It’s film – length, but free to watch, and beautifully done:
http://interactive.wttw.com/loop/video
(let it carry on, as it’s presented in parts, so you just click or wait for the next segment)
the whole new engines farce is just laughable in the context of saving money.
and as for relevance to road cars, honestly, who gives a stuff?
Ferrari’s flagship car is a V12, as is Aston’s, Lamborgini, etc etc. yet F1 will be poxy V6′s
Nothing like living with the future in mind.
You got me there, Joe, because there is often nothing but death in living in the past, and yet so much of study of human nature says we hold on to what we already know. There’s a word for this which behavioural shrinks use. But who reads here can easily reckon with e.g. credit rating agencies, who try to predict the future from the past.
The very moment we are thinking, passes into our pasts, and yet there are admonishments such as “who forgets the past is condemned to relive it” and we may never find *which* past to watch out for, unless we press on, precisely because we may not try enough, enough variety, test the axioms of existence.
All our culture make a memorial of the past, from birthdays, to anniversaries, to genuine tributes such as statues to great men. That totemic idolatry is essential that generations may orient themselves, a abaondoned child may learn from a library, but is it important to go on ahead, so do we need ritual passages from degrees to coming of age ceremonies, that idealise, encapsulate private pasts, or should we have instead ceremonies for unravelling and undoing our memories, so that fresh thought may be introduced?
The philosophy has been, in engineering, of iterative improvements. Radical thoughts are only just becoming prevalent as who knows how computers can be of use, to experiment with outlying possibilities as ever decreasing cost.
I am thinking now of who woes that F1 would sound terrible as electric, but against that see Audi’s 24hrs or Truth docu (search, it’s free) and the transmission alone creates a fantastic sound. They built a near silent diesel engine, not a electric, and I cannot believe anyone of my gen, maybe a little too young for it all, but exposed to SciFi comics, cannot appreciate that is neither a dull sound, nor uncool. It sounds modern. F1 seems to have so little recognition – anecdotally – with the youngsters I meet.
Somehow I feel that there has been so little development in decades. We have top tellies (to consume Fox news LOL) we have super fast internet (to consume, what, ahem, naughty pics are the majority of traffic) and yet if you look at human architecture, are we far advanced? I jest, but do see the link on Chigago, once again, below.
We need the memories, the history. Could any bunch of feted geeks land on a island and create a tiniest fraction of what we have?
But however much we need to learn, by necessity fro the past, what is it with this fear of the future?
Do you feel that way when you meet a new girl and things click?
Can we not think of it that way, keep F1 in a new mode, perpetually?
Why not permit again banned expensive materials? We have supposed budget caps. A new team might discover a edge there, even within budget.
For all the chops and changes this season, attributed commonly to tires, that seems to me to be a programme of setup management, not development. We just threw in some new variables, not pure car design improvement (though I admit that adapting to wearing tires may have road car uses) and although regs and rulings are, like law to a extent retrospective, what I want to see is faster innovation, testing back, new teams, and – you know what or who I mean – far stronger enforcement of who is safe on track.
I found this season actually rather dull, blaming the commentary and presentation initially, but I think end of day, I find it dull because I am waiting for change. Maybe JT wants that also. I have a feeling he is holding out for a lot more than some cash, but the means to shake the game a bit. The so called competition for new entrants sticks in my craw, and is there a angle technologically, other than financially, for new teams to play.
I reckon there is a genuinely interesting clash between the CA and FIA regs, and people are thinking how to truly change how F1 works. Having a V12 or W16, or V8 or V6 or turbo V4 is not cool on its own. Having teams, as opposed to major company sized engineering outfits, make a driver have a edge, now that is cool. But I feel we are subordinated to artificiality, drivers essentially re learning their cars with every compound, and so despite the variety, there is less way that a rookie can start to command his car. Who is really coming from the back of the grid, consistently?
Here we go again on that Chicago vid (high def) of how the Loop was the transformation of the architecture. What you see is a lot of back and forward, but also a unerring drive to change. I think it’s a attitude F1 should embrace, creative destruction and all. This leads me to think why teams have any right, or any company any right, to be protected from competition by artificial means, but another day for that. Link is: http://interactive.wttw.com/loop/video
But Bentley (i.e. VAG – now the largest automotive manufacturer in the world) is scrapping their V12 and moving to V8s!
I doubt FIA are thinking of the likes of Aston Martin as an engine supplier. The two most successful suppliers to F1 have been Ford and Renault, and I should think F1 would very much like another such to come along. That sort of manufacturer is going to come along because they see a chance to feed back some of their F1 program into road cars, to use F1 to showcase their ERS technology and/or to get lots of publicity.
Small V6s are not that new to F1 really. Honda, TAG and Ferrari (maybe Renault) ran that configuration in the 80s.
That poses a good question, I think. Why are Honda and Ford (historically strong suppliers of F1 engines) not (as far I know) interested?
The new engine concept is probably the most advanced, technology wise, engine concept in production at the moment. And making an engine more relevant to normal cars is off course not about Ferrari’s and Aston Martin’s, it’s about the VW’s, Mercedes’s, Toyota’s, Peugeot’s, etc. And for those type of cars having an engine that can produce the same horse power with half the fuel flow rate is equivalent to gold (especially if you keep in mind that the environment protection rules will only get more stringent for the average type of car).
Just from an ideological point of view those are very valid reasons to change the engine regulations for F1. Remember that in the 80′s the engine regulations were changed in such away that suddenly it was possible for (almost) every team to run with it’s own engine supplier just because the engine regulations were attractive for engine builders to build an engine for. I wouldn’t be surprised if by 2016/2018 we see companies like Toyota, Honda and maybe even VW supply engines again just because they can get some important knowledge out of building such an engine (and off course F1 is still a good global marketing platform).
That was then; this is now:
“C/D reports that the supercharged V6 comes from the group that is heading up the development of Ferrari’s new 1.6-liter turbocharged six for use in future Formula One racers. This new 420-hp engine is said to be about 30 percent more efficient than the V8 currently found in the Ferrari California. The Quattroporte itself is tipped to be about 450 pounds lighter than its predecessor, which should also help in the efficiency department.”
In earlier days, even the Dino had V6 engines, not V12.
Just let the free market (is there really such a thing anymore) go where it will. The rich teams will keep getting richer, the poor will keep getting poorer until the market – F1 – collapses. As in nature, it will start up and grow all over again…
“(is there really such a thing anymore)”
There never has been such a thing. It’s an abstract idea, not reality. Never has been, never will be. But those who want something for themselves will promise it to you…
While they flash their teeth and wave, the other hand is being paid…
(and a gold star for anyone who knows where that’s from…)
Joe, you say that the teams don’t have much choice but to accept the FIA’s request but the FIA were told to keep their noses out of the commercial side of F1 a while back. So surely they don’t have a leg to stand on?
FIA needs to distance themselves from all the touchy feely bullshine. There’re enough agencies in government/local government around the world sucking on the road safety and environmental tit. Loose the programmes = loose the advisors; heaps saved in salaries and expenses already. Lets go racing!
Why does one get the feeling that the 100 year lease for commercial rights that was previously agreed to is going to be challenged in court sooner rather than later. In today’s corporate world a team of lawyers could find a basis to re-open the original agreement and renegotiate something more equitable with the risk being to over turn the agreement completely. How many judges would be sympathetic to Mr E. when viewing the numbers?
It will not be challenged in court
Hi Joe, thanks for an extremely interesting read (as always)! Is there any reliable news on the calendar for 2013 and/or beyond? Will New Jersey happen next year (and at all)? Is Argentina still on the map? Will there be two races in Spain – and what about the Nürburgring?
I believe that New Jersey will happen. Argentina seems to have disappeared. I doubt there will be two races in Spain and I am fairly sure we will be at the Ring.
I was very surprised to see Branson at Spa in all the team gear. Firstly, it was Spa which is hardly the Singapore/Monaco of the glamour “to be seen” circuit, and also his relationship with Marussia. I’d have thought he would have totally cut his ties rather than still being associated.
Any thoughts/talk going around the paddock Joe?
Branson is seen as someone who likes the publicity that F1 provides.
Maybe Branson understands that appearing at one of the best driving circuits in the world looks better to the fans than appearing amongst all the significantly richer Middle Eastern or Asian investors at one of the more showy events.
Branson knows how to spend money frugally.
Perhaps the funding side needs a boost and he is out spruiking for additional capital? The team’s on track performance has hardly been attractive to sponsors and Branson is known for doing deals which involves very little of his own money and lots of other people’s in return for his brand.
Errrr….which team gear?
No scrub that……..he’d be jumping aboard Caterham now with their Airbus tie up. Silly me.
Wouldn’t a championship point ‘tax’mean any small team that lucked into a few points could feasibly bankrupt itself by outperforming though? Or would the revenues from scoring each year outweigh the tax by enough?
Joe, do you know who decided to replace the post-race interview with driver comments on the podium? Do you know what it might take to overrule them?
I have no problem whatsoever with the having the podium drivers speak to the crowd. That’s perfectly fine with me. What’s not fine is pretending that is any approximation of an interview or press conference or anything of the sort. Replacing one with the other was just a terrible idea.
On the podium, the drivers have to rah-rah with the crowd a bit… and they haven’t had a chance to catch their breath properly, much less calm down enough to be in any condition to any questions.
Any chance of getting the post-race sit-down session back?
We still get the post-race sit downs.
Oh dear… that means SpeedTV is up to no good…
(Thanks for the quick response.)
There’s a difference between the press conference we get at the circuit and the ‘press conference’ that used to be shown straight after qaulies/the race, which was a quickie put together for the world TV feeds. That TV unliateral bit is what has been replaced by the podium interviews.
I don’t know about Speed, but in the UK Sky now show the unilats *plus* the full press conference the journos get, which runs for about half an hour.
Uh…totally not cool. We only get the podium interview on Speed and that is it. And seriously… the new podium interview format is just plain uncomfortable.
Kate,
Thanks for that. No way for us to know what goes on.
I had wrongly assumed that we had been seeing an abbreviated version of the actual press conference. I suppose I thought this because press quotes were sometime taken verbatim from the bits we got to see.
If F1 would simply make the entire press conference available online, that would completely solve my problem. Plus, it would bring fans to F1′s web site. (I assume F1 management views attracting fans to their site as a good thing… not that this has been obvious to date.)
Any chance of that happening? (Since the real press conference is not otherwise available to us, I assume F1 could provide video of it to us online without violating whatever deal they have with SpeedTV and other TV providers.)
Good point ! If F1 had a decent media youtube channel or jsut on their own website, it would be great. Perhaps F1 could be brought kicking and screaming into this millenium ?
It’s just a shame nobody seems to want to show them (I haven’t watched F1 on Sky lately in the UK. The Beeb definitely aren’t carrying the press conferences at the moment, but that may be a schedule thing).
The broadcasters wanted the new format to try and hold on to viewers after the flag had dropped.
The AI drops sharply when the post race interviews eventually got underway, it’s quite a bit higher for the podium chat, viewers seem to like the crowd cheering certain comments, although they don’t seem to like the stilted interviewers
The concept is not stupid. The execution is poor. It probably needs a single interviewer at all races – and someone who “gets” broadcasting, without being one of those shrieky commentator types.
I don’t know how much it has to do with choice of interviewers. Even with somebody who knows that business, I can’t imagine that a podium setting allows for much in the way of Q&A. IMO, the main problem is that a podium setting is simply not conducive for a Q&A session. This is especially so given that the drivers haven’t had a chance to catch their breath yet.
I think it’s fine for the crowd to see a famous retired driver having a few words with the podium drivers (if it wasn’t so painfully awkward). The paying customers certainly deserve a bit of attention. But, while someone in the business would no doubt make it less awkward, that won’t fix the problem of podium chit-chat being a poor substitute for a Q&A session.
Not that the previous short version was especially great, but at least it was something. Now, we get a very awkward equivalent of nothing. The net effect is to remove the tiny window we had into the drivers’ experience of the race.
I’d think Bernie & Company could get somebody who has a clue about media to sort this out ahead of time. Instead, it looks like somebody who doesn’t know beans about it decided to “improve” things without any real thought or care being devoted to it at all.
Perhaps they’re just reviewing viewing numbers without being bothered about the quality of what they’re doing. For example, I couldn’t turn my attention away from the train wreck that Jacky Ickx was on the podium… but that doesn’t mean it was any good. It wasn’t. It was bad. (I remember him as a driver, and am predisposed to appreciate his appearance. It’s not that I don’t like the guy, it’s just that it was downright terrible.)
That’s no way to talk about Jacky Ickx, Joe
I agree though.
Talking of F1 podiums, I am watching the paralympic cycling from Brands Hatch (online, sadly) as I type. Funny to see bikes whizzing down paddock hill bend ! Hoping Sandro Zanardi will be on later !
A short video here, about Alex:
http://paralympics.channel4.com/video/key-moments/videoid=1236031/index.html#from-f1-to-hand-cycling-alex-zanardi-shares-his-story
This.
I love having the interviews conducted by really great racing drivers, people the guys on the podium have real respect for. And Ickx seemed to get more out of the drivers because of it. But his English just wasn’t good enough for the task.
I know that sounds harsh and anglocentric, and I feel sad to be saying it, but there it is. I’d be wrapped to hear him interview a Francophone driver in French, even if I only understood the odd word. It would be worth it for the insights after they were translated, and there’d be richness in the tone and non- verbals. But asking him to interview in English just didn’t quite come offf.
karen,
Are more tv-viewers watching the on-podium activities now that the “interviews” are included than watched the on-podium activities before? Wouldn’t that be the appropriate comparison?
@RShack
Yes.
Also more people are watching the interviews due to the fact they happen sooner after the end of the race. The AI is a bit higher than for the traditional post race interviews too.
I find them rather uncomfortable viewing however.
karen,
Thanks for that.
Two questions…
1. What’s an approx breakdown of how many TV viewers are allowed to see the full post-race press conference. (I certainly don’t expect you to provide an account for each of eleventy-seven nations… but maybe a rough guess about yes vs. no?)
2. If SpeedTV wanted to put the full press conference on their web site, would they be permitted to do so?
Jacky Ickx wasn’t that bad this week though.
And I like having the drivers speak shorter after the race, when the adrenalin is still flowing freely.
The podium interviews wouldn’t be so awful if the questions weren’t asked by an expensively-tanned, excruciatingly-trousered retired driver who is aware that this is his first and last opportunity to be on television in front of billions of people.
They should either have a journalist asking the questions, or if they really don’t want the unilaterals to be challenging, it would be perfectly adequate and a lot faster to have a sock puppet saying “[P1], a great drive, your thoughts on today? [P2], not quite the result you wanted… [P3], tell us about your race. And now a word in your own languages.”
“excruciatingly-trousered”
May I borrow that?
Any further behind the scenes rumblings with regards to Bernie’s accidental comment to the BBC about Schumacher retiring?
Could it be related to Mercedes indecision or is Bernie just trying to out-PR the company into signing the CA?
Bernie does nothing by accident
Joe do you think Schumacher is retiring? or just bernie playing games
The latter
I find it sad that the commercial rights owners representative has to resort to playing games. How unprofessional, imo.
I’m not sure that the Bernard (may his camels prosper) does much else besides playing games.
Since it seems to be working out reasonably well for him, and he hasn’t yet jacked it in and gone back to a nice steady day job, I’m disinclined to share your opinion of his professionalism.
Maybe so, but he almost certainly tried to bail when called out on it. Interesting times!
If the other share-outs are based on team position rather than points, then could we potentially see dominant teams practically not turn up to the last race or two if they’ve already mathematically won to save a few quid on their entry fee for the following year?
No, because they agree to compete in all events when they sign the Concorde Agreement. The basis of the success of F1 is that a promoter knows exactly what he is going to get and so can sell it to the public much more easily than in the old days when one never knew which teams would show up.
I presume the teams could just retire their cars a couple of laps from the end. Question becomes whether the money saved is worth the negative publicity.
Interesting stuff. Not – being an expert on this subject matter (F1) however it would make sense to me that there would be provisions to break the 100 year lease.
If not – then can you share with us the “logic” of granting this lease and who from the FIA agreed to it?
The 100 deal is a contract between the FIA and the Formula One Group. We do not know any of the details of that agreement as it is considered to be private.
The FIA Senate agreed the deal at the time, with FIA President Max Mosley keen for it to happen. As to whether it was a good deal is another matter. What it did do was to give the FIA a stable and documented right to control global motorsport, recognised by the EU. It gave them money for good works outside the sport, although this was controlled by the FIA Foundation. And I would guess that the justification would include the argument that that was the money that Bernie was offering and there were no other players in town with that kind of cash. If there had been then the FIA should have got more.
Yeah but a 100 yr term? A former FIA president reputed to be friendly with Mr E., agreeing to a sweetheart deal. A future disgruntled FIA could possibly want to review what appears to be an extremely short sighted position the previous administration has committed the organization to, and may have grounds for doing so (especially if Mr E gets prosecuted by Germans or Tax authorities damaging his reputation) Food for thought.
Would the FIA be able to raise the funds to buy out CVC in much the same way you’ve suggested that the teams should?
I doubt it
Thanks. Appreciate the response. Hopefully, I will catch your presentation in New Jersey next year.
Will the 40M to FIA get us a permanent team of professional stewards ( rather than current bunch of amateurs nominated by the local federation at the race venue), F1 commissioner ( something that Jean had promised with his son Schumacher in mind, before his election) and last but not least, competent Race director, replacing Charlie Whiting. Charlie has more often than shown inconsistencies and his overall job description is very very vague ( race direction, new track inspection, regulation interpretation and myriad of things, all of which he hashes up, leaving FIA to make up excuses on the go, like Spa’08)
If indeed F1 is marketed as “pinnacle” of motor sports, FIA/FOM better invest in making it run like a professional unit.
PS – And please ask Charlie to take his buddy Herbie Blosch as he leaves. Just because these guys worked for Bernie/Max in the Mesozoic era (and probably know some dirty secrets of Bernie/ Max and others in F1 club) doesn’t mean F1 and fans have to put up with them forever.
Read my other comments about stewarding and you should form a slightly more reasoned argument.