Grand Prix de Formule 1 de Montréal

[ericairlines]

L'épouse de Bernie Ecclestone demande le divorce

 

 

L'épouse du patron de la Formule 1, Bernie Ecclestone, a demandé le divorce, selon sa porte-parole, provoquant des spéculations dans la presse britannique sur le montant de l'accord pour cette séparation, qui pourrait être record. Slavica Ecclestone, qui a été mariée au milliardaire britannique pendant 24 ans, a embauché l'avocate Liz Vernon, célèbre pour avoir obtenu des fortunes pour ses clients divorcés. Le couple, qui a deux filles, Petra et Tamara, disposerait d'une fortune de 2,4 milliards de livres (2,8 milliards d'euros), selon la liste 2008 du Sunday Times des grandes fortunes britanniques. Mais une partie de la fortune du couple est détenue au nom de l'épouse dans un fonds enregistré à Jersey, ce qui pourrait compliquer les négociations.

[LindbergMTL]

F1 - GP de France: Paris, c'est fini

 

2008-11-20 08:18:47

 

(Source: Radio-Canada) Les sociétés Lagardère et Euro Disney annoncent qu'ils retirent leur projet d'organiser une course en 2010.

 

 

Une poignée de projets aurait pu servir à sauver le Grand Prix de France. Mercredi, le plus médiatisé du lot a rendu l'âme.

 

Les sociétés Lagardère Sports et Euro Disney ont annoncé dans un communiqué qu'elles renonçaient au projet de circuit de F1 en banlieue de Paris.

 

« Malgré la qualité du dossier et le soutien de Bernie Ecclestone (grand argentier de la F1), il s'est avéré impossible de trouver un accord avec les autres parties prenantes, dont l'engagement était une condition indispensable, » a écrit Lagardère Sports.

 

Les deux partenaires espéraient organiser en 2010 le GP de France.

 

Le financement, « un peu plus de 60 millions d'euros » selon le responsable Alain Prost, aurait été assuré par Lagardère. Euro Disney mettait à disposition le terrain devant accueillir le tracé du Grand Prix.

 

En revanche, le Pôle Val de France a réaffirmé sa candidature pour organiser l'épreuve autour de Sarcelles (banlieue nord de Paris). Le groupe invite d'ailleurs Lagardère à le rejoindre pour travailler ensemble « à la réalisation de ce projet complet et audacieux ».

 

Les projets font partie d'une liste de six potentiels remplaçants du circuit de Magny-Cours, depuis longtemps décrié par les autorités de la F1. Le GP de France ne figure pas au calendrier 2009.

 

 

http://sport.sympatico.msn.ca/Accueil/ContentPosting?newsitemid=418377&feedname=CBC_SPORTS_V3_FR&show=False&number=0&showbyline=False&subtitle=&detect=&abc=abc&date=True

[ericairlines]

bernie va pouvoir continuer avec sa 'ligue provinciale' ....avant le crash final !!

[WestAust]

Une petite lecture intéressante sur l'état de "l'économie F1"

 

If a single five-letter word epitomised the 2008 Formula One season it was not, contrary to popular belief, 'Lewis', but rather the term 'money'.

 

The word got off to a flying start in January when news broke that McLaren had settled its headline-grabbing $100m fine through an almost equal mixture of 2007 television revenues and cash reserves.

 

That the company at all had such a sum available speaks volumes for the profitability of the McLaren Group, and, given that its core business is F1, the overall business potential of the sport.

 

Factor in that less than 12 months later McLaren was able to win its first drivers' championship in a decade (narrowly missing out on the constructors') despite being deprived of a sum roughly equal to Force India's entire budget, or, expressed differently, approximately the amount owed by Super Aguri when they were wound-up in June, and it is clear that money, and lots of it, greases F1's wheels.

 

Yet, 12 months later the company which managed to shell out $50m with little more than a sweaty brow was examining a proposal that would see its engine partner Mercedes subsidise annual power unit supply contracts costing roughly the same amount for one-tenth the value, simply to keep the likes of Force India on the grid.

 

Is there an obvious difference between Force India and McLaren-Mercedes? Yes: the former team is headed by the flamboyant Indian billionaire Vijay Mallya; McLaren's Ron Dennis may be wealthy, but is hardly flashy or in the same financial league...

 

There is, of course, a case to be made for cost-cutting in the sport - as there is in any walk of life - but it is all too easy to overlook that much of the money 'saved' is simply being moved from one pocket to another.

 

Take engines: yes, increasing life from one to two to three races has unarguably saved a bomb; but enforcing annual engine supply contracts capped at $5m or even $10m will merely serve to move revenue from suppliers (engine manufacturers) to consumers (independent teams).

 

However, the FIA was clearly prohibited from involving itself in commercial matters by the European Commission as part of the latter's approval of the 113-year commercial rights' lease deal entered into between the governing body and Bernie Ecclestone's companies, and the proposed engine supply regulation is arguably a commercial matter.

 

The FIA can, though, argue that it is merely attempting to ensure the survival of motorsport's strongest category by ensuring the survival of its weakest teams, and is not in any way involving itself in Formula One's commercial dealings. The car manufacturers are, after all, free to leave, and teams were offered the option of no-name specification engines...

 

So much for 'savings' on the engine front, but what about simply increasing the teams' cut of the revenue in order to ensure their survival? Even before the spec-engine rumours reared their heads in October, the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) had been talking of pushing for increases in both F1's annual turnover (±$1bn) and their share of the 'pie' - presently 50% of total income, yet more than double their miserly share between 1997 and last year.

 

Ironically FIA president Max Mosley initiated the matter at the mid-point of the season by suggesting an increase to 75% - precisely when relations between the former barrister and Ecclestone, his friend and confidant of 40 years appeared to be at their most strained in the wake of revelations about the former's private life.

 

FOTA was formed shortly thereafter - as a direct result of another of Mosley's initiatives, namely swingeing cost cuts - and one of the first items on their agenda was to work towards increased revenues per team. Whether they will succeed is another question entirely, for, as pointed out in this column last week, the disbursements, operational costs and a heavy interest burden of the Formula One Group ensure that the revenue pot is regularly raided.

 

So, despite both championships going down to the wire this year, discussions about F1's finances and the sport's commercial debt level, said to be no less than $2bn (approximately 20 times the record fine handed to McLaren!) and its estimated $220m annual interest fee, have mostly hogged the headlines.

 

It is this indebtedness that lays behind the shrinking calendar, down to 17 races despite rumours last year that the fixtures list would grow to 20 races within two years and to 25 by 2012. Korea, India, Mexico and, now, South Africa, are all said to be well advanced with their plans to join the 'Max and Bernie Show', with the first-named hoping to begin hosting the first of its seven races in 2010.

 

With FOM yielding approximately $55m - predominantly made up of race hosting fees, global TV revenues and Paddock Club/signage income per grand prix staged, it follows that each additional race adds that sum to turnover. Just four additional races would clear the CRH's annual interest bill...

 

However, according to sources, no substantial progress has been made at the proposed site in Yeongam, South Chollo (250 miles south of Seoul), whilst Mexico has already experienced at least one still-birth. India has been deferred to 2011 - something which took Indian Grand Prix mover and shaker Mallya by surprise when confronted with the news in Singapore - whilst South Africa seems to be betwixt and between two circuits and a changing political landscape.

 

On the one hand the country has Kyalami, recently the subject of yet another ownership wrangle, whilst on the other newly-elected Gauteng Province Premier Paul Mashatile is said to have given approval for a disused quarry in close proximity to the classic race track to be converted into a Herman Tilke-designed F1 facility.

 

The main stumbling block, though, appears to be that the province, which incorporates the country's two main cities, namely Johannesburg and Pretoria, is labouring under a mountain of debt as it ramps up its infrastructure ahead of the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

 

Compounding the situation is that the South African Rand recently slid 50% against major currencies, with no end to the rout in sight, certainly not until the political situation - which recently saw President Mbeki 'recalled' and replaced, and numerous new parties formed in the run up to national and provincial in May next year - has sorted itself out. Which will probably not be for some time now.

 

F1 has lost France and Canada, with one of Germany's two venues plus Shanghai said to be considering opting out. This complicates Ecclestone's negotiations with new circuits - for said venues are patently dissatisfied with the returns (if any) on their investments. Add in that Fuji is believed not to be pushing for a return (Japan's round returns to Suzuka, ostensibly for two years), with Australia and Malaysia freely admitting to large annual losses.

 

In fact, just how satisfied can Ecclestone be with Turkey after having bailed the venue out with private funds? Why was no extension struck with Indianapolis? Why was Silverstone unable to accede to Ecclestone's demands?

 

On the one hand an ING-sponsored survey purports to show that certain countries are receiving over 1500% ROI on their race subsidies, but closer scrutiny raises questions.

 

Monaco, which effectively gets its race free, enjoys enormous benefits, thus skewing the tables, whilst Bahrain, which has never packed more than 40,000 punters into its circuit environs is said to have benefited to the tune of $395m from its race - or close on $10,000 per grandstand seat with a face value of $200... Where did each fan spend the other $9,800?

 

The fact that at least nine venues - over 50% of the 2008 calendar - are assessing their situation or are known to want out, and all within an 18 month period, indicates there is something seriously awry with the sport's hosting fee structure.

 

An inherent component of each promoter contract is a clause prohibiting disclosure of its terms and conditions, making it impossible to obtain accurate fees and figures, but these are believed to vary between $15m and $55m - depending upon the tradition behind the event, the prosperity of its catchment area and (political) sponsors and the eagerness of the signatory.

 

Given that Ecclestone and Co generally retain the signage and hospitality rights, a promoter's primary income stream is from ticket sales.

 

Taking an average promoters fee of $25m, with a typical annual escalator of 10%, plus promoter and staging costs of about the same, and an average circuit capacity of 100,000, and it is clear ticket prices simply cannot be south of $500 per seat if the promoter wishes to break even. And, at the top-end of the fee structure, that per ticket cost is more than doubled...

 

The present CRH, an off-shoot of venture capitalist CVC Partners, needs to add races to clear its debts, but the task of Ecclestone, as CEO, is not being simplified by the number of refugee events, many of whom are now waking up to the fact that the their races are not delivering hoped-for ROIs and expressing precisely that in easy-to-understand language. For proof hereof, access this.

 

Thus the calendar is shrinking, and with it FOM's income. The teams are, in turn, being squeezed as they are receiving 50% of diminishing income, yet their engine partners are being asked to cut their annual lease costs simply to ensure the survival of those independents who, frankly, should be able to survive on equitable slices of the sport's annual revenues.

 

The fans and sponsors, too, are being short-changed, for not only is the number of races on television being gradually reduced, but so are events in their base countries - think France, the US, China and Germany (both sooner rather than later) and, possibly, the United Kingdom. Not too long ago the US had three grands prix in a single year and Germany two...

 

Whilst the FIA cannot involve itself in commercial matters, as we know, should it not at least examine the make-up and viability of the calendar? After all, if F1's survival hinges on the price of engines, surely it hinges equally on the price of grandstand tickets?

[LindbergMTL]

Vous savez ce qui arrive à une voiture de F1 lorsqu'elle ralentit trop dans un tournant? Elle perd son appui aérodynamique et fonce dans le décor.

 

Bernie est en train de perdre son appui aérodynamique...

[Ornello Mastrocola]

Let see now, my crystal ball tells me that in the near future there will be races only in the eastern hemisphere, the Orient and the Middle east.

[peluche]

Au tour d'Hockenheim?

Mise à jour le lundi 1 décembre 2008 à 10 h 34

 

Source: site de Radio Canada

 

Le circuit d'Hockenheim

 

Hockenheim pourrait être le prochain circuit à perdre la F1, après Magny-Cours et Montréal.

 

C'est l'avis d'un des responsables du circuit allemand.

 

« Sans l'aide de la région (de Baden-Württemberg), il n'y aura plus de F1 à Hockenheim », explique Karl-Josef Schmidt au quotidien Der Tagesspiegel, dimanche.

 

En 2009, ce sera au tour du Nürburgring de présenter le Grand Prix d'Allemagne de F1, selon le principe d'alternance. En théorie, Hockenheim revient en 2010, mais ce n'est pas sûr.

 

Selon le quotidien, les pertes pour l'édition 2008 du Grand Prix d'Allemagne s'élèvent à 8,3 millions de dollars canadiens.

 

Le ministre régional de l'Économie a déjà répondu qu'il n'épongerait pas la dette.

 

« Si ça continue, la F1 va quitter l'Allemagne et il n'y a que les pays arabes qui pourront se l'offrir », continue M. Schmidt.

 

Curieusement, ce même Karl-Josef Schmidt avait été catégorique après la course de cette année.

 

« Nous avons les moyens d'honorer notre contrat », avait-il dit à Autosport le 20 juillet.

 

Pour sa part, le directeur général du circuit du Nürburgring a réagi à la nouvelle en expliquant à l'agence allemande dpa qu'il ne pouvait pas présenter une course de F1 chaque année, car le circuit perdait de l'argent à chaque épreuve.

 

Il y a cinq pilotes allemands en F1 et deux constructeurs, BMW et Mercedes-Benz.

 

Travail en commun

 

Parlant du monde arabe, rappelons que les circuits de Bahreïn et d'Abou Dhabi, dans les Émirats arabes unis, ont annoncé le 28 novembre qu'ils uniront leurs efforts pour la promotion de leurs courses de F1 respectives.

 

Les deux organisations veulent attirer plus de spectateurs, de commanditaires et d'invités.

 

Bahreïn présente un Grand Prix depuis 2004, tandis qu'Abou Dhabi organisera son tout premier en 2009, en clôture de championnat.

[Ornello Mastrocola]

Dubai will be the 3rd in the Emirates.

[Philippe]

Dubai will be the 3rd in the Emirates.

 

Bahrain is not on the Emirates, Dubai will be the second..

[monctezuma]

Bahrain is not on the Emirates, Dubai will be the second..

 

Ça me surprend que Dubaï n'ait pas déjà le sien et ce, plus rapidement que les autres villes.