Who owns F1?

[Ciro Pabón]

Is this list right?

Code: Select all

   BMW Sauber  - The former Sauber has been restructured, if not 
                 fully renamed, for 2006 as the factory team for 
                 BMW, which holds the controlling stake.  Credit Suisse 
                 will continue as a shareholder until 2008, and as 
                 sponsor through 2008. 
   Ferrari     - Piero Lardi Ferrari 10% and the FIAT Group 56%; 5% by 
                 the government-owned Mubadala Development Co. of 
                 Abu Dhabi; 10% by the Italian investment bank 
                 Mediobanca, 12.5% by the German Commerzebank AG, and 
                 6.5% by Lehman Brothers.  A planned IPO having 
                 fallen through, Fiat is currently planning to 
                 repurchase the 29% in the hands of the investment 
                 banks. 
   Honda       - BARH Limited, which is itself owned 55% by British 
                 American Tobacco and 45% by Honda. Honda is buying out 
                 BAT and has rebadged the former BAR team for 2006. 
   McLaren     - TAG McLaren is 40% owned by DaimlerChrysler & 30% each 
                 by Ron Dennis and TAG Group S.A. (Mansouer Ojjeh). 
   Spyker MF1  - (formerly MF1 Racing, neé Jordan) Holland-based 
                 Spyker Cars NV, which purchased the team during the 
                 2006 Italian GP from Alex Shnaider and Eduard Shifrin's 
                 Midland Group. 
   Red Bull    - (formerly Jaguar, neé Stewart) Dietrich Mateschitz's 
                 Red Bull energy drink company. 
   Renault     - Renault. 
   STR         - (Scuderia Toro Rosso, formerly Minardi) Dietrich 
                 Mateschitz's Red Bull energy drink company 50%; 
                 Gerhard Berger 50%. 
   Super Aguri - Aguri Suzuki and Fumio Akita. 
   Toyota      - Toyota. 
   Williams    - Frank Williams and Patrick Head (said to be 80/20).

You know what they say: follow the money...

What do you think of the poll?

[manchild]

No. I mean private teams like Williams should be under full control of founders. What happens to temporary teams like Red Bull, STR, Midland/Spyker, Super Aguri isn't really about racing but only about money so I don't care about their destiny.

[Ciro Pabón]

No. I mean private teams like Williams should be under full control of founders. What happens to temporary teams like Red Bull, STR, Midland/Spyker, Super Aguri isn't really about racing but only about money so I don't care about their destiny.

I would buy a Williams share. However, I agree with your point: Mr. Williams does not have to sell over 50% of them. Perhaps they could use some of that money.

I bet the day you buy a Ferrari share ( ) you will be more involved in their destiny. Actually, FIAT could not make a recent IPO work: they should have counted on us!

I am worried about FIA being so undemocratic and far away from "seeder" series or local federations and tracks... maybe I am wrong and I should end world poverty first.

[Tom]

Owning a share of F1 doesn't nessicerally mean owning a share of a team. I think I own something like 1x10^-8 of a share of Silverstone. Probably less, maybe worth 5 blades of grass or something.

[DaveKillens]

But in a private team like Williams, it makes financial good sense to sell off a minority share. That way, as long as the owner has 51%, he still has total control. Selling shares puts extra money in the bank. It's a one time deal, but the money collected by selling shares can be spent on reinvesting in the team, or just go into the pockets of the owner. That way, he still has total control, but a nice fat retirement fund too.
I love the Canadian connection. Williams was once partnered with Walter Wolf. Then there's Schneider, Russian born, but supposedly Canadian. Good thing he's gone from f1. Then BAR, basically started up by Canadians.

[manchild]

Yes but once you sell certain % of the shares and get into trouble that you're bound to consider selling even more to save the team which eventually leads to loosing control.

[pyry]

missed your point, if you sell some shares and increase your budget, you are forced to sell all of them because you already got more money? but basically i agree, it would be smarter to sell over 50% because investors are for shure much more intrested in buying if there is a chance to gain ownership. if you release under 50% nobody else can gain control, thus keeping the prices lower

[manchild]

I wanted to say that if team gets in financial troubles and there are already some of the shares sold than the last straw to grab would be selling even more shares just to keep it together witch would eventually lead to selling 51 % or more.

[Ciro Pabón]

I wanted to say that if team gets in financial troubles and there are already some of the shares sold than the last straw to grab would be selling even more shares just to keep it together witch would eventually lead to selling 51 % or more.

I am not sure if this is what happened to Ron Dennis. However, if you keep 30% AND you have technical expertise, you have an Executive Director position guaranteed. This is better than having no team.