COTA Austin - construction and infrastructure

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.

What do you think of the prospect of a USGP 2012 at Austin Texas

Good thinking. Place has good infra structure and nice climate in winter.
126
47%
Not good as it has no motor sport tradition in the US.
23
9%
I will wait to see how it will shape up.
97
36%
I don't care.
23
9%
 
Total votes: 269

hairy_scotsman
hairy_scotsman
15
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 22:47

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

BTW, for any of you who are interested in this case but don't have the time and/or the inclination to read all of it, I've made a sort of "Cliff's Notes" version of the Hellmund v. Accelerator petition. I've hit most of the high points and included some relevant quotes and paraphrased in other places. It's by no means comprehensive, but you should get a decent overview...
~ Hellmund had a 10-year agreement with FOM to hold the USGP in Austin.

~ A “Company Agreement”, entered into in December 2010, “required Epstein/McCombs to provide the funding” for the COTA circuit Hellmund had designed. The agreement established Hellmund as the only Class C manager, with a 10-year contract for employment as the Chairman of the FIA Formula 1 United States Grand Prix, with a yearly salary of $500,000.

~ “The sole basis of Epstein/McCombs' approximately 75% stake in the Company was their promises to fund it, not borrow against Hellmund's assets.”

~ “The Company Agreement requires that Hellmund use his best efforts to assign the
F1 Contracts to the Company only if Epstein/McCombs provide or raise $190 million of funding by March 31, 2011. However, Epstein/McCombs failed to commit the required funding by the deadline, thereby absolving Hellmund of any obligation to assign the Fl Contracts. Indeed, Epstein/McCombs missed the funding deadline by nearly six months, reporting they obtained the required funding on September 13, 2011. Even then, Epstein/McCombs refused to provide the documentation (e.g., commitments) of the funding necessary for Hellmund to assign the Fl Contracts.”

~ “Epstein/McCombs finally notified Hellmund, albeit six months late, that they had secured the $190 million in funding. However, Epstein/McCombs still refused to
provide Hellmund with any verification of the allegedly binding commitments for funding, which meant that the F1 Contracts could not be assigned. Ecclestone, the F1 head, himself made this abundantly clear in a letter to Hellmund: "I made it clear that the proposed circuit where you want to conduct your event, needed to provide an executed construction contract, proof of financial strength and that I required this documentation . . . . " In that same letter, Ecclestone aptly acknowledged that these "repeated failures" were "perhaps not of [Hellmund's] doing." Hellmund relayed this message to Epstein/McCombs to no avail. Epstein/McCombs still did not provide the necessary verification of the funding despite promises they would do so, jeopardizing
Hellmund's ability to assign the F1 Contracts to the Company and/or its subsidiaries.”

~ METF funding was negated by the COTA investors' refusal/inability to pay $4M to the METF to trigger the advance reimbursement payment, after COTA had excluded Hellmund from making the payment himself. They then plead ignorance. Company attorney Richard Suttle weighed in: "I am a little astounded that with all the work that has gone into
this issue, along with all the conversations and documentation that has occurred, that there can be any confusion about COTA's commitment to fund the $4mil." The investors ignored Suttle. The $4M was never paid. The guaranteed $250M ($25M x 10 years), arranged by Hellmund, was lost.

~ “the F1 Contracts could not be assigned until the Company:
(1) paid the $23 million sanctioning fee (which could no longer be paid from the METF),
(2) provided verification of binding commitments for construction funding (specifically $190 million which was now 4 months overdue), and
(3) provided a revised construction schedule.

Epstein/McCombs did not pay the sanctioning fee, never provided verification of the
funding (even after they claimed to have raised the $190 million six months after the deadline), and did not provide a revised construction schedule”

~ “Epstein/McCombs' refusal to pay the sanctioning fee under Hellmund's
F1 Contracts resulted in the termination of those contracts and new and more expensive contracts for the Company. The new F1 contracts required additional guarantees for future races, something not required in the original F1 Contracts. Additionally, due to Epstein/McCombs' substantial delay in paying the sanction fee, the Company owed late fees to Formula 1.
77. During Epstein/McCombs' well-publicized standoff with Ecclestone, it IS no
surprise Comptroller Combs announced that the State would not advance COT A any METF funds and would only consider releasing funds after a race occurred.
78. Again, Epstein/McCombs' gamesmanship (or lack of experience) destroyed
significant benefits for the Company- they lost the committed METF funding while having to ink a new, more expensive Formula 1 contract.”

~ COTA construction was underfunded from the start, and suffered repeated delays due to lack of funding & mismanagement by COTA investors. The entire project has been delayed & endangered by this underfunding and mismanagement. The investors also concealed the lack of funding from Hellmund.

~ “With no construction funding in place, Epstein/McCombs repeatedly entered and amended limited contracts with the construction company to proceed in small phases based on short-term personal guarantees. Epstein/McCombs concealed from Hellmund these construction schedule changes and the lack of funding.”

~ Attempting to secure construction loans, Epstein & McCombs attempted to leverage Hellmund's own asset (F1 race rights) for construction loans without using any of their own assets.

~ Epstein misled Hellmund regarding the nature and soil quality of the COTA land and the size and nature of natural gas pipelines running beneath it.

~ COTA investors agreed in writing on September 29, 2011 to an $18M buyout of Hellmund, relieving him of his position, his stake in the company, and of the F1 rights and rights to the MotoGP race at Circuit of the Americas. They have since refused on multiple occasions to honor the agreement at scheduled closings and have not paid Hellmund his salary.

~ “Hellmund has not quit, nor has he been terminated. In fact, he continues pursuing the Company's best interests as Chairman and has actively sought - but has been foreclosed from - more involvement.”

~ Epstein & McCombs attempted 3 times in 2 months recently to illegally remove Hellmund from his position as Manager, but “No matter how many notices they sent or meetings they held to attempt the same unlawful removal, EpsteinlMcCombs failed every time for the same reason: the Company agreement requires Class C member approval and they never had it.”

~ Epstein & McCombs have repeatedly refused Hellmund access to financial records, despite written requests.

~ Allegations, even an admission that at least one or more associates of Epstein’s repeatedly & maliciously tampered with Hellmund's Wikipedia page in an attempt to discredit & marginalize him.

~ Hellmund turned down an offer to lead the New Jersey F1 Grand Prix of America effort

~ “Hellmund offered to buyout Epstein to salvage his dream. Although agreeing that a buy-out of one of the members might be necessary, Epstein responded: "There is no . . . way I'll let Tavo Hellmund buy me out."

~ Hellmund has invoked a buy/sell clause in the agreement, apparently desiring to buy McCombs’ share of the company.
Follow me on twitter @Austin_F1 ...

Pup
Pup
50
Joined: 08 May 2008, 17:45

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

After reading the complaint, I'm left with the impression that Tavo was more the victim of his attorney than anyone else.

I mean, sometimes business relationships just don't work out. And when they don't, it's not like the guys with the money are going to be the ones who leave. It seems to me that the CoTA guys made him some decent offers and were willing to let him remain in a back seat role if he wanted, but Tavo apparently refused their offers and sort of made himself a pain in the tush, telling them how to run their business and worse, telling them what to do with their money.

And even if what Tavo was telling them was right, it really doesn't matter. I think the whole thing boils down to Tavo being naive and thinking he would still be running the show after he brought in Combs and Epstein. He got hurt when the guys with the money started calling the shots, and the relationship quickly soured from there.

I just think it could have been handled better. And I think it still can be - this complaint reads more like an airing of dirty laundry than anything else.

My prediction - summary judgement, case dismissed.

User avatar
WhiteBlue
92
Joined: 14 Apr 2008, 20:58
Location: WhiteBlue Country

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

So you find it acceptable to agree on a company contract which makes the inventor of the plan the chairman for ten years and give him 25% of the capital. And as soon as the company is set up the investors who were only providing land and capital and held 75% of the company capital squeeze him out of the business he founded by making the company inoperable from failure to raise the capital. I'm glad I'm not in business with you.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best .............................. organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)

Pup
Pup
50
Joined: 08 May 2008, 17:45

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

WhiteBlue wrote:...the investors who were only providing land and capital and held 75% of the company capital...
Interesting use of the word 'only'. If Tavo felt the same about the significance of their contributions, then it's no wonder the deal soured.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

@ Pup
That's the truth ;)
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

bhall
bhall
244
Joined: 28 Feb 2006, 21:26

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

Yeah.

Hey, WB, float me a loan. I only need $250,000,000.

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

Pup wrote:
WhiteBlue wrote:...the investors who were only providing land and capital and held 75% of the company capital...
Interesting use of the word 'only'. If Tavo felt the same about the significance of their contributions, then it's no wonder the deal soured.

Typical of rich kids who live on their dad's money and have no sence on how to make their own.

Go bobby!!!

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

HS,

Has schumacher got the dressing right for austin?

Image

hairy_scotsman
hairy_scotsman
15
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 22:47

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

It's interesting to me that some seem to think that 25% stake in the company (and signing away 75% to 2 other parties) is so great a deal for Tavo. Certainly it isn't a bad one, but I've read people saying things like "Why should he get all the upside of the deal with nothing in it?"

How is 25% "all the upside"? And how does he have nothing in it? It's his baby, and he's spent not only a lot of time on it, but a lot of money. Until he brought Epstein and McCombs in on the deal, it was all his. He signed over 3/4 of his baby to these guys in return for them doing something they ended up not doing...and somehow he's the bad guy?

Some of you apparently live in a different universe than me or anyone I know.
Follow me on twitter @Austin_F1 ...

hairy_scotsman
hairy_scotsman
15
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 22:47

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

WilliamsF1 wrote:HS,

Has schumacher got the dressing right for austin?
Austin? No. Not by a long shot.

Houston? Sure, I guess.
Follow me on twitter @Austin_F1 ...

bill shoe
bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

I think the root of this lawsuit lies with the ambiguity about Tavo's role/significance once the private investors were brought in. I don't want to argue about the value of Tavo putting the deal together initially, let's just say it was worth $X million. The formal agreement between Tavo and Epstein/Combs should have started and ended when Epstein/Combs paid Tavo $X million to walk away.

Tavo tried to set himself up for some ambiguous 10-year management role in the subsequent company. He's human. He didn't just want the money, he also wanted the status of continuing to be someone in the 10-year program.

I would have a hard time abruptly selling off a personal project even if the money was great. But that's the way business is done. If you can't let go then don't ask for the cash.

And yes, the various agreements to keep Tavo on represented either bad judgement or bad faith negotiating by Epstein/Combs. They apparently accepted Tavo's ambiguous role in the beginning.

bill shoe
bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

WilliamsF1 wrote:HS,

Has schumacher got the dressing right for austin?

Image
Schumacher looks like a New Yorker who thinks he looks like a Texan. :P

bill shoe
bill shoe
151
Joined: 19 Nov 2008, 08:18
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

hairy_scotsman wrote:
WilliamsF1 wrote:HS,

Has schumacher got the dressing right for austin?
Austin? No. Not by a long shot.

Houston? Sure, I guess.
Hey HS, we agree on something!! :shock:

User avatar
FW17
170
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

hairy_scotsman wrote:He signed over 3/4 of his baby to these guys in return for them doing something they ended up not doing...and somehow he's the bad guy?

I think they are doing enough and have done enough.

One needs to understand that raising money for a venture such as F1 is not easy. You must have visited a site like Statesmen blog to understand the negativity that F1 is bringing. This is the same sceptism investors have about F1. Red himself has said that the track is not going to make tat much money and it is more about owning something unique.

With this background, the last thing I would want from a guy sitting on his butt (coz he got the contract for the main show and holing the cards) is to be asking me on an daily basis "show me the money". I will be cheesed if someone does that to me, and if he starts to talk some contract to me, I will be all the more cheesed. Tevo should have been the company player and supported the compay tooth and nail rather and crying to bernie that he got screwed. He got screwed for a reason, and the the reason, being out of place.

hairy_scotsman
hairy_scotsman
15
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 22:47

Re: 2012 US GP to be held in Austin

Post

bill shoe wrote:I think the root of this lawsuit lies with the ambiguity about Tavo's role/significance once the private investors were brought in. I don't want to argue about the value of Tavo putting the deal together initially, let's just say it was worth $X million. The formal agreement between Tavo and Epstein/Combs should have started and ended when Epstein/Combs paid Tavo $X million to walk away.

Tavo tried to set himself up for some ambiguous 10-year management role in the subsequent company. He's human. He didn't just want the money, he also wanted the status of continuing to be someone in the 10-year program.

I would have a hard time abruptly selling off a personal project even if the money was great. But that's the way business is done. If you can't let go then don't ask for the cash.

And yes, the various agreements to keep Tavo on represented either bad judgement or bad faith negotiating by Epstein/Combs. They apparently accepted Tavo's ambiguous role in the beginning.
I agree, but that's just it. He realizes there's not enough room in the project for both him and Epstein. He's said repeatedly and agreed in writing that he'd walk away and leave the MotoGP rights, too, but he won't do that for free. Why should he, as some keep asserting? The investors agreed to pay him $18M to walk away. By all accounts he would have done exactly that had they come through on their promise at multiple closings. They didn't.
Follow me on twitter @Austin_F1 ...