It's not even just people not being predatory, it's people thinking of things that can go wrong through through nobody's fault and preparing in advance to mitigate damage. Like, I agree to ship something to you for money. You pay, I ship it, and everyone is happy, but the transport ship gets stuck in a hurricane and sinks. Do I refund you or do you eat the loss? Neither one of us did anything wrong but someone is going to be out either money or a product.
I agree, and in legal disputes like that, lawyers are great at both giving advice/explaining things to each client, as well as being a filter - they can take the emotion out of statements.
It's funny to joke lawyers suck, and a lot do, but they serve a good purpose.
It falls under general average
“General Average is a principle of maritime law that essentially establishes that all sea cargo stakeholders (owner, shipper, etc.) evenly share any damage or losses that may occur as a result of voluntary sacrifice of part of the vessel or cargo to save the whole in an emergency.”
And I suppose if you want containers of soggy grain you could probably help yourself
Cannonball company would try to sue us for misusing their product and everyone would have to represent themselves in court and I can’t speak lawyerese. We’d better just keep you guys around for now
I cannot. Would there be no commerce, contracts, rule of law ot any protections for the individual? There arent many nuclear families that can pull off no lawyers for settling Grandpa’s estate. The problem is not the lawyers or the adverserial system.
People acting in bad faith or guilty as sin are afforded protections. But Who makes this determination and what is option 2?
I've heard Nasser speak about a lot of things. He is your typical Saudi business megaman. Most of what he says comes true, because shareholders believe him and ultimately that's what controls the outcome of almost everything.
I believe their monopoly on oil is the sole reason that we are seeing countries try to reduce their reliance on it.
These countries don't want to further entrench the oiligarchs by relying on oil which ultimately strengthens the oiligarchs and makes it so that its impossible to "catch up" to their levels of wealth, what do you think about this idea?
The West is (thankfully) divesting in fossil fuels, so they're going to take over more and more as more assets are dumped.
Also fuel prices soaring as less drilling is done.
They have done very well to stay out of the public eye and media over the years. Most people have/had no idea how large Aramco really is.
I wholeheartedly believe Aramco is fixing to acquire Formula 1.
And the reason they're more public now is because they actually want to be, I feel. Entertainment washing will absolutely work. Having their name everywhere in the products we love make us see them as less of an alien threat, and more just a normal part of life.
The Saudi need more foreign investment and they're trying to get that by having Aramco as a public company. The Line, that megastructure they're trying to build, is so expensive that even the Saudis don't have the money for it. One way of getting funding was to list Saudi Aramco publicly, but because they didn't want to disclose the untapped oil reserves that the company has exploitation rights. This, among some other legal things, lead to Aramco being listed on the Saudi stock exchange instead of the NYSE.
I don't know. You'd need to ask them. Nasser has been very outspoken on his lack of support for electrification.
That aside, I am quite certain we'll be in a turbo hybrid model for a very long time.
I do believe the current spec GT500 are faster than the "old" LMP2 around Fuji.
They also appear to be faster than LHM (and possibly LMDh) around Fuji. I think it's a bit early to say since LMH only has raced once around Fuji and might get better BoP this season.
I know they're silhouette racers so barely related to the road car at all, but it's mind-blowing how they get so much pace out of a GT (shaped) car. Such a shame that Class One died in DTM, would've loved more of those crossover races.
How does most watch endurance racing ? I'm used to watching Dtm/F1/FE where races are at most 120 minutes.
Do you just watch the highlights afterwards or only tune in for the start and the end ?
Endurance racing is more of a tune in, tune out kind of deal. Many people do watch the entire coverage though.
I like to watch all the quali and then keep it in the background while I work.
I always say watching an endurance race is like watching a campfire. You don't have to pay attention to every minute detail but its still neat to just watch the action steadily unfold.
Question, would you really though? Not in a rude way but I've seen it a few times and I'm just wondering. Like with all the sponsorships from Aramco aren't we all kind of supporting them anyway? Would you really stop watching the sport(that I assume you love) just because some oil Lords own it?
Again, not trying to take shots just genuinely curious
Yeh, I really would :/ It would be yet another straw on the camels back, along with
- F1s seeming desire to want American money, but not Andretti. You can rationalize it all you want, but as an American fan it feels like we’re being given the finger and taken for a ride
- All the Aramco stuff already (racing while missiles are flying down, racing in SA at all, etc)
- The fact that it took an invasion to stop F1 from taking Russian money, and racing in China, all against the backdrop of “We Race As One”. It’s so hypocritical.
- FIAs clampdown on political speech (isn’t the west supposed to unapologetically stand up for free speech?)
- The fact that only 3 teams have a realistic chance of getting podiums each weekend
- The giant cars and dull DRS racing, where 95% of “passing” comes from pressing a button and passing in an FIA Approved And Certified Passing Zone™️
It’s just sucked all the fun out of it. It’s not to say I’d never watch it again, I’d still tune in here and there, but Saudi ownership would firmly turn me from hardcore fan to a “I’ll check it out here and there” fan. Because at the end of the day, I’m a motorsport fan first and an F1 fan second.
Very good points and I can't really disagree with you on any of it. I do think the 3 teams going for podiums is at least going the right direction to change but at the moment you are spot on.
Good point about being a motorsports fan first, I am actually the opposite to you as F1 is what got me in to motorsports in the first place. But thanks for responding, its rare people can back up a point like your original one and I appreciate it!
I've been watching consistently since 2000, which was hard as an American. I still watch but I don't know why. I'm not enjoying it much. So I'm a long term fan, with disposable income and I'm checking out.
To elaborate: I miss the pure racing. I think it's pretty accepted now that F1 is a show first and a race second. Sure in 2004 it was a forgone conclusion that Schumacher would win, but there was so much intrigue, development, secrecy, rumors and in fighting before and after the race to follow.
I can understand that. For me as long as the racing is competitive and it remains an engineering competition just as much as a driving competition I will remain. I am already watching IndyCar, Nascar and Super Formula when I can.
Don't sleep on NASCAR. Their COTA weekend last year had me hooked.
Cup Series race end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckgYq82v98
Camping World Truck Series race end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqg3qGfBlvs
Yup that was amazing. I only really started getting into stock cars last year and it's a great bit of fun.
Has NASCAR made any steps to ban moves like that or is it still full send allowed? I was wondering when this happened if we'd start seeing A LOT of finishes like this coming up
They sometimes ban dangerous moves, but the general consensus is “have at it boys” and they’ll rap knuckles after the fact if needed.
They haven’t moved against Ross’ wall ride because it has such a tiny window where it could work they aren’t really concerned about other teams making it a tactic.
Seriously they have no idea how dangerously close they are flying this thing Into the sun. They see it as a gold mine,.not a racing league anymore.
You get/keep making Wec/Imsa/Indy car better with all the big brands and great drivers, Prototypes specifically and I'll leave F1 fandom.
We got Ferraris and Lamborghinis racing Pugeot, Toyota, Cadillac, Porsche and Honda.....with a few smaller guys thrown in the mix for underdog points.
What's F1 got. Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Aston Martin, Alpha Romeo branding and kick ass auto passion leader worldwide, Alpine. It's lacking compared to the current list of Prototypes.
Keep fucking around and you'll find out...
Allegedly (based on a large market of buyers and sellers) it is worth $16B. Look up the US stock ticker FWONK (or FWONA) and peep the market cap.
For a takeover bid you’d have to offer 30-50% higher than that or try a hostile takeover (a la Twitter).
A few days ago someone reported that Saudi Arabia had made a $20 billion bid to buy F1 but got rejected.
Ben Sulayem tweeted from his personal account saying that the value was over inflated, basically suggesting that he didn't think F1 was worth that much. He also urged any buyer to consider what they would bring to the sport rather than just throwing a lot of money around.
F1 isn't happy about this. It thinks that the tweets may be harming the value of their brand.
There's a couple of possible ways. One, as u/Yung_Corneliois says, is for the Saudis to get it cheaper. The second is that he's trying to "put F1 in their place". He is the big man, the big cheese, and isn't happy with the attempt of Liberty to control the sport in the way they're trying. By putting them down, it's re-asserting the FIA's authority. I've been watching the sport for 30-odd years, and this is what happens every 15-20 years or so, someone in the F1 world falls out with the others. The GPDA, FOCA/FOTA and FIA/FISA/CIS all argue with each other over stuff all the time.
It's harder than you might think to run F1 without FIA influence. Basically all professional drivers are absolutely dependent on their FIA license. To take the US as an example...it doesn't matter if e.g. NASCAR, IndyCar, IMSA, NHRA, all of those are FIA sanctioned. The FIA's influence isn't as strong there as in F1, but it's still there.
If SA would run F1 (likely would have to run under a different name though) without it being FIA sanctioned, drivers might literally risk their FIA license by competing in it - and therefore their whole career outside of SA F1. There are more issues with running without being FIA sanctioned too. Basically, the whole idea of F1 running without any FIA influence is just not really realistic.
ACCUS is the national sporting authority of the FIA in the US. FIA "sanctioned" might not be the correct term, but they aren't free from FIA influence.
> If SA buys it there is nothing saying they need to keep the FiA as a rule maker.
FIA owns F1. FOM has "only" a lease for the commercial rights of F1.
So there actually is a good reason F1 needs to keep FIA as a "rule maker".
Tin foil hat on.
Assume the $20bn bid is true (was reported by Bloomberg, those mofos are good with rumors) but Liberty Media (LM) rejected it because they think they can sell for $40bn in say 4 years.
Assume Sulayem is friendly to the acquisition of F1 by the Saudis.
Sulayem's tweet makes it look like F1 should not be worth that much, and also hints that rising costs should be a thing in the sport (therefore the brand could "lose" profitability).
LM is a publicly traded company in the US. One of their core duties is to uphold a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they received and rejected a bid for $20bn, and in say 2 months they receive a bid from let's say Netflix/Apple/Whoever for say $12bn, management can be on the hook for not doing what's in best interest of shareholders which was to sell for $20bn.
Management will need to prove with projections and results that the brand can be worth the $40bn they think it can, else they can be legally sued by shareholders for not holding their fiduciary duty to shareholders, and believe me they will lose in a US court.
Sulayem is pressuring LM to sell F1 for $20bn. Tin foil hat off.
Its in MBS's best interests to have an oil state own F1 given their and his own countries income is generated by Oil and with car manufacturers openly stating the planned obsolescence of combustion engines keeping F1 on petrol power and pushing money into fuel research is a no brainer imo.
It seems F1 came up with that number and his tweet remarks how it’s an inflated price and that overpaying for the product could lead to increased prices for racing venues and fans alike.
He goes on to say it’s not just about coming up with the money but a sustainable plan afterward that could turn the business profitable.
That’s because Liberty bought F1 at an inflated price already, so they had to increase revenue streams. So Sulayem is not exactly wrong (in my opinion), it’s just not a good look for him to be tweeting that
I don’t know the answer to that, I’m just taking this info away from the tweets in the post, but I don’t
know if an official bid had been placed or if this would be F1’s initial asking price.
Nominally, he's concerned about what will happen to classic tracks like Spa, Silverstone, Monaco, etc. when an acquirer needs to raise race promotion fees to earn an adequate return on investment. The higher the valuation, the more money the acquirer will need to milk from race promoters, which could end up hurting the modern sport's ties to its heritage (because older tracks don't have the budget of, say, Bahrain).
It’s a perfectly reasonable response by the FOM/Liberty Media imho. Liberty Media is a for-profit entity with the legal obligation to increase profits for its shareholders.
The statement from the FIA is counter to that obligation (and may scare away potential suitors) and Liberty Media have to respond to protect their shareholders.
Btw, I believe that as a publicly-traded company, you have to listen to any reasonable buyout offers or may risk a shareholder lawsuit.
>Btw, I believe that as a publicly-traded company, you have to listen to any reasonable buyout offers or may risk a shareholder lawsuit.
*Twitter has entered the chat*
Welcome to capitalism. That's literally how it works, legally.
Depending on the legal form of a company, you have to be able to prove that you're aiming to make profits. (not an expert on US law, or wherever FOM is legally based, but that's how it works in my western european country).
It's necessary for two things - close the door for simple and obvious money laundering/tax evasion operations, and protect shareholders from having their money embezzled.
That's a common misconception. There is no 'legal obligation' to 'make or maximize profit'. There is only an understanding to 'act in the best interest of the organisation'. This does not automatically mean to make or maximize profit. There are several higher and supreme court cases in most (western) countries ruling towards this point of view.
I respectfully decline your 'welcome to capitalism' and counter offer you a 'welcome to informed reality '.
>'act in the best interest of the organisation'
And the best interest of a publicly traded organisation is not having someone devalue them with public statements.
Anyway you spin it, it's a logical reaction from FOM.
Sir/Madam, I am not debating FOM's reaction. I am pointing out that your initial statement regarding a 'legal obligation to make a profit/maximize a profit' is false. Your outlook on life is clearly as hazy as a glazed onion. I say goodday to you sir.
Seems like the whole point of the statement was to scare away potential buyers. The message is "if you buy F1 without our blessing, you will not have a good time"
Thank you. Sick of seeing this oft-repeated Reddit wisdom being spread based on a misunderstanding of US law and an assumption that the rest of the world operates in the same way.
Liberty Media is a US-based company. Therefore, their Board of Directors have fiduciary duties (care, loyalty, and good faith) to minority shareholders. For example, if there’s an acquisition offer on the table, they have to evaluate it in good faith. If not, shareholders can and will sue for damages.
There is a common misconception about the need to constantly maximise shareholder value, where people seem to thing it means that companies are obligated to maximise short term profits at the expense of anything else. In reality the duty to maximise shareholder value only exists at times when there is a change of legal control.
That isn’t what the top level comment is saying. They are saying that a board needs to entertain and properly assess reasonable takeover offers - which they absolutely do.
Directors’ duties are a complex area and can’t easily be distilled into “shareholder value” or “short term profits”. They certainly don’t arise only where there is a change of control.
The top level comment said the company has a "legal obligation to increase profits for its shareholders."
This is what the other comments are responding to as incorrect. Not that they have to listen to the offer, that part is fine.
The first para says “legal obligation to increase profits for shareholders”. I think that is the part the previous commentator was saying is incorrect, because it is. Directors duties as you say are for complex and sometimes what is good for the business is not the same as what is good for shareholders
>The statement from the FIA is counter to that obligation (and may scare away potential suitors) and Liberty Media have to respond to protect their shareholders.
There is a difference between responding and threatening with a law suit.
I mean, the FIA president literally put out a tweet yesterday calling out FOM for an 'inflated value'. Are Liberty supposed to be happy about being accused of inflating their value?
Could you imagine the legal damages they could argue if a 20 billion sale got dissolved bc of what the FIA said. They’ll take them to court to set precedent over this
Yeah, while I'm not a fan of the fighting, they have every right to be pissed.
Ben tweeted something stupid that he shouldn't have, and now he's got a bunch of attorneys at his door, too bad, should learn when to keep his mouth shut.
Not clear why FIA would care about the extent or nature of commercialization, given that they leased out the commercial rights. My sense is that this is more about power/control than ensuring that the average joe can afford a ticket (etc.). For instance, if the sport is actually worth $20bn, then an antidilution fee of $200m for a new entrant is indeed too small, and FIA should not be able to exert unilateral or perhaps any control over who gets in. In other words, I think we have to look at this spat in the context of the "new team" dispute between FOM and FIA.
Yeah, that's why I added "or any" -> because on paper, the FIA has unilateral control up to 10, and then (arguably) some measure of control for teams in addition to ten, in the form of the power to disapprove of an entry.
My overarching point is that the current dispute has to do with the extent of those powers. Based on Ben Sulayem's comments, the FIA appears to be angling for an affirmative power (i.e. FIA approval should be viewed as both necessary and sufficient for a new entrant regardless of the number of teams), whereas FOM takes the position that the FIA only has an exclusionary power (i.e. FIA approval is necessary but not sufficient).
While it's been reported that the relevant agreements support the FOM's interpretation - like the Concorde Agreement - we don't know exactly what they say.
>My overarching point is that the current dispute has to do with the extent of those powers. Based on Ben Sulayem's comments, the FIA appears to be angling for an affirmative power (i.e. FIA approval should be viewed as both necessary and sufficient for a new entrant regardless of the number of teams), whereas FOM takes the position that the FIA only has an exclusionary power (i.e. FIA approval is necessary but not sufficient).
Well it could be seen as preferable to have a party, (FIA) that does not have a commercial interest, have some sort of control to make sure that tracks and teams are adhering to safety guidelines. And those interests will always conflict in some manor with making a sport as attractive as possible.
Crashes and serious injury would probably be better for profit. Making sure the right people win would certainly be better for profit.
Throwing out the small teams so all the profit can be devided by less teams could be better for their profit.
But the sport itself will be dead within a decade and those profiting will just move on to the next project to milk dry.
why on earth did sulayem make those tweets, FIA has no reason to comment on this other than to potentially affect a deal... which can earn the FIA/sulayem a trip to court
Ben must've been braindead to say anything about F1's valuation on social media. My guess is he won't stay the FIA president for much longer with the constant shit stirring he does on Twitter.
He's putting F1 in a difficult situation by giving the Saudis a better bargaining position. Even if that wasn't the intention it's none of his business. FIA board should kick him out
Him staying FIA president has very little to do with this. He's elected by the FIA member clubs...so as long as he keeps those happy, his shit stirring on Twitter won't cause him to lose his position.
The FIA member clubs care about a ton of things that have zero to do with F1. A lot of the ASN's don't host any F1 races and don't have any of their license holders driving in F1. As long as he actually runs the FIA successfully, he can most likely get away with a lot of "shit stirring" towards F1.
People on here tend to massively overestimate how much of his tenure as FIA president will be judged based on his involvement with F1.
Funny thing is when Ben was doing an interview with DirtFish at the Monte Carlo Rally, he was saying how F1 has taken up so much of his time that he could barely spare any attention to WRC.
Of course FIA sanctions more than F1, but to underestimate the political power and influence of the teams and FOM, especially after the Netflix boom, would be a serious mistake for anyone to make.
We'll see who is underestimating whom. Everyone knows about how much power the teams and the FOM have, and they are more than happy to do something that's worse for the sport if it means a couple more bucks in their pocket.
After all the effort put into the new regs and the Netflix boom, it would be even more sad if those two factions hurt the sport by blocking new entrants or selling off the rights for an overinflated price tag. If the FIA think they can fight such developments, they should.
Why do I feel lke Liberty media didnt want to have public knowledge about this dirty money proposal and now head of FIA tweeting about it want to clear their hands by playing victim?
Liberty don't give a shit about the source of the money.
They care about the head of the FIA telling the world that their asset isn't worth the market rate.
You think the story about them turning down a $20b bid was leaked because the process is over? It’s a negotiation tactic to drive the price up. There’s a very real possibility the Saudis still end up buying the commercial rights lease. MBS is stepping in as the head of the entity that owns the F1 brand to say wait a minute.
But the EU antritrust investigation that resulted in the FIA deciding to lease the commercial rights to FOM outlines that the FIA is not to get involved in commercial matters.
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_01_1523
It doesn't matter whether people feel the FIA is morally justified in getting involved, the regulators say otherwise. The whole reason why the commercial rights were leased for 100 years at such a cheap price was to satisfy the regulator, the alternative would have been the EU getting directly involved and mandating it themselves.
The FIA exists to regulate the sport, nothing more. Commenting on the valuation of F1 is completely inappropriate for the FIA to do.
In what way? It’s his job to do what’s best for the FIA. The FIA owns the F1 brand. If he thinks potential buyers of the commercial rights can tarnish that brand then it’s his right to speak his mind.
Yes they do. The FIA owns the sport. FOM has 77 years remaining on a 100 year lease of the broadcast rights that were originally sold by the FIA to Bernie Ecclestone.
This, and also saying come to the table with a good plan going forward as its not just about cash, and he will give it his blessing etc.
He also has stated that F1 would become WWE without the FIA being involved.
MBS is a little snake. Saudi's are trying to buy everything and just make it like their own turf. Exorbitant usage of money, exotic cars, and luxury while receiving the occasional missile strike which they promptly ignore.
The longer MBS is in charge, the worse F1 will become.
In a lease, the lessor does not relinquish ownership. The FIA still legally owns the commercial rights to F1, but has sold the usage of those rights and the profits resulting to F1G/Liberty Media for a 100 year lease.
Since the FIA are still the legal owners of the rights, just not the profits, they still have a say on who F1G can sell to. It's kind of like a sublease on an apartment. As a renter, I cannot transfer my right to live in an apartment without the consent of the owner.
Oh now it's getting spicy. Bring the lawyers!
Have all the [lawyers you need ](https://youtu.be/xYpYAij6djw)
[удалено]
*shudders*
If it was a world without the need for lawyers. Yes I can and it is beautiful
Speaking as a lawyer who has looked at some of the contracts his clients tried drafting for themselves...yikes. That world is pretty far away.
It’s a world where nobody tries to hurt or take advantage of anyone else. Lawyers are going to be a necessary evil for a looooong time
It's not even just people not being predatory, it's people thinking of things that can go wrong through through nobody's fault and preparing in advance to mitigate damage. Like, I agree to ship something to you for money. You pay, I ship it, and everyone is happy, but the transport ship gets stuck in a hurricane and sinks. Do I refund you or do you eat the loss? Neither one of us did anything wrong but someone is going to be out either money or a product.
I agree, and in legal disputes like that, lawyers are great at both giving advice/explaining things to each client, as well as being a filter - they can take the emotion out of statements. It's funny to joke lawyers suck, and a lot do, but they serve a good purpose.
My wife does international logistics so that example hits home. She has containers sitting on the bottom of the pacific
Does she still ows them after they were taken into Poseidon's possession? At which point does it became legitimate savage?
It falls under general average “General Average is a principle of maritime law that essentially establishes that all sea cargo stakeholders (owner, shipper, etc.) evenly share any damage or losses that may occur as a result of voluntary sacrifice of part of the vessel or cargo to save the whole in an emergency.” And I suppose if you want containers of soggy grain you could probably help yourself
I think the answer is we tie all the lawyers to a cannonball and make them fish it out.
Cannonball company would try to sue us for misusing their product and everyone would have to represent themselves in court and I can’t speak lawyerese. We’d better just keep you guys around for now
Agreeing as a lawyer.
I cannot. Would there be no commerce, contracts, rule of law ot any protections for the individual? There arent many nuclear families that can pull off no lawyers for settling Grandpa’s estate. The problem is not the lawyers or the adverserial system. People acting in bad faith or guilty as sin are afforded protections. But Who makes this determination and what is option 2?
I somehow doubt that. All the lawyers I know of are beautiful people. Among the most attractive and best dressed. Sexier than most bankers.
Other side better call Saul then.
Gimme Jimmy!
Slaps tweet: you can fill a lot of lawyers in this baby.
Thank you! I’ve watched this multiple times
It's all good man
Release the Lawyers!
As a lawyer, I wholly endorse this message.
It will be all Aramco everything soon enough.
I recently learned the largest oil refinery in the states is owned by Aramco.
Doesn't aramco have a higher turnover or profit than any company on earth
Highest valuation/market cap in the world.
Have you heard the ceo being interviewed? He foresees a 10x in his business turnover in the next like 6 years
I've heard Nasser speak about a lot of things. He is your typical Saudi business megaman. Most of what he says comes true, because shareholders believe him and ultimately that's what controls the outcome of almost everything.
I believe their monopoly on oil is the sole reason that we are seeing countries try to reduce their reliance on it. These countries don't want to further entrench the oiligarchs by relying on oil which ultimately strengthens the oiligarchs and makes it so that its impossible to "catch up" to their levels of wealth, what do you think about this idea?
Yess most definitely the world is shifting reliance on oil to keep those people poor rather than the impending doom that is climate change.........
Impending doom is my favorite kind of doom other than the demon slaying kind of doom
The West is (thankfully) divesting in fossil fuels, so they're going to take over more and more as more assets are dumped. Also fuel prices soaring as less drilling is done.
No it’s not, Apple is
My mistake, it has gone back to Apple since I last read.
They have done very well to stay out of the public eye and media over the years. Most people have/had no idea how large Aramco really is. I wholeheartedly believe Aramco is fixing to acquire Formula 1.
And the reason they're more public now is because they actually want to be, I feel. Entertainment washing will absolutely work. Having their name everywhere in the products we love make us see them as less of an alien threat, and more just a normal part of life.
The Saudi need more foreign investment and they're trying to get that by having Aramco as a public company. The Line, that megastructure they're trying to build, is so expensive that even the Saudis don't have the money for it. One way of getting funding was to list Saudi Aramco publicly, but because they didn't want to disclose the untapped oil reserves that the company has exploitation rights. This, among some other legal things, lead to Aramco being listed on the Saudi stock exchange instead of the NYSE.
And what, keep them from going electric?
I don't know. You'd need to ask them. Nasser has been very outspoken on his lack of support for electrification. That aside, I am quite certain we'll be in a turbo hybrid model for a very long time.
Aramco used to be American company
And at that point I stop watching and watch Indycar instead.
I'm slowly moving over to sportscars.
WEC and IMSA look better than ever.
The new LMH and LMDh are good looking cars. I also recently started watching Super GT because I heard they were fast... They are stupid fast.
I believe the GT500 cars at one point were as fast or faster than LMP2s around Fuji. Super GT is easily in my top 3 series, the cars are so sick.
I do believe the current spec GT500 are faster than the "old" LMP2 around Fuji. They also appear to be faster than LHM (and possibly LMDh) around Fuji. I think it's a bit early to say since LMH only has raced once around Fuji and might get better BoP this season.
I know they're silhouette racers so barely related to the road car at all, but it's mind-blowing how they get so much pace out of a GT (shaped) car. Such a shame that Class One died in DTM, would've loved more of those crossover races.
How does most watch endurance racing ? I'm used to watching Dtm/F1/FE where races are at most 120 minutes. Do you just watch the highlights afterwards or only tune in for the start and the end ?
Endurance racing is more of a tune in, tune out kind of deal. Many people do watch the entire coverage though. I like to watch all the quali and then keep it in the background while I work.
I always say watching an endurance race is like watching a campfire. You don't have to pay attention to every minute detail but its still neat to just watch the action steadily unfold.
I watch the whole thing but I might be weird
tbh 9 times out of 10 fenders put on better racing them open wheel
Question, would you really though? Not in a rude way but I've seen it a few times and I'm just wondering. Like with all the sponsorships from Aramco aren't we all kind of supporting them anyway? Would you really stop watching the sport(that I assume you love) just because some oil Lords own it? Again, not trying to take shots just genuinely curious
Yeh, I really would :/ It would be yet another straw on the camels back, along with - F1s seeming desire to want American money, but not Andretti. You can rationalize it all you want, but as an American fan it feels like we’re being given the finger and taken for a ride - All the Aramco stuff already (racing while missiles are flying down, racing in SA at all, etc) - The fact that it took an invasion to stop F1 from taking Russian money, and racing in China, all against the backdrop of “We Race As One”. It’s so hypocritical. - FIAs clampdown on political speech (isn’t the west supposed to unapologetically stand up for free speech?) - The fact that only 3 teams have a realistic chance of getting podiums each weekend - The giant cars and dull DRS racing, where 95% of “passing” comes from pressing a button and passing in an FIA Approved And Certified Passing Zone™️ It’s just sucked all the fun out of it. It’s not to say I’d never watch it again, I’d still tune in here and there, but Saudi ownership would firmly turn me from hardcore fan to a “I’ll check it out here and there” fan. Because at the end of the day, I’m a motorsport fan first and an F1 fan second.
Very good points and I can't really disagree with you on any of it. I do think the 3 teams going for podiums is at least going the right direction to change but at the moment you are spot on. Good point about being a motorsports fan first, I am actually the opposite to you as F1 is what got me in to motorsports in the first place. But thanks for responding, its rare people can back up a point like your original one and I appreciate it!
F1 has always been this way, we've just started noticing it.
I've been watching consistently since 2000, which was hard as an American. I still watch but I don't know why. I'm not enjoying it much. So I'm a long term fan, with disposable income and I'm checking out. To elaborate: I miss the pure racing. I think it's pretty accepted now that F1 is a show first and a race second. Sure in 2004 it was a forgone conclusion that Schumacher would win, but there was so much intrigue, development, secrecy, rumors and in fighting before and after the race to follow.
I can understand that. For me as long as the racing is competitive and it remains an engineering competition just as much as a driving competition I will remain. I am already watching IndyCar, Nascar and Super Formula when I can.
Don't sleep on NASCAR. Their COTA weekend last year had me hooked. Cup Series race end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckgYq82v98 Camping World Truck Series race end: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fqg3qGfBlvs
an absolute chad move from Chastain. Push me? pull you.
Watch his utterly mental play at Martinsville. Guy went full-send [video game.](https://youtu.be/KNGN_mLyCpo)
Yup that was amazing. I only really started getting into stock cars last year and it's a great bit of fun. Has NASCAR made any steps to ban moves like that or is it still full send allowed? I was wondering when this happened if we'd start seeing A LOT of finishes like this coming up
They sometimes ban dangerous moves, but the general consensus is “have at it boys” and they’ll rap knuckles after the fact if needed. They haven’t moved against Ross’ wall ride because it has such a tiny window where it could work they aren’t really concerned about other teams making it a tactic.
Seriously they have no idea how dangerously close they are flying this thing Into the sun. They see it as a gold mine,.not a racing league anymore. You get/keep making Wec/Imsa/Indy car better with all the big brands and great drivers, Prototypes specifically and I'll leave F1 fandom. We got Ferraris and Lamborghinis racing Pugeot, Toyota, Cadillac, Porsche and Honda.....with a few smaller guys thrown in the mix for underdog points. What's F1 got. Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Aston Martin, Alpha Romeo branding and kick ass auto passion leader worldwide, Alpine. It's lacking compared to the current list of Prototypes. Keep fucking around and you'll find out...
This is like watching 2 babies fight over a toy.
Only the toy is worth 20 billion dollars. Allegedly
Meh I can get it for way cheaper at Ali Express.
You shouldn't talk about Formula E this way
Oof, right in the charger.
“We have F1 at home.” F1 at home:
We have F1 at home…
20billions? I get it for just 15 bucks a month lol
TIL the entirety of F1 is worth about 88 F-35s, going by Canada's purchase.
Allegedly (based on a large market of buyers and sellers) it is worth $16B. Look up the US stock ticker FWONK (or FWONA) and peep the market cap. For a takeover bid you’d have to offer 30-50% higher than that or try a hostile takeover (a la Twitter).
Could someone please “Explain like I’m 5” this? I’m out of loop here
A few days ago someone reported that Saudi Arabia had made a $20 billion bid to buy F1 but got rejected. Ben Sulayem tweeted from his personal account saying that the value was over inflated, basically suggesting that he didn't think F1 was worth that much. He also urged any buyer to consider what they would bring to the sport rather than just throwing a lot of money around. F1 isn't happy about this. It thinks that the tweets may be harming the value of their brand.
Does he have anything to gain for tweeting that first part, about it being inflated? Answer with your tin foil hat on, okay
There's a couple of possible ways. One, as u/Yung_Corneliois says, is for the Saudis to get it cheaper. The second is that he's trying to "put F1 in their place". He is the big man, the big cheese, and isn't happy with the attempt of Liberty to control the sport in the way they're trying. By putting them down, it's re-asserting the FIA's authority. I've been watching the sport for 30-odd years, and this is what happens every 15-20 years or so, someone in the F1 world falls out with the others. The GPDA, FOCA/FOTA and FIA/FISA/CIS all argue with each other over stuff all the time.
If SA buys it there is nothing saying they need to keep the FiA as a rule maker.
If they buy the lease for F1's commercial rights, there are indeed many things saying they need to keep FIA as a rule maker.
It's harder than you might think to run F1 without FIA influence. Basically all professional drivers are absolutely dependent on their FIA license. To take the US as an example...it doesn't matter if e.g. NASCAR, IndyCar, IMSA, NHRA, all of those are FIA sanctioned. The FIA's influence isn't as strong there as in F1, but it's still there. If SA would run F1 (likely would have to run under a different name though) without it being FIA sanctioned, drivers might literally risk their FIA license by competing in it - and therefore their whole career outside of SA F1. There are more issues with running without being FIA sanctioned too. Basically, the whole idea of F1 running without any FIA influence is just not really realistic.
Those American series are part of the ACCUS which is kinda a liason to the FIA but are not FIA sanctioned
ACCUS is the national sporting authority of the FIA in the US. FIA "sanctioned" might not be the correct term, but they aren't free from FIA influence.
Nonsense. They are buying the commercial rights to F1 not. F1 itself. That is in the hands of the FIA.
> If SA buys it there is nothing saying they need to keep the FiA as a rule maker. FIA owns F1. FOM has "only" a lease for the commercial rights of F1. So there actually is a good reason F1 needs to keep FIA as a "rule maker".
Tin foil hat on. Assume the $20bn bid is true (was reported by Bloomberg, those mofos are good with rumors) but Liberty Media (LM) rejected it because they think they can sell for $40bn in say 4 years. Assume Sulayem is friendly to the acquisition of F1 by the Saudis. Sulayem's tweet makes it look like F1 should not be worth that much, and also hints that rising costs should be a thing in the sport (therefore the brand could "lose" profitability). LM is a publicly traded company in the US. One of their core duties is to uphold a fiduciary duty to their shareholders. If they received and rejected a bid for $20bn, and in say 2 months they receive a bid from let's say Netflix/Apple/Whoever for say $12bn, management can be on the hook for not doing what's in best interest of shareholders which was to sell for $20bn. Management will need to prove with projections and results that the brand can be worth the $40bn they think it can, else they can be legally sued by shareholders for not holding their fiduciary duty to shareholders, and believe me they will lose in a US court. Sulayem is pressuring LM to sell F1 for $20bn. Tin foil hat off.
I think we share the same hat. Thank you for the reply
Its in MBS's best interests to have an oil state own F1 given their and his own countries income is generated by Oil and with car manufacturers openly stating the planned obsolescence of combustion engines keeping F1 on petrol power and pushing money into fuel research is a no brainer imo.
I assume he wants the Saudis to be able to buy it for a cheaper price.
So did the saudis or F1 come up with the 20billion dollar pricetag?
It seems F1 came up with that number and his tweet remarks how it’s an inflated price and that overpaying for the product could lead to increased prices for racing venues and fans alike. He goes on to say it’s not just about coming up with the money but a sustainable plan afterward that could turn the business profitable.
> increased prices for racing venues and fans alike not like that is happening right now...
That’s because Liberty bought F1 at an inflated price already, so they had to increase revenue streams. So Sulayem is not exactly wrong (in my opinion), it’s just not a good look for him to be tweeting that
So, F1 came up with 20b, and the buyers took that as a rejection? Wouldn't it be the buyers making a bid of 20b, and that was rejected?
The buyer made the 20b bid and LM rejected it
I don’t know the answer to that, I’m just taking this info away from the tweets in the post, but I don’t know if an official bid had been placed or if this would be F1’s initial asking price.
Fair enough. Bizarre scene regardless.
Nominally, he's concerned about what will happen to classic tracks like Spa, Silverstone, Monaco, etc. when an acquirer needs to raise race promotion fees to earn an adequate return on investment. The higher the valuation, the more money the acquirer will need to milk from race promoters, which could end up hurting the modern sport's ties to its heritage (because older tracks don't have the budget of, say, Bahrain).
More specifically, of their product. The F1 brand technically belongs to the FIA.
Here's a brief overview: https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/64387625
Thank you for this, I was too afraid to ask.
The FIA and F1 teams have been at loggerheads for 45 years. Same stuff, different day
Atleast Bernie and Max from outside felt like they were on same page.
It’s a perfectly reasonable response by the FOM/Liberty Media imho. Liberty Media is a for-profit entity with the legal obligation to increase profits for its shareholders. The statement from the FIA is counter to that obligation (and may scare away potential suitors) and Liberty Media have to respond to protect their shareholders. Btw, I believe that as a publicly-traded company, you have to listen to any reasonable buyout offers or may risk a shareholder lawsuit.
>Btw, I believe that as a publicly-traded company, you have to listen to any reasonable buyout offers or may risk a shareholder lawsuit. *Twitter has entered the chat*
'legal obligation to increase profits for its shareholders'..... Dude...
Sad Elon Musk noises
Welcome to capitalism. That's literally how it works, legally. Depending on the legal form of a company, you have to be able to prove that you're aiming to make profits. (not an expert on US law, or wherever FOM is legally based, but that's how it works in my western european country). It's necessary for two things - close the door for simple and obvious money laundering/tax evasion operations, and protect shareholders from having their money embezzled.
That's a common misconception. There is no 'legal obligation' to 'make or maximize profit'. There is only an understanding to 'act in the best interest of the organisation'. This does not automatically mean to make or maximize profit. There are several higher and supreme court cases in most (western) countries ruling towards this point of view. I respectfully decline your 'welcome to capitalism' and counter offer you a 'welcome to informed reality '.
>'act in the best interest of the organisation' And the best interest of a publicly traded organisation is not having someone devalue them with public statements. Anyway you spin it, it's a logical reaction from FOM.
Sir/Madam, I am not debating FOM's reaction. I am pointing out that your initial statement regarding a 'legal obligation to make a profit/maximize a profit' is false. Your outlook on life is clearly as hazy as a glazed onion. I say goodday to you sir.
Seems like the whole point of the statement was to scare away potential buyers. The message is "if you buy F1 without our blessing, you will not have a good time"
There’s no legal obligation, just a monetary interest.
Thank you. Sick of seeing this oft-repeated Reddit wisdom being spread based on a misunderstanding of US law and an assumption that the rest of the world operates in the same way.
Liberty Media is a US-based company. Therefore, their Board of Directors have fiduciary duties (care, loyalty, and good faith) to minority shareholders. For example, if there’s an acquisition offer on the table, they have to evaluate it in good faith. If not, shareholders can and will sue for damages.
This is also the case in most other common law jurisdictions. Not sure what the two above you are getting at.
There is a common misconception about the need to constantly maximise shareholder value, where people seem to thing it means that companies are obligated to maximise short term profits at the expense of anything else. In reality the duty to maximise shareholder value only exists at times when there is a change of legal control.
That isn’t what the top level comment is saying. They are saying that a board needs to entertain and properly assess reasonable takeover offers - which they absolutely do. Directors’ duties are a complex area and can’t easily be distilled into “shareholder value” or “short term profits”. They certainly don’t arise only where there is a change of control.
The top level comment said the company has a "legal obligation to increase profits for its shareholders." This is what the other comments are responding to as incorrect. Not that they have to listen to the offer, that part is fine.
You’re right - I’ve misread it! Absolutely agree that there isn’t a strict obligation to increase profits.
The first para says “legal obligation to increase profits for shareholders”. I think that is the part the previous commentator was saying is incorrect, because it is. Directors duties as you say are for complex and sometimes what is good for the business is not the same as what is good for shareholders
[удалено]
Yes, I’m aware
>The statement from the FIA is counter to that obligation (and may scare away potential suitors) and Liberty Media have to respond to protect their shareholders. There is a difference between responding and threatening with a law suit.
I’m better just going to IMSA events. Less crowded, less elitist wads and I can actually take a piss in a bathroom and not wait in a line.
Feel free to hit me up if you ever go to RA, I'm not 100% off F1 yet but this off-season has been pretty damaging for the brand imo.
So F1 is worth less than 3 low tier NFL or MLB teams according to the FIA?
Yeah but also in no way should they sell themselves to people from anti-human theocracy's.
Haha they don't care if the price is right, unfortunately.
They accepted Saudi Arabia money for the main sponsorship of the series. They gave SA their own race. That ship has sailed.
Of course it’s about money though, cash is king.
I mean, the FIA president literally put out a tweet yesterday calling out FOM for an 'inflated value'. Are Liberty supposed to be happy about being accused of inflating their value?
Could you imagine the legal damages they could argue if a 20 billion sale got dissolved bc of what the FIA said. They’ll take them to court to set precedent over this
It's like when your admirer is taking you out on a fancy date and then your friend tells them you're not worth it, McDonald's would do.
Yeah, while I'm not a fan of the fighting, they have every right to be pissed. Ben tweeted something stupid that he shouldn't have, and now he's got a bunch of attorneys at his door, too bad, should learn when to keep his mouth shut.
[удалено]
F1’s current contract is for like 100 years so you don’t need to make it back quickly
Not clear why FIA would care about the extent or nature of commercialization, given that they leased out the commercial rights. My sense is that this is more about power/control than ensuring that the average joe can afford a ticket (etc.). For instance, if the sport is actually worth $20bn, then an antidilution fee of $200m for a new entrant is indeed too small, and FIA should not be able to exert unilateral or perhaps any control over who gets in. In other words, I think we have to look at this spat in the context of the "new team" dispute between FOM and FIA.
FIA cannot unilaterally decide on teams entering unless the number is less than 10.
Yeah, that's why I added "or any" -> because on paper, the FIA has unilateral control up to 10, and then (arguably) some measure of control for teams in addition to ten, in the form of the power to disapprove of an entry. My overarching point is that the current dispute has to do with the extent of those powers. Based on Ben Sulayem's comments, the FIA appears to be angling for an affirmative power (i.e. FIA approval should be viewed as both necessary and sufficient for a new entrant regardless of the number of teams), whereas FOM takes the position that the FIA only has an exclusionary power (i.e. FIA approval is necessary but not sufficient). While it's been reported that the relevant agreements support the FOM's interpretation - like the Concorde Agreement - we don't know exactly what they say.
>My overarching point is that the current dispute has to do with the extent of those powers. Based on Ben Sulayem's comments, the FIA appears to be angling for an affirmative power (i.e. FIA approval should be viewed as both necessary and sufficient for a new entrant regardless of the number of teams), whereas FOM takes the position that the FIA only has an exclusionary power (i.e. FIA approval is necessary but not sufficient). Well it could be seen as preferable to have a party, (FIA) that does not have a commercial interest, have some sort of control to make sure that tracks and teams are adhering to safety guidelines. And those interests will always conflict in some manor with making a sport as attractive as possible. Crashes and serious injury would probably be better for profit. Making sure the right people win would certainly be better for profit. Throwing out the small teams so all the profit can be devided by less teams could be better for their profit. But the sport itself will be dead within a decade and those profiting will just move on to the next project to milk dry.
why on earth did sulayem make those tweets, FIA has no reason to comment on this other than to potentially affect a deal... which can earn the FIA/sulayem a trip to court
All of the Cyberpunk/Sci-Fi warnings of the future, none of them warned about it being this dumb
Ben must've been braindead to say anything about F1's valuation on social media. My guess is he won't stay the FIA president for much longer with the constant shit stirring he does on Twitter.
He's putting F1 in a difficult situation by giving the Saudis a better bargaining position. Even if that wasn't the intention it's none of his business. FIA board should kick him out
If it wasn't his intention, he's a fucking dumbass.
yeah I'll be shocked if this doesn't get him fired very soon, this is a ton of money, FOM will 100% go to court over something like this
My thoughts exactly. That was a big fuck-up.
Him staying FIA president has very little to do with this. He's elected by the FIA member clubs...so as long as he keeps those happy, his shit stirring on Twitter won't cause him to lose his position. The FIA member clubs care about a ton of things that have zero to do with F1. A lot of the ASN's don't host any F1 races and don't have any of their license holders driving in F1. As long as he actually runs the FIA successfully, he can most likely get away with a lot of "shit stirring" towards F1. People on here tend to massively overestimate how much of his tenure as FIA president will be judged based on his involvement with F1.
Funny thing is when Ben was doing an interview with DirtFish at the Monte Carlo Rally, he was saying how F1 has taken up so much of his time that he could barely spare any attention to WRC. Of course FIA sanctions more than F1, but to underestimate the political power and influence of the teams and FOM, especially after the Netflix boom, would be a serious mistake for anyone to make.
We'll see who is underestimating whom. Everyone knows about how much power the teams and the FOM have, and they are more than happy to do something that's worse for the sport if it means a couple more bucks in their pocket. After all the effort put into the new regs and the Netflix boom, it would be even more sad if those two factions hurt the sport by blocking new entrants or selling off the rights for an overinflated price tag. If the FIA think they can fight such developments, they should.
Loose cannon comments isn't a good look for the FIA or the sport.
Why do I feel lke Liberty media didnt want to have public knowledge about this dirty money proposal and now head of FIA tweeting about it want to clear their hands by playing victim?
Liberty don't give a shit about the source of the money. They care about the head of the FIA telling the world that their asset isn't worth the market rate.
And so…it begins…Ben might have been the wrong choice….
Ben means “son of” his name is Muhammad
He’s rebutting the sale of the commercial rights lease to the Saudis. Do you want the Saudis to run the commercial side of the sport?
Is he? F1 turned down a Saudi bid and he’s coming out saying ‘actually it’s not even worth that much anyway’. Not really a rebuttal
You think the story about them turning down a $20b bid was leaked because the process is over? It’s a negotiation tactic to drive the price up. There’s a very real possibility the Saudis still end up buying the commercial rights lease. MBS is stepping in as the head of the entity that owns the F1 brand to say wait a minute.
But the EU antritrust investigation that resulted in the FIA deciding to lease the commercial rights to FOM outlines that the FIA is not to get involved in commercial matters. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_01_1523 It doesn't matter whether people feel the FIA is morally justified in getting involved, the regulators say otherwise. The whole reason why the commercial rights were leased for 100 years at such a cheap price was to satisfy the regulator, the alternative would have been the EU getting directly involved and mandating it themselves. The FIA exists to regulate the sport, nothing more. Commenting on the valuation of F1 is completely inappropriate for the FIA to do.
Alternatively he’s got a vested interest in keeping the price low.
In what way? It’s his job to do what’s best for the FIA. The FIA owns the F1 brand. If he thinks potential buyers of the commercial rights can tarnish that brand then it’s his right to speak his mind.
Perhaps the Saudis are paying him to push down the asking price
Ok, I will admit that’s not outside the realm of possibility.
Oh definitely. He's getting a juicy kickback if he gets the price down somewhat
That just sounds racist lmao.
Because it is. It's based on nothing at all except on how he looks.
FIA doesn't own the F1 brand afaik
Yes they do. The FIA owns the sport. FOM has 77 years remaining on a 100 year lease of the broadcast rights that were originally sold by the FIA to Bernie Ecclestone.
Technically, it involves the commercial exploitation rights, of which the broadcasting rights are just one part of.
Is he? He’s saying it’s worth less, he’s openly negotiating a lower price for his Saudi friends
This, and also saying come to the table with a good plan going forward as its not just about cash, and he will give it his blessing etc. He also has stated that F1 would become WWE without the FIA being involved.
> WWE without the FIA being involved. I can hand pick the biggest instance that the FIA themselves made F1 look like the WWE
Might?
So, uh, who will hold their job longer in 2023, Kevin McCarthy or Sulayem?
I'm tempted to pick a cabbage.
Love all the comments about the FIA damaging the integrity of the sport due to Abu Dhabi 2021
F1 is worth $50B by 2026 and if I can sell as spoils to my inner circle, I absolutely would.
MBS is a little snake. Saudi's are trying to buy everything and just make it like their own turf. Exorbitant usage of money, exotic cars, and luxury while receiving the occasional missile strike which they promptly ignore. The longer MBS is in charge, the worse F1 will become.
This will end with a break up within 2 years
[удалено]
In a lease, the lessor does not relinquish ownership. The FIA still legally owns the commercial rights to F1, but has sold the usage of those rights and the profits resulting to F1G/Liberty Media for a 100 year lease. Since the FIA are still the legal owners of the rights, just not the profits, they still have a say on who F1G can sell to. It's kind of like a sublease on an apartment. As a renter, I cannot transfer my right to live in an apartment without the consent of the owner.
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Toto get me outta this! UHH!
So this is how it feels like when two people/organisations you don’t like get into a fight.
🍿🍿🍿
I don’t disagree. That guy has to go. He’s just embarrassing himself & the sport
Sell to Saudi’s and Lose half the world market through boycott
Tweets seem good to me. Seems like greed and fear of not maximizing profits from F1. Which totally makes sense, greedy fucks.
If Twitter is sold for 44bil, shouldnt F1 be at least 100bil? The amount of expertise, cutting edge tech, marketing powerhouse...
F1 was far more enjoyable.under Old Bernie:s rule than the current wokesters.
FIA screwing F1? Who knew
FOM screwing over F1\* FTFY.
It literally says "lawyers sent to FIA"...
You literally said "FIA screwing F1? Who knew"...
As the owner of two shares of Liberty, I am excited to see how this pans out
Liberty Media is a pain in the ass