COTA Austin - construction and infrastructure

[Richard]

The role of a comptroller is to ensure that public funds are safely invested and not thrown away on a whim. Seems as if she got cold feet when Hellmund & Epstein started arguing, and the late payment made the contract with Bernie void, hence the state can pull out.

Of course that might have been a convenient fig leaf in case they already wanted out and were looking for an excuse.

Bernie has adopted a similar approach.

Its classic negotiation, the two people with cash have decided to hold back while the two without cash sort out their squabble. I'd do exactly the same, both to protect my cash, but also to knock Hellmund & Epstein's heads together to ensure they come up with a viable event.

[bhall]

The only one who doesn't have any cash is Hellmund. And if I were him, I'd see about somehow raising $25 million to secure that revised 2013 USGP contract and then move the whole party to sunny California.

(I'd be willing to bet there's a way to modify Laguna Seca that both preserves its character and allows for F1 homologation.)

[WhiteBlue]

The point where Hellmund isn't very plausible is the ongoing negotiation regarding his exit as a share holder or salaried executive. Whatever his position is, the investor side of CotA lead by Epstein wants to remove him from that position.

Although he repeatedly says that he has no duty or authority in financial affairs, the position of power that he still holds due to his contractual status is likely to stop the CotA investors to go ahead with paying FOM. Once he is out of that contract the investors may be inclined to sign up and pay Bernie.

Hellmund did not cover that issue and his lawyer did not do it either.

It is no surprise that Susan Combs took the easy exit for the METF to claim the project failed and locked up the money. Advancing the money was a scheme which was designed to get investors to committ to the project. That has been achieved in the first place. Now that the initial project status is in limbo due to the failure to secure an F1 contract she is absolutely right to protect the tax payer foremost.

History shows that the project was totally viable and up to the point where Hellmund and Epstein developed their differences. It is fair to say that both will be responsible if the project fails due to that squabble. Hellmund's attempt at hiding his piece of responsibility is not credible.

Moving this to Laguna Seca is not an option as we know from the interview. Hellmund is dedicated to the Austin project and so is Ecclestone. Moving the location is simply not an option as case for each project has to be made separately. Laguna Seca simply does not bring the business and logistic opportunities that makes Austin the preferred target location for an F1 race.

[Jeffsvilleusa]

This scenario seems vaguely familiar to me- back in '05 I started a business with 2 partners. I approached them with the idea, and as it panned out, they held the purse. As the project progressed, in some ways it was a great success- well received, and we were on the brink of turning a profit, but things quickly fell apart over a difference of vision or philosophy on what kind of product we were making. In the end I was boxed out of guiding the project so I left.

You can see from Tavo's interview the difficulty resulted from a strained partnership, and I can attest it is a very painful thing to see your dream leave your hands. I think Tavo is being very mature saying, if they want me out, I'll leave so long as the project continues. But as was the case with my business, without being too egotistical, when I walked away from my brainchild, it didn't last much longer...

[hairy_scotsman]

This scenario seems vaguely familiar to me- back in '05 I started a business with 2 partners. I approached them with the idea, and as it panned out, they held the purse. As the project progressed, in some ways it was a great success- well received, and we were on the brink of turning a profit, but things quickly fell apart over a difference of vision or philosophy on what kind of product we were making. In the end I was boxed out of guiding the project so I left.

You can see from Tavo's interview the difficulty resulted from a strained partnership, and I can attest it is a very painful thing to see your dream leave your hands. I think Tavo is being very mature saying, if they want me out, I'll leave so long as the project continues. But as was the case with my business, without being too egotistical, when I walked away from my brainchild, it didn't last much longer...

Very insightful posting.

[hairy_scotsman]

Here's a little something I've been kicking around...

I believe the current investment group could be content to just let the track die if they feel they have to or if they just decide they don't want to pay which, it would seem, is what they've done so far anyway.

I'm just curious what happens if the COTA guys don't reach an agreement with Bernie by his Sunday deadline.

Bernie has the F1 rights. Tavo has the V8SC rights. Tavo and Kevin Schwantz have the MotoGP rights. It seems Tavo has backers to buy out the current group. Assuming the original COTA investors fail to pay up/make a deal by Sunday, what keeps Tavo and his investors from regaining the rights to F1, thus putting all the race rights back into one pot?

The new group could then proceed on to buy out the COTA investors & continue building the current track. So far COTA aren't biting on buyout offers. If the COTA investors won't sell, then the new group could potentially start up at a new site near Austin.

[FW17]

Why cant Red Bull put some money out and make this happen, after all they are the biggest sponsors in the US.

[FW17]

TH interview is really weird. He gives the impression that he has no money to invest, yet he offers to buy other partners out. With what?

[hairy_scotsman]

TH interview is really weird. He gives the impression that he has no money to invest, yet he offers to buy other partners out. With what?

With a different group of investors.

[Scorpaguy]

I smelled a rat as soon as Jersy was brought up....actually when Austin was brought up. I believe OWR is cursed in America! So who gets the slot....Turkey?

[hairy_scotsman]

COTA makes counter-offer:

http://adamcooperf1.com/2011/11/24/cota ... 012-us-gp/

[bhall]

That reminds me of the [insert preferred epithet here] who occupied the White House just prior to the incumbent. He'd often include an addendum called a signing statement alongside his signature when signing bills into law.* Such a statement is basically a summary of the law as interpreted by the Office of the President. In other words, it was a notice as to how the executive branch of the government planned to perform its Constitutional role of enforcing that particular law. There's little to no oversight regarding those statements, so they often completely contradicted the intent of the legislation. If, for instance, Congress passed a bill that prohibited people from wearing yellow shirts, the president could sign the bill, thus enacting it, while also including a signing statement that says anyone can wear yellow shirts.

I wonder what Bernie's going to think of this revised contract. I'm thinking he'll probably get a good chuckle out of it while he uses it for toilet paper.

But, I could be wrong.




* He wasn't the first to do it, nor the last. He just did it a hell of a lot more than anyone else.

[WhiteBlue]

I wonder what Bernie's going to think of this revised contract. I'm thinking he'll probably get a good chuckle out of it while he uses it for toilet paper.

This is a rather unusual negotiation style. Considering that Bernie does not need the Austin GP any more he will be very reluctant to accommodate amendments. CotA is unrealistic.

[strad]

I think he USED Austin.

[WhiteBlue]

Bernie: The truth is they're not complying with the terms and conditions of the contract. And as we make the contract, we will award the event or not award the event. They are not awarding anything to us.

I thought so!