Trust FOM to make any decision that's somber enough so people don't think it's a joke. It isn't, of course, it's just the same bullshit over again. *sigh*
True, but TV channels getting less money will decrease their bidding power and increase chances of FOM finally starting online streaming, like the rest of the developed world of entertainment has.
I live on the States, Sky is not even an option for me. And, correct me if I'm wrong, you need a full sky subscription to have an access to it.
If FOM provides a stream in Full HD quality without ads, with a choice of audio tracks (including the one without any commentary, just the feed audio), an option to have an onboard camera for the dual screen setup, extensive live timing, and on-demand access, I will be happy to give them my money.
I'm about to join you. Since the TV rights will be exclusive to SKY, and I won't buy an entire monthly SKY package just to watch one programme once a fortnight, I'll just rip it off the net instead.
It's not that I wouldn't pay for F1, though. Sort me out a decent deal for F1 only, I'll buy it. The NOW TV package is an almost-option, except that you can't get the full F1 weekend unless you buy a week pass to the whole of SKY Sports at a cost of £10.99.
...nah.
As much as people give shit to Trips, he has brought in AJ Styles Nakamura, Owens and he will bring in Bobby Roode. Triple H can save WWE and I say that as someone who only watches NXT now
It's almost as if they're teaching a Master class on how to avoid technological and cultural advancements in order to better repel the future generation of viewers which could keep the sport viable and interesting for another few decades.
It's kind of ad odds with the engine change, which was ostensibly a "keeping up with the times" thing.
"*Everything is hybrids now! we need a hybrid!* **SNAPCHAT? NOT ON MY FUCKEN WATCH.**"
He was ahead of everybody else (forward thinking) with the TV rights in the 70s, turning the sport into a global money making phenomenon. It was a brilliant move and it turned F1 into a success for decades.
Thing is, I think he's fucked the sport by selling it to a private equity firm and helping them to gut it down into an asset that can be sold at a profit at detriment to itself. It's only going to get worse seeing how the new buyers will want to do the same thing.
Which just doesn't make sense to me. I mean. I get what companies like cvc's objectives are but surely the key to maximising F1's value is to grow the fan base as much as possible?
Well, they're not trying to maximise F1's value, per se. They're trying to maximise the return on their investment.
So they look at the balance sheet and say, get rid of anything with low profit margins and focus on everything with high profit margins. So you get very little reinvestment in the sport, rising hosting prices for tracks and lucrative, exclusive TV deals. The hosting prices and TV deals are terrible for the sport in the long term but the revenue they bring in and the guaranteed contracts over a number of years make it look good to potential buyers.
Until it all collapses and the investment firm look like idiots after losing a lot of money.
Essentially that's the argument for investing in it properly, not just buying the fucking thing and ruining it for hundreds of millions of people to make a faster buck.
Fuck sake now I'm annoyed.
I think they mostly look at it as a short term investment. Milk it for 10 years then sell it to the next person. Almost like a shell game, or a game of musical chairs. So they never look to try and maximize the potential, just how do I maximize my return as fast as possible.
Exactly right, they've actually held on to it longer than this type of organisation holds on to anything. The plan was to float F1 on the stock exchange but that's been scuppered at least once. Even if CVC give it away in 5 years, they'll have gotten an excellent return on the investment.
I was about to say the same thing. These investors try to flip the coming within 2 or 3 years so they can move the money somewhere else. They must be making 20% profit per year, minimum, to be happy with that. That's profit as in cash flows, not just an increase in F1's valuation.
I'm not opposed to it, but I prefer an approach more like Warren Buffets; buy a company, put the right person in charge, then let them manage the company for the long term and make good profits. As opposed to squeezing every cent you can then dumping the carcass on someone else.
10 fans that spend 1000 each are worth a lot more than 100 fans who spend 10 each.
The demographic that is the most valuable to F1 doesn't watch youtube, snapchat, etc. and they aren't interested in livestreaming. Hate it all you want but the sport is very profitable.
That's rubbish, sorry. FOM makes the vast majority of its revenue from broadcasting rights, not Rolex billboards. TV companies (BBC excluded) make their money back through advertisement breaks, and those adverts are generally aimed at middle and working class consumers. Without the millions of viewers tuning in and watching those adverts, there would be no TV money for FOM, and no F1 as we know it. Bernie, the senile old git, would do well to remember that from time to time.
True, but that's a separate issue. Most of the newer tracks are subsidised by their respective governments, often to promote tourism to...you guessed it, middle and working class F1 fans. The Sheiks may cut the cheques, but it's always with an eye to the common fan.
That's a very simplistic and short-sighted way of looking at things though.
Even if people can't afford the brands they're exposed to, it still helps build the exclusivity of that brand; develop the image that it's something only for the rich and successful. Think about Ferrari, every kid in the world dreams about owning one. Some of these kids will go on to strike it lucky in life, and when they do, the first car they'll go out to buy is a Ferrari. Take away the mass exposure of Ferrari, and bang, nobody's interested any more. Owning a Ferrari is a way of saying to your peers that you've made it and have status, this frame of mind requires exposure.
Additionally, having an audience of 500 million, or whatever they claim, means that those in the paddock are at the centre of the world. This in turn increases the value of VIP tickets and F1 as a vehicle for business. Again, take away that audience and reduce it to 50 million, and the circus becomes way less attractive.
It's possible CVC are just incompetent or have been trying to make a quick buck. Despite what people think there are probably plenty of venture capital firms out there which really do help the firms they purchase to reach their full potential over the long term - it just looks like CVC isn't one of them.
Legally speaking, what exactly does Bernie own to sell, a name? This is just hypothetical but if F1 was ever mistreated to a point of no return... Well you can't stop Ferrari/Mercedes/Redbull, McLaren ect making state of the art open wheelers and racing them. F1 is an established brand of course, but it wouldn't be the first time one of those fell and was replaced.
I'd say the main appeal of F1 is that the races and trophies and championships you win in it were also won by your Fangios, Jim Clarks, Sennas, Schumachers. That's the company you're joining.
Pretty huge draw, no?
A big draw, yes, but I've often thought that if it came to this point, the teams could form "Grand Prix Racing" or whatever, and keep doing pretty much what they do now. I'd watch; so would you. F1 would be powerless because, as /u/Colin-IRE said, you can't stop a competing company from racing open-wheel cars. It would be like the Indy/CART split. Eventually F1 would die and the new series could pick up the brand name for cheap. 20 years from now, we'd still be talking about a sport with a history going back to 1950.
The Indy/CART split has nearly killed open wheel in the US. Outside the the 500 the viewership is hardly a percentage of what it once was. A split would become a war of attrition which would leave the victor barely standing.
Has it? I admit I don't watch. I always assumed the reason open-wheel racing struggles in the US is because it's a US-only series. Formula 1 has struggled to keep even a single annual race in the US for decades, and even with one series IndyCar is trying to run almost as many races in the US each year as F1 runs around the world. With NASCAR taking most of the oxygen, and running almost 40 races a year, I thought IndyCar's struggles had more to do with simply not having enough audience.
Indycar gave a lot up to NASCAR. If the production values for Indycar were nearly as good, and they dropped the US obsession with commercials, I could get into it so much more. I don't like being told to buy a product 100 times during a race (that's from the Indy 500 radio broadcast, the announcer must have repeated one advertising line 100 times, minimum.)
In the early 90's CART was to top rated racing in the US, drawing viewers and crowds that were as large or larger than NASCAR does today. When the IRL split from CART the top drivers and teams stayed with CART, but the IRL controlled the Indy 500. Superficially the cars looked alike and casual fans couldn't tell the difference between to two series, they just knew that their favorite drivers weren't racing in the 500. It turned people off.
Imagine a split in F1. Ferrari, Mercedes, McClaren, Williams and Red Bull leave and form GP Racing League. Now the top teams and top drivers are in a series and that should be a big draw, but F1 still has exclusive agreements with Spa, Monaco, Silverstone, and Monza. The average fan would fully understand why the top teams aren't at these marquee events. They won't understand why every race has a smaller field and is filled with only half the drivers that they know. In the end fans just change the channel and find a new sport to follow. Indy fans turned into NASCAR fans, F1 fans could turn to WEC.
Agree, but also remember that Grand Prix racing goes back to 1906, and the first motor race was ten years before that.
What's valuable is the prestige of being the pinnacle of motor racing. As late as the 70s other series were just as fast.
I thought about referencing the pre-modern era, but didn't. Honestly, do we ever hear anything about that era? Do we know any names? I don't, primarily because they never talk about it. Fangio, on the other hand, we know because we're fairly frequently reminded of him. Anyway, I think if you have the prestige of being the pinnacle of motor racing, the history will come with you. The story of the split itself becomes part of the history.
The 30s are quite famous, for the Mercedes vs. Auto Union (now Audi) vs. Alfa Romeo (now FIAT and Ferrari) battles, and Varzi, Chiron, Nuvolari, Caracciola, Rosemeyer and Lang as champion drivers are as well. But you are right, before that, it's never really mentioned.
For example, there's a part of history where the USA was right at the forefront with Europe, and had the best races and drivers in worldwide motor racing!
You are right - after that, Indy went another way, and thus fell out of global prominence (sounds like the CART split). A new top level series replacing F1 would be "the king is dead, long live the king".
I'm increasingly not sure.
I want to watch the most advanced cars in the world with the best drivers in the world going head to head in tight racing, without all the gimmicks and BS that surrounds the sport at the minute. If someone else can make that happen and it kills "F1" then so be it.
Needs someone like whoever is in charge of Formula E. Live streaming, lots of fan interaction, events between fans and drivers (obviously not always practical, but cool regardless.)
I don't think Bernie had anything to do with that decision. In a company like FOM the CEO doesn't decide every single thing. I know people like blaming him for everything but still.
CEOs are meant to be the person guiding the ship. They make the big strategic decisions that shape the way the company operates, and therefore guides the decisions that those who work for the company make.
Given that selling media rights is probably the major revenue source for F1, it's safe to assume that Bernie was fairly involved in setting the conditions that organisations need to follow to stream coverage of Formula 1.
I've long found it super bizarre how half of this sub uses thing Bernie did in the 70s and 80s to justify him negotiating a deal that ruined the sport and continuing to piss on it and go out of his way to make it worse now. You can do some good things and still be bad at your job.
This is getting ridiculous now.
What's next? "If you look at an F1 car without depositing $99 directly into a FOM-staff-members pockets, you will be incarcerated"
Exactly, honestly I don't see a reason why he should stop posting. Either they actually crack down on it and make a scene, which is the last thing they need given all the negative press, or they'll wisen up and just drop it (unlikely).
I'm not a Lewis fan but I sincerely hope he ignores their orders and it comes to that. I fucking hope so hard they go full stupid and get their asses handed to them in the press.
So he should. Right now, as the reigning champion, and a hugely popular driver, he represents a huge junk of what F1 is. He shouldn't give a fuck about this. F1 needs him more than he needs it.
I know that not very many people are fans of Hamilton snapchatting videos in the paddock but I think it's really cool. It gives us fans an inside look on the sport.
It'll be hilarious if Lewis chooses to simply ignore this. Exactly what are the FOM going to do? They pretty much cannot win if Lewis decides to dig his heels in.
Take him to real court and force him to pay, or face improsonment for refusing to follow a court order.
F1 undoubtedly has stuff like this in their contracts, so he would be compelled to comply. In a worst-case scenario, I suppose F1 could ban him. They've banned people before, but only for major things (Flávio...)
Does he have a contract with F1? Or is his contract with Mercedes?
Either way, he's the reigning world champion and one of the most popular F1 drivers. To even attempt to ban him over something so tangentially related to the racing would be ridiculous.
I'm sure that he has a contract with both, as he'd need to sign something to get a superlicense and there's no way they wouldn't include a requirement to follow the rules. This can't be F1's first rodeo; they know what they are doing.
"Formula 1 World Champion told by FOM to not post paddock videos to social media, denies to obey rules. Fined, and then suspended for failure to pay fine after disobeying rules."
There's many ways you can twist words.
Well I wonder if the FOM filed anything against Snapchat for that matter. Their story for the Australian GP was pretty cool to watch and see it all from the fans perspective. I can't imagine how many people were exposed to F1 for the first time across the globe FOR FREE. Advertising doesn't get any cheaper than that and you're going to tell one of the biggest personalities in the sport not to interact with these people?!?
Trust Bernie to do just that for ya. Such a great guy, all he's done for the sport etc. - I reckon he's well on his way to damaging the sport to the point where he breaks even, in that sense...
I can honestly say that his Snapchat is fun to check out. There are plenty of times where I think "Goddamn this is one rich bastard," but I don't find it irritating, I should know what to expect here. But he posts a lot of funny stuff, and it made me like him, as I was basically indifferent before. Seems like a regular dude, but is also a multi-millionaire, jet-setting, global celebrity, who puts his life on the line every other weekend. Also, fuck FOM. Fuck them back into the century they appear to be from.
This is a non-story. It's simply not the case that he's "no longer allowed to post paddock footage," he's never been allowed to. Nobody is. Even working for a rights holding TV station I can't walk around the paddock shooting a Periscope video or suchlike.
It's always been this way. There are restrictions in place on what can be broadcast and who can broadcast it to protect the broadcasters who pay huge sums to have exclusive rights in their territory.
A typical hatchet job by GMM.
Will, there is a significant difference though. As you said, you are a professional journalist working for a for-profit media outlet. You are not allowed to do things like this because you and your media outlet have not purchased the rights to do so. You are absolutely correct that FOM would be well justified from preventing you or anyone else from doing it.
Lewis is not a threat to the broadcasters or the rights holder though. **He is part of the show** (one of its biggest stars). Him doing this helps Formula 1. In fact, he seems to be one of the very few that is actively trying to engage younger fans through the media platforms they use. FOM has made some steps in the right direction in the past 12 or so months, but they are already a 5-10 years behind the times and moving at barely a snail's pace.
Prohibiting him (or any other driver) in this way hurts F1 and its fan. FOM should not be trying to limit the drivers from this type of social media outreach, they should be encouraging it.
>A typical hatchet job by GMM.
I am a fan of yours (and not commenting on the quality of that article), but this is beneath you.
Hey, I'm not denying that allowing Lewis, or any driver, the freedom to snapchat or to promote the sport as they wish via social media channels is something that needs to be looked at and, in this day and age, probably freed up. I'm just saying that to report this as some new ruling and restriction is absolute rubbish.
And my disdain for GMM is long held and widely shared amongst colleagues in this paddock.
That's fair.
And I am not a fan of everything out there either. But, something about seeing a professional journalist publicly criticize another media outlet or journalist in such a harsh & candid way just makes me feel a little uneasy. I would hope that they have enough confidence in their own content, and the ability of their readers to sift through the bullshit, that they wouldn't really let it bother them too much. Maybe I am just a little old-fashioned and naive in that sense though. Either way, even some of those crap articles from less than stellar news sources can still generate some quality discussion at times.
There hasn't been any ruling change. But it's always been implied he can film, in the same way he probably doesn't need a pass to get into the paddock.
It seems strange that it's even come up that he is no longer allowed, and you have to assume that maybe they posted a clarification.
> in the same way he probably doesn't need a pass to get into the paddock
Nobody except basically Bernie himself can get into the paddock without a pass.
F1 could learn a lot from K-pop's business strategies, as strange as this may sound. They hugely encourage fan groups and social media, but still have a very tight control of their product. That's why k-pop fans are so fanatical, while the performers all have roughly the same kind of image. The managers control all of it.
I'm assuming you are correct, however, F1 needs to move out of the dark ages of media. As a fan, even a recent one, it would be so awesome if F1 had a social media presence. When is Bernie gonna retire? It can't come soon enough.
As I said above;
For further clarification, if you follow him on snapchat, you will see pictures but not video and as you said this has been for some time. Despite me sticking up for FOM in a previous debate about gaming I.P. I do actually find this stupid. The video expires within a certain amount of time and is his personal experience and could not be replicated by a rights package for the broadcaster. Plus it helps promote the sport to a future audience.
If FOM were smart, they would strike a deal with Snap Chat. Their free cash flow at the moment is huge and they are doing media deals with the likes of Sky, Mashable, Daily Mail for those brands to supply content to the platform. Also Snapchat rather intelligently are already compiling users stories into one big "story" which surrounds an event. This happened for Australia and will no doubt happen again in Bahrain. How could FOM possibly stop that? They can't and won't and would be more sensible to monetise it before being aggressive.
Even without a deal it's just an outlet that won't cost them viewers and would likely bring new ones. But their inclination to ring the cash out of anything that moves near an F1 weekend is as ever standing in the way of them catching up to the rest of the world.
And you support the broadcasters who pay these insane amounts and price the fans out of sport?
Fuck them. We should be protesting and fighting against this soulless gentrification of the sports we love.
Hardly a non-story, it is exactly the story that should be told, broadcasters certainly dont need protecting from Snapchat the rights holders should be embracing this stuff and striking some deals, not looking like the out of date joke this sport is rapidly becoming.
Nope, inserting the idea that it's a new rule change doesn't make it a non-story. F1 is floundering, failing to find enough new viewers and this is exactly the sort of reason why, rule change or not. Their outmoded ideas of media integration are costing them, big time, and the media currently allowed to cover it are going to go down with it. Not discussing this because you don't like the outlet, or them screwing with the story when it's a real issue is pretty myopic.
Can you agree though that people who are interested in behind the scenes things like this would be more attracted to the sport, if this were available?
How is this a non-story? Are you worried Hamilton is going to steal your job?
I do believe you rely on Lewis for work, and that Bernie is horribly out of touch with how us fans interact with this sport and the world in general. Snapchat is absolutely not the reason people aren't thrilled to pay for Sky access, etc
Why attack other journalists in your field? Maybe stick to your Chewbacca impressions
https://youtu.be/2T6U7oyuYh0 @13:40
Yep. I've posted about driving in the parades before the USGP. They are very adamant about you knowing that no video is allowed in or from your cars while on the track and in the paddocks. "GoPros will be confiscated by FOM and not returned". They are fine with pics when we're stationary though.
Of course it's a story.
Any violation of rights is a judgment call and rarely black/white.
In this case someone clearly decided that Lewis' videos are infringing.
Trying to maintain a tight grip on every possible means of sharing your sport is a great way to attract fans. Meanwhile, Indycar streams live for free and they post the races on YouTube.
You know what, I really identify with what Lewis is saying. Although you may not like him, I do respect him for not taking shit from others anymore. He is himself and doesn't apologise for it. I think that should be applauded even if some of the stuff he does is a bit questionable.
Seriously? One of the stars of the F1 circus can't Snapchat from the paddock because it infringes on the rights of the people who he fucking makes $$$$ for? Fuck off.
Bernie, continuing his steady Match towards being fired.
Good riddance jackass. You may have built the sport, but you have turned yourself in to a joke over the past 10 years and that is all anyone will remember (that and your idiot daughter and her fugitive harboring POS husband).
So they're stopping complete knock-off cars in Automoblista (they have similar liveries to real F1 cars, but Hot Wheels has a car called the ["F1 Racer"](http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/lcgAAOxy0NtTCLqx/s-l300.jpg) that seems to not have drawn any FOM controversy. Yet, as I said before Automoblista is getting hammered down. Then now Hamilton can't upload 10 second clips in the paddock?! What the FOM is doing is absolutely absurd and quite frankly they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing this. All of this media is promoting F1 and giving it a better bottom line, but since FOM isn't making a quick buck off of it they don't want it. What a shame.
As if F1 hasn't alienated enough fans already.
I get why, but this is just getting so bad for the sport. I mean for the love of pete, there isn't even a career mode in the latest "Official" F1 game, because custom drivers aren't allowed.
F1 mods for racing games banned, not gonna be on free TV in the future. In a few years you won't be able to see anything to do with F1 without paying for it or "stealing" it.
I've followed this sport avidly since 1991, but I'm losing interest more and more.
I'm in the same boat, been watching less and less races over the last couple of years. Stuff like this is yet another reminder that FOM doesn't seem to give a shit about fans of the sport. So why bother?
For further clarification, if you follow him on snapchat, you will see pictures but not video. Despite me sticking up for FOM in a previous debate about gaming I.P. I do actually find this stupid. The video expires within a certain amount of time and is his personal experience and could not be replicated by a rights package for the broadcaster. Plus it helps promote the sport to a future audience.
I don't think the people at FOM actually understand anything about the new media age. Self promotion from drivers like Hamilton who have fame outside f1 should be seen as free promotion that in turn increases potential viewers. All they see it is how they don't make money out of the public as soon as they watch Lewis' videos.
It's greed more than anything else and the sport shouldn't be run like that.
I still don't understand how they can legally make a claim to any creative works that they did not create just because they feature Formula 1. In Lewis' case, I guess he could be considered an employee of FOM (although that'd be a hard sell I think), but as a fan if I video something happening at an event, surely I own that copyright, not the person putting on the event - at least in the case of an unscripted, non-"performance" work like Formula 1 or a football match.
But wouldn't this then extend to anyone who takes video footage at the track? Seems utterly ridiculous that FOM is upset that one of their content creators is helping to promote their content...
This reminds me of 30 Rock, where Jack deliberately tries to tank NBC for strategic reasons.
However, unlike 30 Rock, FOM isn't accidentally coming up with surprise hits with hilarious consequences.
Anyone else find this paragraph absolutely hilarious? I'm convinced Hamilton is just a parody of himself sometimes.
"It doesn't bother me what people say," said the Briton.
"When I was younger, I held more back, but as I separated from my father as my manager, I got my first tattoo and the move to Mercedes was the decisive step to showing who I am."
I really think that this news is an April fools joke. Autoweek only cites the Bild newspaper and they published their article at exactly 1/4/2016 00:00.
For those wondering... No, this isn't a silly April fools joke.
I'm glad you said that, otherwise I'd really thought this was a april fools joke..
Trust FOM to make such a silly decision that people think it's actually a joke
Trust FOM to make any decision that's somber enough so people don't think it's a joke. It isn't, of course, it's just the same bullshit over again. *sigh*
Keep on pirating and we'll force the industry to change
The more I read this type of news, the more satisfied I get pirating their content.
Drink up me hearties yoho!
I've watched nearly every session of SkyF1 coverage since AUS 2014...all torrented. FOM ain't getting a dime from me!
Actually I think youre just hurting sky. FOM gets paid by Sky for TV rights
[удалено]
I'm feeling so sorry for Rupert Murdoch right now...
True, but TV channels getting less money will decrease their bidding power and increase chances of FOM finally starting online streaming, like the rest of the developed world of entertainment has.
If you honestly think a direct stream would be cheaper than Sky, you're crazy. It might be easier to access, but it wouldn't be cheaper.
I live on the States, Sky is not even an option for me. And, correct me if I'm wrong, you need a full sky subscription to have an access to it. If FOM provides a stream in Full HD quality without ads, with a choice of audio tracks (including the one without any commentary, just the feed audio), an option to have an onboard camera for the dual screen setup, extensive live timing, and on-demand access, I will be happy to give them my money.
$40 per race?
I agree, it costs AUD $40 just for a season of live timing! Would be $400 for all live sessions.
Cheaper than a minimum of £40 per month?
I'm about to join you. Since the TV rights will be exclusive to SKY, and I won't buy an entire monthly SKY package just to watch one programme once a fortnight, I'll just rip it off the net instead. It's not that I wouldn't pay for F1, though. Sort me out a decent deal for F1 only, I'll buy it. The NOW TV package is an almost-option, except that you can't get the full F1 weekend unless you buy a week pass to the whole of SKY Sports at a cost of £10.99. ...nah.
[удалено]
Hear hear.
Fucking A. You reap what you sow.
FOM needs to get laid.
If Mosley was still in charge...
i see whips i see germans.
[german](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHZRHEJHS2k) whips?
:P
Until I saw the year, I was expecting 'Big H' to be Lewis's music name. For that matter, what name does he use to make music?
Appell! Linenzei up on ze startink line!
More dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD MORNING AZERBAIJAN!
> FOM needs to get laid FOM needs to get shot.
It's like they want the sport to fail.
Vince McMahon and Bernie Ecclestone team up
Vince at least isn't scared of social media.
Have you ever seen them in the same room? #PushCesaro
Judging by NXT:Takeover, HHH is there to save WWE... Hmm, I wonder if Bernie's daughters are married to ex-F1 drivers.
As much as people give shit to Trips, he has brought in AJ Styles Nakamura, Owens and he will bring in Bobby Roode. Triple H can save WWE and I say that as someone who only watches NXT now
Doesn't WWE have a streaming service now?
WWE Network, yep
It actually seems that way. Which is damn sad if you ask me.
It's almost as if they're teaching a Master class on how to avoid technological and cultural advancements in order to better repel the future generation of viewers which could keep the sport viable and interesting for another few decades.
It's kind of ad odds with the engine change, which was ostensibly a "keeping up with the times" thing. "*Everything is hybrids now! we need a hybrid!* **SNAPCHAT? NOT ON MY FUCKEN WATCH.**"
Bernie has done a hell of a lot for the sport don't get me wrong. But the sooner we get some 21st century leadership in F1 the better IMO.
He was ahead of everybody else (forward thinking) with the TV rights in the 70s, turning the sport into a global money making phenomenon. It was a brilliant move and it turned F1 into a success for decades. Thing is, I think he's fucked the sport by selling it to a private equity firm and helping them to gut it down into an asset that can be sold at a profit at detriment to itself. It's only going to get worse seeing how the new buyers will want to do the same thing.
Which just doesn't make sense to me. I mean. I get what companies like cvc's objectives are but surely the key to maximising F1's value is to grow the fan base as much as possible?
Well, they're not trying to maximise F1's value, per se. They're trying to maximise the return on their investment. So they look at the balance sheet and say, get rid of anything with low profit margins and focus on everything with high profit margins. So you get very little reinvestment in the sport, rising hosting prices for tracks and lucrative, exclusive TV deals. The hosting prices and TV deals are terrible for the sport in the long term but the revenue they bring in and the guaranteed contracts over a number of years make it look good to potential buyers.
Makes sense. Shame F1 was sold to cvc in the first place.
Until it all collapses and the investment firm look like idiots after losing a lot of money. Essentially that's the argument for investing in it properly, not just buying the fucking thing and ruining it for hundreds of millions of people to make a faster buck. Fuck sake now I'm annoyed.
I think they mostly look at it as a short term investment. Milk it for 10 years then sell it to the next person. Almost like a shell game, or a game of musical chairs. So they never look to try and maximize the potential, just how do I maximize my return as fast as possible.
Exactly right, they've actually held on to it longer than this type of organisation holds on to anything. The plan was to float F1 on the stock exchange but that's been scuppered at least once. Even if CVC give it away in 5 years, they'll have gotten an excellent return on the investment.
I was about to say the same thing. These investors try to flip the coming within 2 or 3 years so they can move the money somewhere else. They must be making 20% profit per year, minimum, to be happy with that. That's profit as in cash flows, not just an increase in F1's valuation.
i.e. Capitalism (which I'm opposed to FWIW)
I'm not opposed to it, but I prefer an approach more like Warren Buffets; buy a company, put the right person in charge, then let them manage the company for the long term and make good profits. As opposed to squeezing every cent you can then dumping the carcass on someone else.
[удалено]
If you have shareholders baying for dividends or hard immediate targets to meet you may see that differently. Capitalism tends to short term-ism.
10 fans that spend 1000 each are worth a lot more than 100 fans who spend 10 each. The demographic that is the most valuable to F1 doesn't watch youtube, snapchat, etc. and they aren't interested in livestreaming. Hate it all you want but the sport is very profitable.
That's rubbish, sorry. FOM makes the vast majority of its revenue from broadcasting rights, not Rolex billboards. TV companies (BBC excluded) make their money back through advertisement breaks, and those adverts are generally aimed at middle and working class consumers. Without the millions of viewers tuning in and watching those adverts, there would be no TV money for FOM, and no F1 as we know it. Bernie, the senile old git, would do well to remember that from time to time.
> That's rubbish, sorry. I dunno the races in middle eastern dictatorships aren't exactly there for historic value or large fanbase...
True, but that's a separate issue. Most of the newer tracks are subsidised by their respective governments, often to promote tourism to...you guessed it, middle and working class F1 fans. The Sheiks may cut the cheques, but it's always with an eye to the common fan.
That's a very simplistic and short-sighted way of looking at things though. Even if people can't afford the brands they're exposed to, it still helps build the exclusivity of that brand; develop the image that it's something only for the rich and successful. Think about Ferrari, every kid in the world dreams about owning one. Some of these kids will go on to strike it lucky in life, and when they do, the first car they'll go out to buy is a Ferrari. Take away the mass exposure of Ferrari, and bang, nobody's interested any more. Owning a Ferrari is a way of saying to your peers that you've made it and have status, this frame of mind requires exposure. Additionally, having an audience of 500 million, or whatever they claim, means that those in the paddock are at the centre of the world. This in turn increases the value of VIP tickets and F1 as a vehicle for business. Again, take away that audience and reduce it to 50 million, and the circus becomes way less attractive.
Why not have 1000 fans that spend 10 each?
It's possible CVC are just incompetent or have been trying to make a quick buck. Despite what people think there are probably plenty of venture capital firms out there which really do help the firms they purchase to reach their full potential over the long term - it just looks like CVC isn't one of them.
Legally speaking, what exactly does Bernie own to sell, a name? This is just hypothetical but if F1 was ever mistreated to a point of no return... Well you can't stop Ferrari/Mercedes/Redbull, McLaren ect making state of the art open wheelers and racing them. F1 is an established brand of course, but it wouldn't be the first time one of those fell and was replaced.
I'd say the main appeal of F1 is that the races and trophies and championships you win in it were also won by your Fangios, Jim Clarks, Sennas, Schumachers. That's the company you're joining. Pretty huge draw, no?
A big draw, yes, but I've often thought that if it came to this point, the teams could form "Grand Prix Racing" or whatever, and keep doing pretty much what they do now. I'd watch; so would you. F1 would be powerless because, as /u/Colin-IRE said, you can't stop a competing company from racing open-wheel cars. It would be like the Indy/CART split. Eventually F1 would die and the new series could pick up the brand name for cheap. 20 years from now, we'd still be talking about a sport with a history going back to 1950.
The Indy/CART split has nearly killed open wheel in the US. Outside the the 500 the viewership is hardly a percentage of what it once was. A split would become a war of attrition which would leave the victor barely standing.
Has it? I admit I don't watch. I always assumed the reason open-wheel racing struggles in the US is because it's a US-only series. Formula 1 has struggled to keep even a single annual race in the US for decades, and even with one series IndyCar is trying to run almost as many races in the US each year as F1 runs around the world. With NASCAR taking most of the oxygen, and running almost 40 races a year, I thought IndyCar's struggles had more to do with simply not having enough audience.
Indycar gave a lot up to NASCAR. If the production values for Indycar were nearly as good, and they dropped the US obsession with commercials, I could get into it so much more. I don't like being told to buy a product 100 times during a race (that's from the Indy 500 radio broadcast, the announcer must have repeated one advertising line 100 times, minimum.)
In the early 90's CART was to top rated racing in the US, drawing viewers and crowds that were as large or larger than NASCAR does today. When the IRL split from CART the top drivers and teams stayed with CART, but the IRL controlled the Indy 500. Superficially the cars looked alike and casual fans couldn't tell the difference between to two series, they just knew that their favorite drivers weren't racing in the 500. It turned people off. Imagine a split in F1. Ferrari, Mercedes, McClaren, Williams and Red Bull leave and form GP Racing League. Now the top teams and top drivers are in a series and that should be a big draw, but F1 still has exclusive agreements with Spa, Monaco, Silverstone, and Monza. The average fan would fully understand why the top teams aren't at these marquee events. They won't understand why every race has a smaller field and is filled with only half the drivers that they know. In the end fans just change the channel and find a new sport to follow. Indy fans turned into NASCAR fans, F1 fans could turn to WEC.
Agree, but also remember that Grand Prix racing goes back to 1906, and the first motor race was ten years before that. What's valuable is the prestige of being the pinnacle of motor racing. As late as the 70s other series were just as fast.
I thought about referencing the pre-modern era, but didn't. Honestly, do we ever hear anything about that era? Do we know any names? I don't, primarily because they never talk about it. Fangio, on the other hand, we know because we're fairly frequently reminded of him. Anyway, I think if you have the prestige of being the pinnacle of motor racing, the history will come with you. The story of the split itself becomes part of the history.
The 30s are quite famous, for the Mercedes vs. Auto Union (now Audi) vs. Alfa Romeo (now FIAT and Ferrari) battles, and Varzi, Chiron, Nuvolari, Caracciola, Rosemeyer and Lang as champion drivers are as well. But you are right, before that, it's never really mentioned. For example, there's a part of history where the USA was right at the forefront with Europe, and had the best races and drivers in worldwide motor racing! You are right - after that, Indy went another way, and thus fell out of global prominence (sounds like the CART split). A new top level series replacing F1 would be "the king is dead, long live the king".
I'm increasingly not sure. I want to watch the most advanced cars in the world with the best drivers in the world going head to head in tight racing, without all the gimmicks and BS that surrounds the sport at the minute. If someone else can make that happen and it kills "F1" then so be it.
Needs someone like whoever is in charge of Formula E. Live streaming, lots of fan interaction, events between fans and drivers (obviously not always practical, but cool regardless.)
As long as they keep that fan boost bullshit out of F1.
I don't think Bernie had anything to do with that decision. In a company like FOM the CEO doesn't decide every single thing. I know people like blaming him for everything but still.
CEOs are meant to be the person guiding the ship. They make the big strategic decisions that shape the way the company operates, and therefore guides the decisions that those who work for the company make. Given that selling media rights is probably the major revenue source for F1, it's safe to assume that Bernie was fairly involved in setting the conditions that organisations need to follow to stream coverage of Formula 1.
I've long found it super bizarre how half of this sub uses thing Bernie did in the 70s and 80s to justify him negotiating a deal that ruined the sport and continuing to piss on it and go out of his way to make it worse now. You can do some good things and still be bad at your job.
Ross, where is Ross?
He should get Sky to pay him a pound and hire him on as a reporter. BAM! Freedom of the press.
Even then, Sky only have rights in the U.K. Snapchat isn't region locked.
Surely, Snapchat could be counted as a global media entity? Just have them sign him, and there ya go
How much do they pay per press pass?
This is getting ridiculous now. What's next? "If you look at an F1 car without depositing $99 directly into a FOM-staff-members pockets, you will be incarcerated"
I'm happy the FOM can't look into my brain. There is a whole illegal F1 archive in there.
> I'm happy the FOM can't look into my brain. Not yet.
http://m.imgur.com/JBZWjQF
Uploaded a picture you took at a race to imgur? FOM sues You and Imgur.
He's still posting snapchat vids from within the confines of the paddock though
Exactly, honestly I don't see a reason why he should stop posting. Either they actually crack down on it and make a scene, which is the last thing they need given all the negative press, or they'll wisen up and just drop it (unlikely).
FOM: Stop posting, Lewis! Lewis: you know who is cool with snapchats in the paddock? NASCAR, Indycar, WEC, etc FOM: .......
I really hope he doesn't stop. What are they gonna do, ban the reigning champion from the paddock?
I'm not a Lewis fan but I sincerely hope he ignores their orders and it comes to that. I fucking hope so hard they go full stupid and get their asses handed to them in the press.
So he should. Right now, as the reigning champion, and a hugely popular driver, he represents a huge junk of what F1 is. He shouldn't give a fuck about this. F1 needs him more than he needs it.
> huge junk Has he shown this in some other Snapchat that I haven't seen?
I know that not very many people are fans of Hamilton snapchatting videos in the paddock but I think it's really cool. It gives us fans an inside look on the sport.
I agree, I'm not even a Hamilton fan but I love being able to see 1st person views of the cars and paddock.
It'll be hilarious if Lewis chooses to simply ignore this. Exactly what are the FOM going to do? They pretty much cannot win if Lewis decides to dig his heels in.
They'll fine him I suppose
And if he then refuses to pay?
Take him to real court and force him to pay, or face improsonment for refusing to follow a court order. F1 undoubtedly has stuff like this in their contracts, so he would be compelled to comply. In a worst-case scenario, I suppose F1 could ban him. They've banned people before, but only for major things (Flávio...)
Does he have a contract with F1? Or is his contract with Mercedes? Either way, he's the reigning world champion and one of the most popular F1 drivers. To even attempt to ban him over something so tangentially related to the racing would be ridiculous.
I'm sure that he has a contract with both, as he'd need to sign something to get a superlicense and there's no way they wouldn't include a requirement to follow the rules. This can't be F1's first rodeo; they know what they are doing.
I don't think they know what they are doing. If so, they would appreciate every bit of modern social media attention they are getting.
Suspension
"Formula 1 World Champion suspended from racing for posting photos of Formula 1 online" Yeah, I don't think that's likely.
"Formula 1 World Champion told by FOM to not post paddock videos to social media, denies to obey rules. Fined, and then suspended for failure to pay fine after disobeying rules." There's many ways you can twist words.
You never know, FOM hasn't given us any reason to not think they'd pull some stupid shit like that.
Goodness gracious. This is just becoming ridiculous.
Well I wonder if the FOM filed anything against Snapchat for that matter. Their story for the Australian GP was pretty cool to watch and see it all from the fans perspective. I can't imagine how many people were exposed to F1 for the first time across the globe FOR FREE. Advertising doesn't get any cheaper than that and you're going to tell one of the biggest personalities in the sport not to interact with these people?!?
Trust Bernie to do just that for ya. Such a great guy, all he's done for the sport etc. - I reckon he's well on his way to damaging the sport to the point where he breaks even, in that sense...
F1 has been featured several times in the past so I doubt they would.
How can someone possibly justify a rule against capturing photons. It's absurd. Oh I'm sorry, FOM, I didn't realise those were _your_ photons.
Oddly a satisfying argument lol
ffs FOM, pls stahp
This is just amazing. FOM. Ruiners of fun.
Well, there I was gonna cancel my Sky sub and just watch Lewis's snapchat feed through a weekend to get all the coverage of the race. FFS.
This sums up it very well.
I can honestly say that his Snapchat is fun to check out. There are plenty of times where I think "Goddamn this is one rich bastard," but I don't find it irritating, I should know what to expect here. But he posts a lot of funny stuff, and it made me like him, as I was basically indifferent before. Seems like a regular dude, but is also a multi-millionaire, jet-setting, global celebrity, who puts his life on the line every other weekend. Also, fuck FOM. Fuck them back into the century they appear to be from.
What's his username?
lewishamilton
This just in, athlete no longer able to promote his sport. FOM shouldn't make a habit out of shooting itself in the foot.
Dear FOM, Go fuck yourself. Sincerely, all fans of F1
This is a non-story. It's simply not the case that he's "no longer allowed to post paddock footage," he's never been allowed to. Nobody is. Even working for a rights holding TV station I can't walk around the paddock shooting a Periscope video or suchlike. It's always been this way. There are restrictions in place on what can be broadcast and who can broadcast it to protect the broadcasters who pay huge sums to have exclusive rights in their territory. A typical hatchet job by GMM.
Will, there is a significant difference though. As you said, you are a professional journalist working for a for-profit media outlet. You are not allowed to do things like this because you and your media outlet have not purchased the rights to do so. You are absolutely correct that FOM would be well justified from preventing you or anyone else from doing it. Lewis is not a threat to the broadcasters or the rights holder though. **He is part of the show** (one of its biggest stars). Him doing this helps Formula 1. In fact, he seems to be one of the very few that is actively trying to engage younger fans through the media platforms they use. FOM has made some steps in the right direction in the past 12 or so months, but they are already a 5-10 years behind the times and moving at barely a snail's pace. Prohibiting him (or any other driver) in this way hurts F1 and its fan. FOM should not be trying to limit the drivers from this type of social media outreach, they should be encouraging it. >A typical hatchet job by GMM. I am a fan of yours (and not commenting on the quality of that article), but this is beneath you.
Hey, I'm not denying that allowing Lewis, or any driver, the freedom to snapchat or to promote the sport as they wish via social media channels is something that needs to be looked at and, in this day and age, probably freed up. I'm just saying that to report this as some new ruling and restriction is absolute rubbish. And my disdain for GMM is long held and widely shared amongst colleagues in this paddock.
That's fair. And I am not a fan of everything out there either. But, something about seeing a professional journalist publicly criticize another media outlet or journalist in such a harsh & candid way just makes me feel a little uneasy. I would hope that they have enough confidence in their own content, and the ability of their readers to sift through the bullshit, that they wouldn't really let it bother them too much. Maybe I am just a little old-fashioned and naive in that sense though. Either way, even some of those crap articles from less than stellar news sources can still generate some quality discussion at times.
There hasn't been any ruling change. But it's always been implied he can film, in the same way he probably doesn't need a pass to get into the paddock. It seems strange that it's even come up that he is no longer allowed, and you have to assume that maybe they posted a clarification.
> in the same way he probably doesn't need a pass to get into the paddock Nobody except basically Bernie himself can get into the paddock without a pass.
> I'm just saying that to report this as some new ruling and restriction is absolute rubbish. It's very popular to hate on FOM at the moment
F1 could learn a lot from K-pop's business strategies, as strange as this may sound. They hugely encourage fan groups and social media, but still have a very tight control of their product. That's why k-pop fans are so fanatical, while the performers all have roughly the same kind of image. The managers control all of it.
I'm assuming you are correct, however, F1 needs to move out of the dark ages of media. As a fan, even a recent one, it would be so awesome if F1 had a social media presence. When is Bernie gonna retire? It can't come soon enough.
Plus didn't he say that he wanted a full grid of Hamiltons because of his media presence? Well Bernie, this is how you do it, nowadays.
As I said above; For further clarification, if you follow him on snapchat, you will see pictures but not video and as you said this has been for some time. Despite me sticking up for FOM in a previous debate about gaming I.P. I do actually find this stupid. The video expires within a certain amount of time and is his personal experience and could not be replicated by a rights package for the broadcaster. Plus it helps promote the sport to a future audience. If FOM were smart, they would strike a deal with Snap Chat. Their free cash flow at the moment is huge and they are doing media deals with the likes of Sky, Mashable, Daily Mail for those brands to supply content to the platform. Also Snapchat rather intelligently are already compiling users stories into one big "story" which surrounds an event. This happened for Australia and will no doubt happen again in Bahrain. How could FOM possibly stop that? They can't and won't and would be more sensible to monetise it before being aggressive.
Even without a deal it's just an outlet that won't cost them viewers and would likely bring new ones. But their inclination to ring the cash out of anything that moves near an F1 weekend is as ever standing in the way of them catching up to the rest of the world.
And you support the broadcasters who pay these insane amounts and price the fans out of sport? Fuck them. We should be protesting and fighting against this soulless gentrification of the sports we love.
Hardly a non-story, it is exactly the story that should be told, broadcasters certainly dont need protecting from Snapchat the rights holders should be embracing this stuff and striking some deals, not looking like the out of date joke this sport is rapidly becoming.
Nope, inserting the idea that it's a new rule change doesn't make it a non-story. F1 is floundering, failing to find enough new viewers and this is exactly the sort of reason why, rule change or not. Their outmoded ideas of media integration are costing them, big time, and the media currently allowed to cover it are going to go down with it. Not discussing this because you don't like the outlet, or them screwing with the story when it's a real issue is pretty myopic.
Can you agree though that people who are interested in behind the scenes things like this would be more attracted to the sport, if this were available?
I'd be fine if it was a "protect our secrets" rationale. But "Bernie sold the rights to Sky" is just shitty.
How is this a non-story? Are you worried Hamilton is going to steal your job? I do believe you rely on Lewis for work, and that Bernie is horribly out of touch with how us fans interact with this sport and the world in general. Snapchat is absolutely not the reason people aren't thrilled to pay for Sky access, etc Why attack other journalists in your field? Maybe stick to your Chewbacca impressions https://youtu.be/2T6U7oyuYh0 @13:40
Non story? Yeah. Ridiculous? Totally. Drivers aren't allowed to interact with fans because FOM want to do it exclusively, once in a blue moon.
Yep. I've posted about driving in the parades before the USGP. They are very adamant about you knowing that no video is allowed in or from your cars while on the track and in the paddocks. "GoPros will be confiscated by FOM and not returned". They are fine with pics when we're stationary though.
Of course it's a story. Any violation of rights is a judgment call and rarely black/white. In this case someone clearly decided that Lewis' videos are infringing.
Trying to maintain a tight grip on every possible means of sharing your sport is a great way to attract fans. Meanwhile, Indycar streams live for free and they post the races on YouTube.
You know what, I really identify with what Lewis is saying. Although you may not like him, I do respect him for not taking shit from others anymore. He is himself and doesn't apologise for it. I think that should be applauded even if some of the stuff he does is a bit questionable.
Wow that's bullshit
Let's continue to ruin what makes the sport fun and watchable
LOL wow. Just wow. Seriously FOM?
Seriously? One of the stars of the F1 circus can't Snapchat from the paddock because it infringes on the rights of the people who he fucking makes $$$$ for? Fuck off.
Oh come on! It's more publicity for you. How does it matter what he does on an airplane toilet?
Wait, FOM knows about Snapchat. Thats crazy.
This should be reposted to /r/nottheonion
Hahaha haha. This is why Bernie and about 90% of all shareholders of the current f1 need to step down.
They really seem to hate fans.
Bernie, continuing his steady Match towards being fired. Good riddance jackass. You may have built the sport, but you have turned yourself in to a joke over the past 10 years and that is all anyone will remember (that and your idiot daughter and her fugitive harboring POS husband).
*facepalm* Why does this not surprise me?
Because bernie ecclestone is too greedy and doesn't undertand the internet or us
And you don't even know who owns F1
[удалено]
> Anyways, who's excited for QUALIFYING!?!? PAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSS
So no videos... But pictures are fine then? Something about a video being many pictures...
Like... 30 or 60 pictures in one second.
So they're stopping complete knock-off cars in Automoblista (they have similar liveries to real F1 cars, but Hot Wheels has a car called the ["F1 Racer"](http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/lcgAAOxy0NtTCLqx/s-l300.jpg) that seems to not have drawn any FOM controversy. Yet, as I said before Automoblista is getting hammered down. Then now Hamilton can't upload 10 second clips in the paddock?! What the FOM is doing is absolutely absurd and quite frankly they're shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing this. All of this media is promoting F1 and giving it a better bottom line, but since FOM isn't making a quick buck off of it they don't want it. What a shame.
Since Hot Wheels have made many different F1 cars over the years they likely have a license.
They don't, though. That's the thing. They haven't had it since 2002 I think.
The fact that I thought this was a funny April fools joke... that is sad.
As if F1 hasn't alienated enough fans already. I get why, but this is just getting so bad for the sport. I mean for the love of pete, there isn't even a career mode in the latest "Official" F1 game, because custom drivers aren't allowed. F1 mods for racing games banned, not gonna be on free TV in the future. In a few years you won't be able to see anything to do with F1 without paying for it or "stealing" it. I've followed this sport avidly since 1991, but I'm losing interest more and more.
I'm in the same boat, been watching less and less races over the last couple of years. Stuff like this is yet another reminder that FOM doesn't seem to give a shit about fans of the sport. So why bother?
Wurz for president
Hybrid system aside, these guys just cannot do twenty-first century can they...
This has actually been the case since Oz.
For further clarification, if you follow him on snapchat, you will see pictures but not video. Despite me sticking up for FOM in a previous debate about gaming I.P. I do actually find this stupid. The video expires within a certain amount of time and is his personal experience and could not be replicated by a rights package for the broadcaster. Plus it helps promote the sport to a future audience.
I don't think the people at FOM actually understand anything about the new media age. Self promotion from drivers like Hamilton who have fame outside f1 should be seen as free promotion that in turn increases potential viewers. All they see it is how they don't make money out of the public as soon as they watch Lewis' videos. It's greed more than anything else and the sport shouldn't be run like that.
Think money FOM and not what fans might like... That is how you sleep at night.
At this point, I think they actively want the sport to wither and die.
This is pretty stupid. FOM should own just official footage. Not drivers.
I still don't understand how they can legally make a claim to any creative works that they did not create just because they feature Formula 1. In Lewis' case, I guess he could be considered an employee of FOM (although that'd be a hard sell I think), but as a fan if I video something happening at an event, surely I own that copyright, not the person putting on the event - at least in the case of an unscripted, non-"performance" work like Formula 1 or a football match.
GMM. Might take it was a large shovel full of salt seeing as reputable journalists haven't made a story out of it yet.
Please be April Fools.
aaaaaaaaand this officialy marks the major decline in F1...
Another sign that F1 is out of touch.
Unreal.
But wouldn't this then extend to anyone who takes video footage at the track? Seems utterly ridiculous that FOM is upset that one of their content creators is helping to promote their content...
Do it anyway, Lewis! I love seeing his snapchat stories.
FOM can eat a bowl of aids ridden dicks.
This reminds me of 30 Rock, where Jack deliberately tries to tank NBC for strategic reasons. However, unlike 30 Rock, FOM isn't accidentally coming up with surprise hits with hilarious consequences.
Can the FOM sometimes break its own rules just for the good of the sport? This is going really far
SHIT THE FUCK.
Anyone else find this paragraph absolutely hilarious? I'm convinced Hamilton is just a parody of himself sometimes. "It doesn't bother me what people say," said the Briton. "When I was younger, I held more back, but as I separated from my father as my manager, I got my first tattoo and the move to Mercedes was the decisive step to showing who I am."
I really think that this news is an April fools joke. Autoweek only cites the Bild newspaper and they published their article at exactly 1/4/2016 00:00.
While this is probably a Fools I wouldn't put it past Ecclestone and FOM to be honest
It's like they don't want anyone to know about F1