zeph wrote:I would never underestimate BE nor his hunger for power, but Joe Saward has an interesting argument: For him to succeed in creating a breakaway series, he'd need to tear down all the safeguards he put in place to prevent others from doing exactly that.
Despite what Saward says, Ecclestone's age isn't the limiting factor he wants it to be. You can actually consider it a "
force multiplier" of sorts, because it means he has very little reason to hold back. Like they say, a boxer is never more dangerous than when he's against the ropes.
The idea that the "Ecclestone business model" might be a stumbling block with promoters naively forgets that Ecclestone developed that model for an environment in which he possessed a monopoly. That means he never had a reason to offer competitive terms, and victory was defined by what he could extract from the deal. In a competitive environment, victory is the deal itself, and it's no less significant. (This is why we have anti-trust laws.)
It's much the same story with regard to F1's untapped potential in terms of promotion and alternate revenue streams. The failure to explore those avenues is as much a failure of those around Ecclestone as it is of Ecclestone himself.
Think about it: two of the most prominent critiques of Ecclestone's stewardship of F1 would have us simultaneously believe that all he cares about is money and he won't take steps to make more money. It's a baffling inconsistency that begs the question: does it make more sense to believe that he rejected such opportunities or that no one made a compelling case on their behalf?
I recognize that this might read like a full-bodied defense of a demon, but it's not. I'm just trying to throw some logic at this thing.
Liberty didn't do itself any favors by leaving Bernie Ecclestone to his own devices. It was a critical misstep that doesn't bode well for the future, even if nothing comes of it, because it demonstrates a lack of strategic foresight. And as an
American former
cable company, Liberty was already fighting an uphill battle. (Not sure how well that last bit will translate across the pond and elsewhere. But, I'm pretty sure my fellow 'Muricans will understand exactly what I'm saying, since US cable companies aren't exactly noted for their vision. See: Comcast, aka
the most hated company in America, aka
the worst company in America.)
EDIT:
grandprix.com, Jan 27, 2017 wrote:Asked by Germany's Auto Motor und Sport if Ecclestone's departure and the arrival of the apparently friendlier Liberty could be taken advantage of by struggling promoters, Brawn said: "That could happen.
"But we must not ignore the fact that the promoters have difficulties financing themselves.
"You can see it two ways," Brawn added. "We could ask for less, but we could also help the promoters to earn higher revenues so they can afford the fees.
"Our view is that it is better to increase the income for the promoters than to reduce the cost of the races."
Translation: "We've got our heads shoved so far up each other's ass that we'll never recognize how relentless profiteering, and the widespread nationalist movements it has provoked, are arguably the chief social problems facing all of humanity at the moment. As such, we're gonna provide fortnightly "Super Bowls" that will ostensibly allow promoters to sell more tickets, even if what's really gonna happen is that they're gonna raise ticket prices. Hopefully, everyone will be distracted by shiny things and no one will notice that when a Super Bowl rolls into town, the price of everything around it skyrockets, especially airfare, hotel rooms, and rental cars. Lastly, we're so --- stupid that when this fails miserably, we'll really be surprised."
but there´s an even more important factor, at 86 our brain is far from its optimal point. We tend to avoid changes, innovation is seen as an unneccesary risk... we become more conservatives. That´s exactly the opposite F1 does need.
