Juggling

In my experience in F1, teams that have no visible means of support generally come crashing down after a while. One can only keep the balls in the air for a certain period of time before things start to fall apart. Formula 1 eats money and so those who cannot afford to play soon fall out of the nest. We have seen some spectacular juggling acts over the years, but fortunately it seems that these days there is almost always someone willing to step in and buy an established team, if it has what is needed to do the job properly but has into trouble. The smart folk wait until they find a team that is really on the ropes and then pick it up for next to nothing.

The silly people pay $100 million or more.

There is a clear business plan that will work if a F1 team can be made to be successful on the race track, but it is rare that an outsider understands that a team is best left in the hands of the magicians with odd socks and even odder hairdos. It is the engineers who generate success. All too often the rich come in and think that because they have been successful in one sphere, they can do it in F1 as well and these “masters of the universe”, as Tom Wolfe memorably described such people, usually end up in a bonfire of their own vanity. F1 is a good investment if one has a properly defined exit strategy: a sale or a flotation. If you look at the money that has been made by racing individuals from the sale of shares in Williams, McLaren, Brawn, Sauber, Jordan and others one can see that there is potential to make a fortune. The really smart business plans also have ways in which the teams can be used as promotional tools while they are building in value. The problem is that in order to get to a point where a team has more value, one needs to spend a lot and while one can borrow money things get difficult if the borrowing outstrips the value of a team. In such cases, as we have seen on occasion, debts are turned into equity and someone else comes in and gets a slice of the business. The key question after that is whether they can go on borrowing more and avoid the embarrassment of having to sell up, or whether they decide to get out before they get in about their heads.

As an example, back in the autumn GenII Capital came very close to selling the Lotus F1 Team, even if they will not admit it. The goal then was to find a way to get rid of debts that some believe are in the region of $100 million. The deal did not go through, but we hear that soon afterwards Gerard Lopez was able to find another $35 million in loans to keep the show on the road. When a team does well on the race track there is always more money coming in, not just in larger sums of TV and prize money, but also as a result of new sponsors. Borrowing is fine as long as a company can go on finding people willing to loan money and there are sufficient assets that are available to be pledged. This is the kind of juggling that one is seeing more and more and one has to wonder where it will all end. Lopez was fortunate in that he got the team for next to nothing, with a $30 million loan from Renault to help him on his way, so if he has to sell every penny beyond the debt will be profit and he will still have had three years of free advertising for his company.

Over at Force India, one has to ask similar questions.

But for now the jugglers are all still there, even if the bankers behind HRT have dropped the lot and are now busy wiping egg off their faces…

35 thoughts on “Juggling

  1. I always thought Paul Stoddart ran Minardi in an interesting manner, it was almost as if they weren’t trying to win races/championships, but instead aiming to do just enough stay in F1 and make some reasonable money whilst doing so.

    Maybe this was just my impression, or was it really this cynical?

      1. That always seemed to be the business strategy of Jackie Oliver with Arrows, did he not state that he never wanted to win, just to concentrate on making a profit?

  2. Great building of suspense Joe, I was waiting for the obvious team name for 3 paragraphs, you mentioned a team name I wasn’t expecting and you delivered in the fifth paragraph!

  3. I do love your insights into the chaos behind the shiny public face of F1, Joe.

    How do these guys sleep, I wonder? Not from the point of view of ethics. Just from the sheer complication of their lives.

      1. Is a sponsorship contract considered an asset? If Ferrari contracts with Philip Morris to sell sponsorship space on the car, isn’t there value in that arrangement? Perhaps only Ferrari can command such a deal, but the commercially-inclined would see the car as a mobile ad platform with a global television audience.

  4. Interesting how this relates to pay drivers -v- paid drivers. Lopez was smart enough to bring in Raikkonen, who brought to Lotus 207 points, p 4 WCC, and new sponsors.
    Let’s take the most “successful” pay driver, Pastor Maldonado. His haul of points comes to 45, including a win. I don’t know if Toto voted for or against KR at Williams, but they clearly missed a trick there…

    1. No they didn’t. Maldonado was a guaranteed financial success with the potential to collect prize money. It was a gamble with no risk. Raikkonen was a gamble that paid off, but it might have gone wrong.

  5. And this is one of the major problems with F1. Because of the financial hurdles, it is a tiered sport that is typically dominated by the same teams year after year. Sure, a team can move up or down on occasion, but overall, the the haves stay at the top and the have-nots stay at the bottom.

    I guess this is fine, but in my opinion, the overall “show” would be better if there was more parity and less predictability. How to change this? I don’t know…especially when teams are unwilling to work within a RRA framework.

    I think you’d have to be nuts to try to buy an F1 team. The deck is stacked against you from day one, whether it’s the FIA, Bernie, or the other teams. If you can’t win, and you’ll likely lose money…what’s the point?

  6. With Force India one cannot help wondering if a team of creditor’s representatives are going to arrive from India, or from airports around the world where he owes money, and stake a claim to whatever is saleable. Or does VJ now claim not to own a large part of the team?

      1. jonm has me scratching my head as well . . JSL of course made one time some great dresses and suits, I used to think the suits were very nice, but i’m all done in trying to suss how a French blouse maker meets F1 in any way, let alone Joe .. Anyone got a clue?

        1. doh, typo, YSl, Yves, not my mistake above. Pity in the late 80s / early 90s they splashed his name on anything and everything, because before then, or if you weren’t conned by the age of badge branding of partially wearable sack cloth, you could still find super elegant dress (M or F) from Yves. Not much in similar style now, sadly.

  7. so joe, whats your take on the force india situation?

    epic blog by the way, long time reader first time poster. sorry for poor capitalisation etc im posting from my xbox 360.

  8. Paul Stoddart…..a great guy and missed on the F1 Grid. Joe any chance you could do a blog re – Pauls time in F1?
    Great blog by the way!!

  9. You make team ownership sound relatively simple Joe. How about we get all of the fans together (5m odd in the UK alone) each pay 20 quid and do a Bayern Munich on it? Then we, being fans, put the pressure on the likes of Webbo, JB, Brawn & Newey that, having made their money they could now take up the Fan car (pardon the reference) and make our team a success. The Fan car team gets success, the guys get well paid, the team becomes established and you have a Fan presence in the paddock and a voice in the future of the sport…or am I just daydreaming again?

    1. Still juggling, not a good sign. We’d like a guy like di Resta that brings the money of a Maldonado please. All must be well they still have an F1 team, right?

  10. silly person who overpaid for an F1 Team = Vijay Mallya. In my experience, anyone who insists upon using the Dr. title and is not a Medial Doctor or a University Professor is a…

Leave a reply to Rodger J Cancel reply