Thinking the unthinkable

Bernie Ecclestone is the man who is credited with making Formula 1 what it is today. That is very true. Obviously the teams and drivers all played their roles – and the FIA, and the media. But it was Bernie who banged heads together and made things happen. If it had been left to others there would still be arguments going on now – and F1 would probably be as popular as hovercraft racing.

It must also be said that Ecclestone took advantage of the sport. He grabbed control of the commercial rights, with the assistance of Max Mosley, because others did not have the balls or the nous to see the potential. He turned F1 into a money-making machine. This was good for him, good for his investors, good enough for the teams, but it was not quite as good for the fans. He made a lot of people into millionaires, some even deserved it. But the fans paid… or got fed up and left.

Bernie never worried much about the fans. As long as there were promoters to pay the fees and TV companies willing to foot the bill, it did not much matter whether the grandstands were filled or not. He always said that empty grandstands were the fault of the race promoters. He did not care about merchandising. He was not “a teeshirt salesman”.

Race fees grew so much that no promoter could break even if they relied solely on the grandstand tickets sold. Those who pushed up ticket prices to try to balance the books were doing it wrong. The way forward was to get the local authorities to pay. They were the ones who gained most from races, but they were never keen on sinking public money into a what was seen as a rich sport. Offer these people an Olympic Games or a soccer World Cup and they would sell the family silver (and their mothers) to get one. This annoyed Bernie, and rightly so, because some would argue that F1 is far better way to promote a city or a region than a one-off two weeks of Olympic action. It is an interesting argument. A Grand Prix happens each year and so keeps the city/region in the spotlight, an Olympic Games is instant history, but it fades quickly.

Bernie was always a fast-mover. He did deals and moved on, and on, and on. He feathered his own nest along the way, but things got complicated when he did a deal with a bunch of over-enthusiastic Germans called EM.TV. They got their sums wrong and were swallowed by a bigger empire called Kirch. Leo Kirch also got it wrong and so F1 ended up being owned by a bunch of banks. That was no good at all. Banks generally lack imagination and entrepreneurial flair. Ecclestone worked a deal to win back control – the deal that is now being closely examined in Bavaria – and since he did that things have been pretty stable. Too much money leaves the sport, bound for the be-suited wunderkinds that Bernie had to jump into bed with to wrest control of the sport from the bankers. The suits have more or less let him do as he pleases, but as the Bavarian problem has loomed larger, they have begun to look at themselves in the magic mirror and the reply to the question of “who is fairest of them all?” is not “You are.” That has worried them. Ecclestone is not the Snow White that once he was and, although they would never admit it, they are now looking for a new princess. Bernie stood tall, but is there a replacement amongst the dwarfs in F1?

Although the troubles in Bavaria are foremost in their minds, the suits at CVC know that at some point they are going to have to deal with the problem. Having a CEO with 82 years to his name is not a situation that encourages longterm thinking… They do not really care, but only up to a point. A financier is a financier. Money always comes first and if they feel that the money supply is threatened then they will act. There have been hints for some time that CVC has been casting around for future CEOs for the Formula One group. Bernie Ecclestone is unique, so it is pointless trying to find someone to fill those boots, but who is say that the same boots must be filled?

A CEO needs only to have the charisma to control the divisions in a corporation. The divisional heads need to be the right people, but they must kowtow to the boss. There is no reason why a second superman needs to be found.

I don’t play golf with the CVC types, and I don’t know any journalist who does, but what I do know is that the time is coming when they have to face the mirror again. CVC wants to look solid and brilliant to the pension fund managers who give them money, and thus one can see them thinking that change is a good idea. From a financier’s viewpoint, it would be better to have Ecclestone step aside graciously before any potential trouble comes from Bavaria. That looks like good estate-planning, as opposed to post-crisis hand-to-mouthing.

It really all depends on whether they think that things will go bad in Bavaria.

Read Full Post »

Scrapping engine rules

There are some stories floating about today which suggest that the new engine regulations in 2014 will be scrapped. These come from a journalist who is famously known to parrot everything Bernie Ecclestone says without ever questioning it.

The story raises a number of interesting points. At the moment, Bernie Ecclestone does not make the rules in Formula 1. The right to do that belongs to the FIA. Ecclestone would like to be in a position to write the rules, but thus far he has only leased the commercial rights to the sport. If the FIA gives up its right to create and police the rules, the federation will become completely irrelevant to the sport and F1 will become entirely self-sufficient. It is possible that the federation might choose to sell those rights, but this would stir up a great deal of trouble amongst the membership because F1 offers the FIA the highest visibility in any of its activities, as can be seen from the fact that the post-qualifying background is all about the FIA’s road safety campaigns. Selling control of the sport would be akin to selling the family silver.

Former FIA President Max Mosley did that somewhat when he let Ecclestone have the commercial rights for a century, for what was a nominal sum of money. The purpose of that deal was to cement the FIA’s right to control the sport and for that right to be recognised by others and it provided sufficient finance to set up a foundation to do good works. That might not be seen to have been sufficient cash nowadays, but at the time it seemed like a lot of money. There is no question that current FIA President Jean Todt wants to get some more money from F1 – which is only sensible – but it would be a wildly radical step for him to sell the right to make the rules. Todt has not shown much desire to do anything radical in the course of his presidency, preferring to avoid conflict where possible and to make changes gradually. He has elections coming up a year from now and the last thing he needs at the moment is controversy.

The second point worth considering is that at least three motor manufacturers (and one independent operation) have invested hundreds of millions in designing engines for the new rules. They are not going to want to throw this money away, and while they might worry that they do not have as good engines as their rivals, they all know that the new regulations are what the car industry wants to see from F1. Ecclestone is focussed on the commercial side of the sport. He makes money, but the longterm future of the sport is not really served by maintaining engines that have no relevance in terms of modern technology, and that cannot be significantly developed. Although car manufacturers may gripe at the costs involved, they also know that the new rules should lead to technology that will be useful for the industry – and development that will outstrip the normal plodding pace of the automobile industry. The fastest ways to develop new automotive technologies are by going to war or by getting involved in motor racing and, with cost-effectiveness a vital element in the modern automotive world, manufacturers want new ideas and engineers who will make them happen. There is a clear argument that other manufacturers might become involved in F1 once they see that sort of things being developed. There are also suggestions that some of them are standing back until the management of the sport is changed, although no-one is ever going to say that out loud.

For the F1 teams, there are obviously some who think that the new engines will be too expensive. These teams might be accused of having a lack of imagination. When a new formula is created, there are opportunities as well. Teams that are competitive or close to being competitive, have the opportunity to go out there and convince car companies that F1 is the right place to develop their future powertrains. Thus, the likes of McLaren, Red Bull, Lotus, Sauber, Williams and Force India should really be beating a path to one car manufacturer after another, explaining the value of the future F1 and trying to get manufacturer deals of their own, rather than sitting in queues as customers of Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault. There are still plenty of car manufacturers in the world and they are all constantly investing in new technology and so it is down to the teams to sell themselves and the sport. This is the pattern that has been seen over and over in the history of F1 and it was what Bernie Ecclestone tried to do with Alfa Romeo when he was a team owner. One thing that is guaranteed is that, if the old rules are maintained, there will be no new car manufacturers in F1.

New manufacturers will bring more money to the sport and, of course, things would be a lot better for all concerned if more than half the money generated were not being handed over to men in suits with no interetst, let alone passion for the sport – beyond its money-generating potential. The man who put this structure together is therefore perhaps not the right man to preach on the subject of needing to keep down costs. If the money coming into the sport was actually staying in the sport, then no-one would have any problems.

Good for Bernie for having the nous to do such deals, but making yourself and your pals rich does not mean that you will be remembered fondly by those who love the sport and feel it is being damaged by such exploitation.

The other element that needs to be considered by the automotive industry is the fact that the supply of engineers in the western world is drying up. A recent report by Britain’s Royal Academy of Engineering says that the UK needs to increase the number of science, technology, engineering and maths graduates by as much as 50 percent if the country is to avoid slipping down the international innovation league tables. The problem is the same across Europe. In the UK some 23,000 engineers are graduating every year. But India is producing eight times that number, and China 20 times as many. One thing that would help European automobile manufacturers is a little bit more inspiration for youngsters.

Back in the 1960s and 1970s there were millions of children inspired by NASA’s space programme and by Concorde. These days there are no such thrilling projects and a ground-breaking relevant Formula 1 World Championship would be a good way to improve that situation. Plodding along using the existing machinery may help the Formula One group produce solid profits, but there is always the chance that a more ambitious approach would produce better results.

It all boils down to the same old discussion about sport versus entertainment. F1 has been chasing the entertainment route for more than 20 years and has done very well. But the signs are that such success is in the past, because the younger generations are not inspired by (or even vaguely interested in) Formula 1, which means that the business needs a rethink and going back to its roots might be a better way to move forward, while at the same time embracing new technologies to engage with fans around the world.

Read Full Post »

Some hope for young Brazilians

Eike Batista is Brazil’s richest man. He is a controversial figure, who has had many ups and downs in business. His net worth is reckoned to have been as high as $34.5 billion, but the latest estimate is that he is worth $20,4 billion after recent losses in the value of the shares of the six publicly-traded companies that he controls. It is still a vast amount of money, but his stated aim of overtaking Carlos Slim to become the world’s richest man by 2015 seems a little far-fetched. Slim is reckoned to be worth $69 billion. Batista is involved in Formula 1 as a backer of Bruno Senna at Williams. The team has the support of OGX, the largest independent company for the exploration and production of oil and natural gas in Latin America. In recent years he has diversified into many other ventures, including real estate, high technology and sports management. The 55-year-old, a former powerboat racer, has recently announced an interesting new deal with rising Brazilian football star Neymar. The 20-year-old has signed over the control of his career and his image rights (for life) to Batista’s Talent IMX company.

“With IMX Talent we will develop the careers of some of Brazil’s biggest sporting icons and discover more talents,” Batista said.

Neymar joins a number of other rising stars in the IMX Talent portfolio, including Olympic long jump gold medallist Maurren Maggi and sailor Torben Grael.

Neymar is much in demand and is reckoned to be pulling in as much as $1.5 million a month from his club and his sponsors. He has turned down offers from several European clubs and will stay with Santos for at least two more years.

It remains to be seen whether or not Batista will get any more involvement in Formula 1. Brazil is looking for new stars as Felipe Massa comes towards the end of his career. Senna is trying hard to establish himself as a frontrunner, but behind him are others who have struggled to find the funding to get to F1, notably Lucas di Grassi, Felipe Nasr, Luis Razia, Lucas Foresti and others.

The only problem with Batista’s idea is that some of the top F1 teams insist that their drivers sign over their image rights for the term of their contracts, which means that deals would need to be struck if a suitable Brazilian gets into that position.

Read Full Post »

Deadlines…

The Concorde Agreement is (so we are told) a very detailed document that goes into lots of “what if” scenarios, not to mention a wildly large number of side letters, which give different parties special privileges. Part of all of this legal waffle is given over to how new rules are agreed. The structure is that if a change of rule has been published by the FIA by June 30 that alteration can come into force on January 1 of the next year. If things are not published by June 30 then it can only be done with unanimous agreement of the teams. Otherwise the new rule can only come into effect on the second January 1 after the rule is published.

However, as I understand it, all of this is irrelevant at the moment because the FIA has cleverly pointed out that it is not bound by any agreement for 2013 and thus can do as it pleases because there is no Concorde Agreement for next year until all parties sign one. This is why the entry deadline has been pushed back to September because when teams enter the championship they have to agree to abide by the rules and if the rules are not decided then they cannot easily enter, without a leap of faith that they are unwilling to take.

So, we have a new situation in which the teams have extra time to find agreements. It also opens up the possibility of the FIA agreeing to changes if the majority of teams them ask for something. Thus, for example, if more than half the teams would like to have the FIA policing a Resource Restriction Agreement, thus making it part of the regulations, a situation which would help to stop teams breaching the agreement, then that would be possible in the current hiatus. This may not please the big spenders but it is likely to be rather more effective than a gentleman’s agreement. It also demonstrates that the FIA retains some considerable power in F1 circles…

Read Full Post »

A quick update

I apologise for a lack of activity. I have been on the road all day long. This being Silverstone there are always additional things to be done as well as the Grand Prix and so it is a week-long trip away from home. So, I was up long before the sun today (which is not easy at this time of year) and consoled myself with a solid British breakfast before getting down to business. The stories have been thin on the ground since last week’s daft London Grand Prix waffle. I have had further discussions with people who know these things and in addition to the months of remodelling that would be necessary to create a circuit suitable for F1, the costs would be colossal, because the roads in question are old and there is a very pronounced crown on most of them. This would mean that they would have to be dug up and relaid, in addition to the creation of escape roads and run-off areas which would have to still exist after all the barriers were removed. This would all cost somewhere north of $200 million before getting into fees and annual build costs. One should also add that there would also be huge potential for loss of revenue legal actions from businesses on the route, which would scare away most of the lawyers.

Thus, I stick by my initial assessment that this was a useful bit of promotion for the British GP weekend, and a nice way to play down what happened in Germany, where the judge in the Gribkowsky case made some very damaging remarks when passing sentence on the German banker convicted of accepting a bribe from Bernie Ecclestone. These clearly suggested that this matter is not finished yet and we will be hearing about it again. Ecclestone says he has done nothing wrong and is currently faces no charges in Germany.

Meanwhile in Belgium, the Spa Grand Prix SA, the company which has been promoting the Belgian Grand Prix since 2006, under the leadership of politician/financier Etienne Davignon, is rumoured to be close to a new contract to secure the future of the race until after 2016.

The current contract runs out after this year’s race and the locals hope that they can reduce the annual losses by getting a lower fee agreed. Reports suggest that they have asked for a reduction from $21 million a year to $19 million. The idea of the race alternating with the French Grand Prix has been dropped completely.

The recent races at Spa have failed to attract big crowds, with losses each year in the region of $4-5 million. The local regional government has accepted these as the economic impact of the event is very important for the region. Although the current government will be in power until at least July 2014, the contract is for four years, from 2013 to 2016.

There are also still hopes that the organisation of Spa can be restructured. At the moment there is the Intercommunale Spa Francorchamps, which owns the property, on behalf of the Liege province; the Societe de Promotion du Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps (SPSF), a company owned and controlled by Wallonia region to run and develop the circuit and the Grand Prix company. There has been talk of merging these entities for years in order to streamline activities and the latest word is that this will now happen with the President of the Royal Automobile Club de Belgique (RACB) François Cornelis being put in charge. Cornelis is the former number two of the Total-Fina company, who retired from the oil company at the start of last year. He is also a member of the FIA World Council, thanks to his position as head of the Manufacturers’ Commission.

Read Full Post »

Whingeing and whining in F1

We have had seven winners in the first seven races of the year, which is a record at the start of a season, but not a record overall. The longest run of winners that I can find is actually nine (although I am sure if that is not correct there will be people out there who will set me straight). The best run I could find was between France 1961 (about the time I was being born) and France 1962 when Giancarlo Baghetti, Wolfgang Von Trips, Stirling Moss, Phil Hill, Graham Hill, Bruce McLaren, Jim Clark and Dan Gurney all won races in succession. There have been eight consecutive winners as well, notably in 1982, which was, for me at least, a pivotal year in getting me into the sport as a profession.

Formula 1 is amazing in that, at a time when we should be rejoicing at such variety and interest, there are people whining about the sport being too unpredictable and blaming Pirelli for having done what they were asked to do, which was make tyres that would promote better racing. Being a single supplier in racing is often a thankless task, as the media does not write about the component unless it fails. Bridgestone worked on the principle that if it built bulletproof tyres it would not get bad publicity. Pirelli had a different idea. It risked criticism for making tyres that did not last, but managed to get across the message that when it comes to making tyres to meet specific needs, Pirelli is the place to go… That is a great example of positive and creative thinking bringing dividends.

Looking after one’s tyres has been a key element in the sport for as long as there have been tyres and so it is the finest traditions that drivers and engineers must work to find out how their tyres work; and then use them accordingly. Thus one driver in a team may struggle to find heat at a given time on a given day, while his team-mate, with a different driving style or a different chassis set-up, can do it. We saw that with McLaren in Canada. Lewis Hamilton had it all right; Jenson Button had it all wrong. We have seen the opposite at other races. The cleverest drivers are the ones who are the most consistent in their choices. It is not a lottery, but rather it is a question of people making the right decisions at the right moments.

And in such circumstances you have gambles like the one we saw Ferrari and Red Bull make on Sunday in Montreal. They did not work out, but it was not a lottery, it was a strategy.

I find all this really rather tedious. Just as I find the question of DRS being artificial to be a waste of energy. DRS is no more artificial than slip-streaming used to be. That was created by a set of circumstances created by the rules as they were at the time. The DRS of today is the same. Yes, perhaps it allows people to overtake , but why not? They did the same with slipstreaming and there were races back in that era where the strategies at the last corner decided the final rush to the flag, and thus the result itself. There is nothing wrong with that. And in fact one needs to salute the people who came up with the answers after years in which everyone whined about drivers not being able to overtake. When you boil it all down, I guess, the truth is that people will whinge about anything that does not suit them, or in the case of the media, they will write stories because they think there is nothing better to write about. My view is that being positive is always best: Pirelli has done a great job; the DRS is a clever solution to an obvious problem; and the World Championship will be won by a driver who best works out how to use his tyres. From a sporting point of view that is great.

Now the most important job facing F1 is to alert the younger generations to the fact that motor racing can be cool and exciting before the current fans all die of old age. To do that we must learn to speak to them by means that they understand… using modern technologies.

Read Full Post »

Float sinks?

So the flotation is delayed, and – whisper it – perhaps off. I say that because the last attempted float back in the 1990s was also initially billed as a delay but the money-minded then went off on a hunt for bond issues instead. That could happen again. The non- float may not be good news for the suits at CVC Capital Partners, but it is good news for the sport, as it means that the ownership remains concentrated, which is probably a good thing as anyone wishing to buy the business can do so more easily than would be the case with a floated company. The downside of this is that there will be less transparency than would be the case with a floated company. Transparency is a good thing when one is trying to deal with big global companies.

The major questions remain as before: has the sale of shares in recent months constituted “a change of control” and could such deals be vetoed by the FIA? Without knowing the definition of that specific to the contract between the FIA and Formula One it is hard to know.

The day-to-day politics of the sport will trundle on, with the teams and the FIA discussing cost control mechanisms and budget caps. The deadline for decisions relating to 2013 is on June 30, after which change can only be achieved with 100 percent agreement between the teams. Today changes can be voted with 80 percent in favour. Put another way, it means that if Ferrari and Red Bull get together and tell their satellites/customers to oppose something, they cannot stop it happening before June 30, but after that date they can block change…

The other question is whether or not the various parties are ready to sign a new Concorde Agreement, or will that be challenged by any of the interested parties?

On we go…

Read Full Post »

Successful succession

Charles De Gaulle once famously remarked that “the graveyards are full of indispensable men”. The point he was making is that no-one is indispensable. The world, a country, a company or whatever goes on when its leader disappears.

There are, of course, people who leave indelible marks behind them, but at some point they all disappear and someone else steps up to the plate. They may be a shadow of the former leader, or maybe a great deal better. The only way to find out is to see them in action.

The question of succession is a difficult one, although democracy has taken care of that in terms of government. A leader departs when the people no longer want him. But in companies, it is more complicated. There are, for example, family businesses in which one generation feels obliged to leave the firm to the next generation, even if they are not suited to the job. As a result, the business suffers.

The management guru Jim Collins, in his book “Good to Great” defined business leaders in different ways: Level 4 leaders, he said, had the vision of what they wanted to achieve and got on and did it, using the labour of others. If the company fails when they leave, such men often do not care, because that reflects well on their ability.

Collins’s Level 5 leaders are more humble, but also understand that one can build bigger and better businesses if one accepts one’s limitations and rather than concentrating on your own ideas, looks around to find the best brains to create a better longterm future for the company. Level 5 leaders are looking beyond their own lifetimes.

Taking on outsiders is not always easy, particularly in industries where experience is very specific. Newcomers may be very bright and may even be right when they think that things should change, but it is often the changers who get changed, rather than the system.

Picking a winner to run a racing championship is not easy. Leaving the business to someone who was subordinate to the old leader may not be the smartest thing to do because if they were exceptional they would have become the leader themselves. Racing people do not generally wait in queues, like bureaucrats. Old leaders have unwanted baggage which make it tough for them to step up and demand respect from those who used to be equals. On the other hand, newcomers will make mistakes and upset people, which is why a familiar face is sometimes deemed to be better than a smart outsider.

It is worth noting that over in the United States, IndyCar looks like it is going through this at the moment. CEO Randy Bernard came into motor racing from a very successful background in bull-riding. He joined IndyCar on a five-year contract in 2010 and has been involved in trying to give the series new energy and vigour. Unfortunately for Bernard, some are now beginning to push back against him and are campaigning to have him removed. Bernard has confirmed that one team owner is calling others, trying to get him fired.

No-one in the Formula 1 business gives a toss whether Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, recently named chairman of the Formula One group, is an expert in marketing food. They want to know if he can deal with motor racing people and being on a string of fancy boards does not prove anything. He may turn out to be an inspired choice, who wins the confidence of all and sundry. He may not.

One can argue that there will never be another Bernie Ecclestone, and I would agree with that. Bernie is a man with a remarkable set of skills. But there will come a day when the Formula One group will get another CEO. Be that tomorrow, or in 10 years from now. The big question is not really where to find someone as exceptional as Bernie, but rather whether the organisation will change. The future leader may not need the same skills as Bernie.

There is no doubt that he will need to be good in a boardroom; and good in front of cameras. But perhaps he will also need to be happy to let others run the divisions of the corporation, leaving him to make sure things are running smoothly, and give him the chance to think strategically about where the business is going next – and how to make that happen.

One way or the other, it will be interesting to watch.

Read Full Post »

F1 and GP1

There is a blistering irony in the suggestion that exiled Formula 1 team boss Flavio Briatore is busy writing the rules for a new series called GP1. Briatore writing rules? That is like handing over the keys to the bank to Bonnie and Clyde.

Let us not forget that this Briatore person was busted from the sport for his role in the race fixing events in Singapore back in 2008. Initially he was banned for life but because the FIA (a previous regime) was sloppy in its judicial processes and that overstepped the mark and the Italian was able to win a settlement after applying lots of lawyers to the problem and dressing up as an injured party. It was decided that he would not be allowed into F1 for five years. Team personnel must also now apply for a licence to take part in the sport and there is really no good reason why he should be granted one.

Thankfully, it is fairly clear that the idea of a GP1 Series is simply a lever in negotiations over a new Concorde Agreement with the FIA. GP1 is not a very good lever because unless the FIA is behind it, it will never get the “World Championship” tag and this is what the teams and car manufacturers are after. The FIA has the right to designate such status and everyone else has to make do with nomenclature such as World Cup and World Series, which is not the same thing at all – and everyone knows that.

A switch away from Formula 1 is also a waste of 62 years of heritage. Rumours may say that Ferrari is keen on the idea and if that is the case, then the Italian team should be given no sympathy at all. It uses its importance and heritage in F1 to extricate extra money from the sport and thus it would be wise to support the sport, rather than selling out to another enterprise. That would add to the impression that Ferrari would do anything for money.

When all is said and done the sport gets what it deserves and if it deserves GP1 then it will get it.

GP2, the previous championship which was promoted by Briatore and is now owned by the Formula One group is a major league rip-off. Teams cannot use parts unless they are supplied by he series, and these are supplied at a huge premium to normal prices. The cars are expensive and not very well-engineered. It is basically a pretty shoddy money-generator, which owes its limited success to the fact that, running alongside F1, it gives the drivers exposure, which rival championships cannot not provide. The running time is limited.

The quality of the drivers drops off very quickly after the top two or three teams with most of the field being there because they have money and the less well-heeled going to the Renault World Series or Formula 2.

Having said that the entire structure of the junior formulae is not perfect. There is far too much clutter and, in any case, very few drivers are getting into F1 without large sums of money behind them and those that are are being signed up when they are teenagers. The FIA is looking at a completely restructuring of single-seater racing in order to make it more accessible. Gerhard Berger heads a commission doing that job.

GP2 was sold on the basis that it would be cheaper than the existing Formula 3000. That did not last long. It has been a “nice little earner” for the boys for many years.

The sport has been exploited mercilessly for more than a generation now and the time is right for a change. It would be foolish for the sport to dive head-first into another such arrangement.

Read Full Post »

Assets

Assets come in many shapes and forms. Pamela Anderson, for example, had a couple of them that made her a great deal of money, but that does not mean that crafty financiers could have floated Pamela on the Singapore Stock Exchange. Formula 1′s assets consist of a pile of contracts, which the pro-Bernie Ecclestone parrots say are worth $4.4 billion. Perhaps, but they are still pieces of paper and investors tend to be a little wary of companies that talk about foundations made of paper… Valuing a couple of filing cabinets at $10 billion is an interesting concept. Contracts run out and there are no guarantees that similar deals can be struck again. Yes, in principle it should be possible but as we are seeing at the moment most race promoters are looking for cheaper deals because of the downturn in the world economy. New bidders may be willing to go high, but those with experience are trying to find more reasonable deals. It was ever thus.

Today is May 1 and the F1 teams (with the exception of HRT) are in action at a soggy Mugello. In France and a number of other countries it is a holiday and I intend to treat it as such.

Read Full Post »