Formula 1 racing is an expensive business, but it has very considerable rewards as well, not least because of the huge sums of money that are given to the teams by the Formula One group in respect of their involvement in the sport. In addition teams can bring in money from sponsors and merchandising and can at the same time use their cars to promote the products associated with the team owners. This is the business model of Red Bull Racing, which is a promotional tool of the Austrian drinks company which should cost less and less with more success as sponsors buy space on the cars, and thus eventually Red Bull will get free advertising. This is not a new model as it was used by Benetton in the 1990s. Long-established teams have worked the model in reverse with the success in racing being used to sell other products. Ferrari, for example, started building cars to pay for the racing, but these days F1 gives Ferrari fantastic publicity without the main company needing to put in much money. McLaren and Williams are following similar strategies, using F1 technology to create new businesses.
In recent years we have seen the arrival in Formula 1 of venture capital. The budgets involved in the sport and the value of the returns are such that adventurous investors have seen an opportunity to make money and have thus provided racers with the cash they need to start or to buy teams. In return for the cash, the venture capitalists take equity in the team, or even own it outright. At the same time as being an interesting investment, F1 provides the investors with entertainment and the opportunity to use the sport for other business purposes, such as B2B deals.
If we look around at the current grid, one can see that Lotus F1 Team is the prime example of this phenomenon. The team was bought cheaply from Renault, which wanted to dump the asset quickly after the disastrous and embarrassing Singapore Scandal in 2009. This meant the Gerard Lopez and his associates were able to not only get the team at almost no cost, but they also got Renault to agree to guarantee some of their debt for a period of time. Once the question of ownership was sorted out, GenII Capital had only to find the running budgets needed to keep the ship afloat, and a little extra for capital investment. This they have managed to do, with one or two white knuckle moments when cash-flow proved to be a problem. Such is the way of the world in venture capital. In the end, however, the investors have either dipped into their own funds, or borrowed money from banks that are willing to pay for such ventures. At the moment Lopez is saying that the team is not for sale, but there was a point around the Indian Grand Prix when there was a potential buyer of 49 percent of the shares on the hook and Lopez was keen to see whether that would be a good exit strategy for GenII. It obviously was not good enough for him and his fellow investors and the fact that he is now saying he is not selling suggests to me that there is a probably a buyer out there and that he is simply pushing up the price…
In the meantime he and his pals have to keep the money rolling in, but with the team’s results improving things are looking up. The team finished fifth in the 2011 and moved up to fourth in 2012 and although this brought only a few million extra in TV money, it attracted the attention of sponsors and that will bring in much more revenue by the time the 2013 season begins.
In addition to all this, Lopez and his partners have a licence to use the Lotus name in F1 for a number of years and if Group Lotus runs into more trouble they may one day get their wish to acquire a road car company, which is an ambition that has they have had for a few years. Group Lotus’s owner Proton still believes that the brand can be revived, despite a disastrous year in 2012 with revenues dwindling and huge liabilities that must be dealt with. The latest plan is to switch the focus to Asia and there is optimistic talk of selling between 3,000 and 4,000 cars in the 2014-2015 financial year. This is more than double what the company was selling in 2011. If that does not work, Proton may seek to dump the business and Lopez will be there with open arms – if the price is right and debts are made to disappear.
Thus, if he can keep all the balls in the air and the team can keep on increasing its value GenII will probably end up in a position where they can cash out at a considerable profit at some point in the short- to mid-term, or they can stay in and use the team to promote their own car company if that idea becomes a reality. Time will tell.
The other example of venture capital in F1 is with the Marussia F1 team, which began with money from Lloyds Development Capital, the private equity arm of the Lloyds TSB Bank. The bank held a majority of the shares in the business but left running of the operation to John Booth and Graeme Lowdon of Manor Motorsport. They used the “commercial firepower” of Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin group to excite interest in the new business and this resulted in Marussia becoming a sponsor. LDC then sold a majority share of the team to Marussia at the end of 2010. The deal meant that LDC did not lose any money (and probably made a profit) but still retains 25 percent of the business, which can be sold at a later date when the team has built up more value.
Many of the other smaller teams have similar ambitions, but their money does not come from investment firms, except in the case of Scuderia Toro Rosso, which is partially funded by the Aabar Group, which owns some shares in the team and uses the team to promote companies that it has in its investment portfolio.
Other teams use private money from their own investors, as is the case with Force India and Caterham.
As I have said on many occasions the business models of F1 would be significantly enhanced if the teams would get together to agree a budget cap so that each operation would generate more profit and thus have more value. This would mean that there would be more buyers… However, the racers in the industry are blind to this. They simply want to spend whatever they have in order to win…
Hello Joe, interesting piece. I was wondering if I could ask you something about busines models, not the teams’ but FOM’s?
Ask away
Joe, do you see a “tipping point” – where the business model is not sustainable? For example, – some form of revenue dries up? Economic conditions……
No, I think revenues will grow, but I think teams would be wise to agree to a budget cap.
If there is an infinite revenue stream why is a cap wise?
Because profit margins increase.
Good stuff, Joe, but I’m afraid the central point is in the last 2 sentences: ” However, the racers in the industry are blind to this. They simply want to spend whatever they have in order to win…”
Most in F1, I guess, are pure racers, and as such (a bit) selfish, as they should, and not so much business men. Hence FOTA split-up, teams not agreeing on the resource restriction agreement or the budget cap, et cetera.
Very well put together Joe. The business model I would like to try and understand is that of Sauber. Where did Peter get his money from to set up a team in the first place ( I realise he required a lot less in the 90′s) and why did he decide to effectively give up part of the team for seemingly no financial gain? My understanding is that the business does turn a profit, but given the lack of “spin off” business’ I struggle to see how.
Peter Sauber built his empire quietly and carefully over a long period of time with partners Mercedes-Benz, Red Bull, Credit Suisse, Petronas and eventually BMW. They all got value for money.
Sauber also has an eye for driving talent which has helped bring the team up constructors wise and hence earning more moeny as well.
Perez, Kobayashi, Massa, Heidfeld (after Mc test driver and a year at Prost), Raikkonen (who nearly didn’t get a license such were his lack of results) all have been in F1 with Sauber, and for the majority because of Peter Sauber in the last 12 years!
and Vettel, if you count the BMW years.
Do We want F1 to be a business first or a sport first. What i mean by that is what is the first priority, winning or profit. If the teams come to an agreement on a budget cap, that means that they think that profits are the first priority and i say that will make the sport poorer (in every other sense then monetary).
I know Joe will say that I am simplifying it and that both priorities can be balanced equally, i hope so too but i can not believe it.
I was under the impression that DRB-HICOM are the owners of Group Lotus with Proton just a distributor company?
Well you were under the wrong impression then…
DRB HICOM “Not considering sale of Group Lotus”
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2012/11/29/business/12385271
???
DRB HICOM own Proton and its subsidiaries (one of which is Group Lotus), after they bought the whole Proton last year they are naturally looking at all that is in the “bag” and sorting what parts are good to keep, which to sell, which to close down to save further cost etc.
They decided that selling Group Lotus is not (at least not at the current time) the best way forward with it.
Isn’t it that DRB own the actual manufacturing business, but Proton own the name and distribution?
I believe that DRB owns the whole of Proton, which owns the whole of Lotus.
Hola,
Do you think Force India will be bought out by venture capitalists?
No. I think Mallya will hold on to as long as he possibly can. It is a great platform for his own self-aggrandisement.
Sorry Joe, last line in the second paragraph. What does B2B mean? It’s not an acronym I’m familiar with, and I am rather simple
Business to Business (B2B)
Thanks
Long-term reader, first-time poster.
I love the business side of F1, and I think there are more innovations in this area than in technical design (which may be wrong from a sporting perspective, but that is another question altogether).
Do you think that more investors in F1 will go for the Williams route of IPO? To me it makes a lot of sense, especially if limited budgets ever come into play- I can see the value of teams increasing significantly. Further, it surprises me that more teams aren’t going down the ‘value-add’ route, and supplementing F1 with complimentary commercial activities. With the knowledge of the engineers within a team, surely there is a lot of innovation to be applied and exploited away from the track?
Thanks for the blog, I find it most insightful!
I think that most teams and their engineers are so totally committed to F1 that they simply do not have the time and energy to start spin-offs. Remember they are constantly looking for 10ths of a second lap time improvements, continually developing new parts during the season while also starting work early in the year on the following year’s car.
Only when some team members step aside from F1 is it possible to start seeing how developments could be turned into commercial ideas. Also note that consumer car electronics, for example, are generally far more advanced, because of the rules, than the F1 equivalent. The first F1 ECUs were ruggedized versions of a Ford production unit.
Only Ron Dennis has managed to create (very) viable new businesses alongside the F1 team – and I believe that some stages of that process when he necessarily took his eye off the ball coincided with slumps on the track. He is also reluctant to fire someone he has hired – his philosophy is that he put them in the wrong job and that there is a right job for everyone once hired. The new businesses often provided a place for the talents of such people inside the company.
But Williams IPO was only to raise some cash to put in Patrick Head’s pocket as a reward for his huge and lengthy contribution to the team. The number of shares floated out of the million declared, was relatively small.
Though apparently the other part of Williams is doing very well. A great pity in my view that the Williams flywheel ERS was not left within the F1 regs as some serious competition and development should have resulted.
Williams must be nervous of the situation in Venezuela/Cuba with Chavez’s inauguration delayed, (which should have happened tomorrow) while the opposition are mounting a legal challenge (though there are the usual legal squirmings regarding temporary vs significant absences) to get him declared in default.
PDVSA which Chavez has regarded as his personal bank is itself in debt and has had to borrow to keep up with all Chavez’s largess schemes designed to make himself popular with the masses.
I had wondered about that too. If Chavez moves on to his eternal Bolivarian reward, it doesn’t strain the imagination too much to think that the new fellow will feel the need to pare back spending and/or purge reminders of Chavez to consolidate his own power — in which case the pipeline of money to Grove could be cut off rather quickly.
Think of the flip side: The new Leader may spend MORE then Chavez in order to establish his own identity as the grantor of all things good and wonderful.
Interesting post, thank.
You do mentions something that I’ve never understood: the idea of using an F1 team to do B2B deals. I don’t understand the role of the F1 team in this, if it’s a deal between 2 third parties (e.g. do different sponsors). How does / would this work?
As an F1 team you have some very high-powered hospitality facilities available to you (at a cost). You invite big targeted players from each country to your event and mix them with people who sponsor you and if they do a deal, you get a slice of the pie. Billions of dollars of business is done in the Paddock Club. CEOs and chairmen like the high flyer atmosphere and the relaxed atmosphere with everyone cheering along the team’s cars. Clever stuff.
Almost like a golf course, but very very much more expensive.
Great piece Joe, as always. The only problem is that Group Lotus is a whole different kettle of headaches for any potential new owner. Decades of under-investment have made it virtually worthless as a car company. Despite the great brand name, even the Chinese won’t touch it, which is saying something…
Do the teams still receive start money or are they paid for the positions they finish each race in?. For example. If a car starts the race but retires after lets say 6 laps does the team get paid anything or is it just a total loss?
Thank you Joe good stuff.I think one of their (Lotus) most clever investments has been in Kimi – who apart from the performance he has posted – also represents an interesting and investable (if that’s a word) personality amongst some of the more media trained of his compatriots (I’m sure he has received loads of training at McLaren but Lewis Hamilton also stands out as different amongst the rest)
I
If F1 is a sport, then the racers are right to spend whatever it takes to win. If it’s a business, then budget caps make sense. I suppose it depends on your point of view. I’m with the racers.
The business and the sport are intrinsically interlinked, there’s no F1 if no-one is being paid to design, build, ship and run cars. But the spend-whatever-it-takes attitude is unstable.
The fear remains that a few backmarkers folding could lead to a degree of contagion down the grid, as it’s inevitably harder to raise sponsor cash if you’re “the worst team in F1″. Such a domino effect, and a thinned out grid, would turn off spectators and with them sponsors and engine manufacturers.
It wasn’t that long ago that BMW, Toyota and Honda all pulled out of F1. But for Peter Sauber and Ross Brawn, the grid could have suddenly looked pretty empty. Sure, we got three new teams, but their original applications for entry were during the Mosley budget cap period (that sketchy bit of 2009 when Max was insisting on imposing a cap at $50M for the following season) and I’ve always wondered how many would have signed up if that rule had never been put on the table.
HRT might not for one, having evidently failed in the non-regulated F1 we’ve still got.
I think ‘spending power’ is (probably) pernicious – and just leads to more and more regulation. Throwing enough money at a problem (60% wind tunnels, clever CFD, simulators etc etc) doesn’t guarantee success, but limits failure to some extent. Best brains, best facilities: every car starts to look and act the same (is there THAT much difference between a Red Bull, a McLaren, a Ferrari etc?) and so ‘them in charge’ introduce more and more rules in some sort of attempt to show that money can’t buy success.
I’m not totally addicted to the ‘Corinthian spirit’ but in the good old days of shortage of cash (I well remember a bloke in a grubby track suit arriving at my office door on a bike, begging for £500 to help run his mate Piers in something I thought he called a Di Tomato!), ingenuity and innovation was the major part of success. We’ll never see another Tyrell P34, a Lotus T88, Brabham BT46B, Lotus 56B, Williams FW14B – and to those interested in the art of design,that’s a shame! ,
Given that we can’t disinvent the money stream – people with dosh will always spend it! – lets get rid of regulation so that a beautifully prepared simple car stands a real chance of competing with a technically adventurous – but unproven one. Just like it was in the good old days!
This is similar to something I’ve been arguing for a while. What we need to do is remove almost all the regulations save for the safety-related ones (survival cell, and so on). After that you introduce just two: 1) no team shall spend more than $60m a year, including but not limited to their pro rata share supplier costs (including engine, tyres, electronics, design consultancies, etc.); 2) No car shall use more than 120 litres of 98 octane pump fuel per race. Cost cap to be increased by inflation and fuel to be reduced by 3% (i.e. about 2 laps’ worth) per annum, in perpetuity.
Of course there would have to be detailed negotiations about where driver salaries and promotional activities fit, and how do you prevent people with suitable sponsors/partners setting up separate companies to sell components or design services to a team at a loss, but that should be the broad framework. Switch the emphasis from micro- to macro-management, let the engineers work their wonders with only cost as a limiting factor, and bring back the elements of gambling and trying something new that you talk about. Let all teams make a profit and ensure a sustainable future by encouraging teams to develop energy saving technologies (however they envisage them, not limited to those prescribed by the FIA) that will trickle down to non-F1 fields, and that can be exploited commercially.
I know, I’m a fantasist. Come the revolution, however, speaking as the new global minister for automobile sport, this is what is happening…
It’s the dream isn’t it? It’d never work, but it’s the dream. Classic problems as discussed ad infinitum, a) very difficult to police a cost-cap; b) favours teams who’ve already made significant capital investment (wind tunnels, test tracks, etc., etc.).
As a general rule, I’d favour a slowly descending cost-cap – $60M isn’t far from inflation adjustments to Max Mosley’s famous $50M budget cap in 2009, which sparked a total fiasco as it was unbelievably far below F1 budgets at the time. I believe Mario Thiessen claimed something like needing to sack two-thirds of his staff to get anywhere near.
John
I sat on FOTA’s financial working group as FD for Marussia and prepared and filed the teams 1st RRA submission. Your spending cap proposal in point 2 above was actually in place at a different financial level and restricted to “F1 Chassis Activity” only. IE, the engine and tyres were not covered by the cap. One of the interesting intricacies is that different teams operate very differently. Manufacturer teams like Williams have in house production facilities and staff whilst teams like Marussia pretty much bought in product and services. For this reason there was an equivalency formula between restricted headcount and spend. For example, teams could trade off € cash spend against headcount. Less headcount more €’s to spend, more headcount less €’s to spend.
2010 was the 1st year of the RRA and in principle is was a good idea, however, it became evident during the course of the season that the limits that had been set were painful and unrealistic for some of the bigger teams, a point that the smaller teams were prepared to accept in return for the agreement having more teeth (penalties). In Singapore 2010 the Team principlals met and signed a heads of terms on a new agreement. This was somewhat vague and us FD’s were left to agree how it would work and the legal framework and drafting around it. HRT never attended the meetings, but the other 11 teams did with myself representing our team. All of the teams apart from one and their co-owned sister team were able to reach a consensus.
It is essential for the long term survival of the sport that it does not become a spending race. If spending is not restricted there will come a day where only two or three teams can afford to compete, and the spectator value of the sport will collapse.
Thanks for your insight into the behind the scenes discussions Mark. Must have been an interesting experience to be FD in an F1 team and at a pivotal time.
Joe, as a very long time fan of Lotus, thank you for the brief update on the Group Lotus situation. Hopefully the company will get some quality management before it all falls apart.
Hm… that is a different question.
You have overlooked a very important word underpinning the F1 biz model: franchise.
They are not really franchises.
Joe, I would very much consider F1 teams franchises in a sporting sense, at least in comparison to the model of NASCAR. F1 teams are invited or accepted into a then-closed championship (and thus required by contract to participate in every race of that season). I can’t theoretically build a car in my garage and show up to a mid-season race in Singapore, for example, and attempt to qualify.
Under NASCAR’s open policy, any team with a rule-conforming car can show up to any race in the championship and attempt to qualify. NASCAR regularly sends teams home who don’t qualify for the race (when the 43 car field is filled). Although there are shoe-in teams that make every race (helped by the owners points qualification rule), they are not true franchises.
One of dictionary.com’s definitions for the word franchise is “the right or license granted by a company to an individual or group to market its products or services in a specific territory”. F1 teams are most certainly franchises, due to the closed membership nature.
Yeah, I know the UK/English legal system (which governs the Concorde) doesn’t have well-developed definitions,or case law, on “franchise”…it’s just my application of the governing regs for U.S. sports leagues.
But the result is the same, i.e. barriers to entry. The FIA restricts the # of entries of the “constructors” and/or “competitors” and if your entry is not accepted you can’t play in their sandbox.
Those who participate see their book values appreciate, often in spite of their performance. Classic example: Jordan sold to Midland for $60 mm, Midland sold to Spyker for $106 mm, Spyker sold to Mallya for $180 mm, and Sahara buying 42% of SFI for $100 mm.
Great work on this piece; especially the detailed examples. I use a Red Bull case study (Foster & Hoyt, 2007) to challenge my sports business students with the dilemma of F1 sponsorship v. ownership, and this posting will be an outstanding supplemental reading. A few of these examples would have been perfect for me to source in an academic piece I composed comparing NASCAR and F1′s use of sponsorship to drive teams’ business models (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1046669X.2012.686860#preview). Thanks for your continued focus on such topics.
How is Caterham F1 team doing financially? (after a disappointing year) will the budget be any higher for the 2013 car? Or is it being held back for the necessary huge outlay for 2014?
No idea.
Seems like there was legs in the Brabham story after all http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/105029 maybe someone heard an inside whisper
I don’t agree. Just because they have a case to control the Brabham name does not mean that they are going to use it. I also know that Bernie, a former Brabham owner, is against reviving the name. His view a few years back was that the Brabham name had been and gone and F1 has moved on.
I read your piece the other day, but I’m not sure which publication you were referring to or how they presented the story. The story for me was that David Brabham was saying the legal case over the naming rights was 98% resolved, rather than Brabham will return.
Clearly David underestimated how close it was to being resolved as 9 days would not be 2% of 3 years. More like 99.9915% close to being resolved – as we now know.
Further, my view on the Brabham to return – was – ‘not any time soon’ if at all.
the plot, as they say, thickens…
interesting.
Clarify please Joe.
Jack Brabham sold the team (and MRD who made the cars) to Ron Tauranac, his long-time business partner, when he retired in 1970. This was subsequently sold to Bernie Ecclestone (did it include MRD?) in about 1972-73.
But the Brabham family appear to have retained the rights to the Brabham name in the context of cars and/or racing cars.
Is that roughly correct?
Could it be that BCE bought the team without acquiring the rights to the Brabham name?
Martin
I have no idea about this stuff. You’d have to ask Bernie
This look complicated, and without reading the legal submissions (more to do in life) I’d want answers to questions like “what rights did Trick think he had to the Brabham name?” and “did Trick purchase the assets of MRD or was he simply setting up a new team using a familiar name?” If the latter is the case then I can see that the German courts took a dim view of what, in British terms, sails very close to “passing off”. After Middlebridge (who bought MRD from Bernie) I don’t know what happened to MRD and its assets (including, presumably, the right to use the Brabham name in racing). It is still listed as a registered company but appears to be dormant, and I have no clue as to its ownership. Brabham Motorsport is an extant company, incorporated in 2008, but without paying my quid I don’t know who the directors are apart from David Brabham.
Trademark law commonly operates in the UK on a “use it or lose it” basis. With “Brabham” not having been used by MRD since 1992 I can see how David Brabham was able to set up a new company using the Brabham name in 2008, especially as he has some legitimate claim to it. However, with this being the case a subsequent motorsport company using the Brabham name in the EU then faces the problems of both the existing MRD use and David Brabham’s new company. I guess Trick didn’t convince the judge that he had any right to use the name that was already in use by at least one, and possibly two (if he didn’t have any link to MRD) other companies.
All guesswork, and back of fag packet supposition, but it’s what makes most sense to me. I’m probably wrong.
Pretty sure that Bernie bought the lot, (or the control of) but if you really need to know, I will have to look it up in Susan Watkins (Professor Sid’s wife) excellent book about Bernie and incidentally the often unbelievable story of F1.
Joe,
Do you know if he thinks the same applies to Lotus?
And am I right to believe that if so, Lopez et al will have been listening carefully to him?
It all sounds very similar to the Sky TV money coming into the Premier League, Lord Sugar advised that 50% be put to one side for investment in the future, but fanatic chairmen just spend it all on pushing up transfer fees and player wages! Money corrupts peoples view in most sports.
Very true. I remember reading Lord Sugar’s account of this in his book ‘The way I see it’. That chapter was hilarious.
>fanatic chairmen
Aka perhaps as people who are familiar with the prisoner’s dilemma.
F1 must be the only form of racing in the world where venture capitalists smell a profit through investing. I can’t think of any VC money in IndyCars; NASCAR may have some.
‘Budget cap’; that’s ‘Parr-esque’!…I’m currently reading ‘The Art of War’.
No, the budget cap was around long before Adam ever appeared. It was first suggested by Richard Parry Jones of Ford about 10 years ago.
Thanks Joe; I stand corrected. Adam’s book is certainly proving to be a thought-provoking at the moment. I’d never really thought much about the F1 business model until I began to read the art of war. It made me realize that the budget cap would make huge financial sense (especially in tough economic times) however, the racers’ red mist………….
>racer’s red mist
I think you meant to write, “Red Bull business model”.
Red Bull aren’t in F1 to make money.
Nor are they in F1 to win a few & lose a few.
They’re in F1 to dominate the sport, as Porsche used to do in sportscar racing, and to achieve an association of their brand with similar values to those Porsche established using the same tactics. If and when they can no longer achieve that, they’ll walk so as not to tarnish their own legacy.
And they’re prepared to spend what it takes to achieve that, as long as it’s less than the marketing payoff for their ludicrously high-margin and lucrative core business.
To be clear – this is a great strategy, very astute, even though its probably not sustainable indefinitely. Doesn’t matter, & they don’t care.
It was proposed by some smart people, but how enforcable do you think it is, Joe?
If an automobile manufacture closely linked to its F1 team (as rumoured) employs a large number of CFD engineers in its Historic racing division, how well is the RRA working, and the budget cap going to work?
Another manufacturer has moved a lagre number of its F1 staff to its road car division and
These things are nowadays entirely enforceable with the forensic accounting of today. In addition if it was written into the rules, teams could not risk breaking the regulations.
I can’t say I know enough about forensic accounting to say whether or not it would catch the flow of information and data. So I’d have to trust that it would.
My worry is that the resources and work are being accounted for in the parent organisation, and the results (data, information) being supplied free of charge to the subsidiary (f1 team) would the accountants see that? If no accounting transaction takes place, would the accountants even see it going on, let alone realise that it was against the rules.
The point about regulations is well made, but would “free” effort from the parent company be banned under the regulations? If one part of the company develops, say rig testing or simulator expertise that it can then pass on to the F1 team, would the regulations compel the team to pay the market rate for that information?
Of course, another means by which the business models of F1 would be that bit more sustainable would be better distribution of the TV money instead of half of it being leeched away to CVC…
Indeed, but that is not going to happen overnight.
The teams get 60% now, and are set to get 63%.
Can you be more explicit? I presume that your figures include the special payments made to certain teams.
Exactly, it’s not just prize money, there’s ‘special payments’ including Ferrari and some others, teams 11 and 12 payments and a few other team related costs that FOM pay for some teams, adds up to 60%.
As far I understand there are no payments for Team 11 in 2013. And no Team 12.
‘Karen’ – I see your posts quite often. Joe obviously trusts your figures. What is your background in F1? Just curious.
Karen is not going to say who she is.
Suffice to say that you can take her figures as being official figures.
I’m intrigued – thanks.
63% of the first dollar gross? (I think not)
I see Bluewaters amended its complaint,now bringing Bambino into the suit as a defendant. Is LeClairRyan going to represent them too? …or do they get their own attorneys? The amended complaint reads as though someone has been talking to Bluewaters.
Getting Kimi also boost the appetite of sponsors………….
LLoreda seems to want to sponsor a Formula 1 Team,,but who and how much?At this exact moment is it still possible to see another entry at the last moment?