Has F1's new owner made a difference in its first year?

It was on Belgian Grand Prix Friday evening exactly a year ago that the hopes of most Formula 1 fans were raised sky high: news broke via a reputable British source that CVC Capital Partners, F1's commercial rights manager, had found a buyer for F1's 100-year rights.

F1's distaste of CVC was not unfounded: intent on listing the championship on Singapore's Stock Exchange, it had saddled F1 with massive debt, dysfunctional governance procedures and an inequitable revenue structure that rewards the majors simply for turning up every fortnight while largely ignoring the performances of independents. No car other than Mercedes, a Ferrari or Red Bull has won a race since.

A week on, at Monza, rumours were rife that a deal had indeed been struck with Liberty Media Group - an offshoot of Liberty Media Corporation, itself a corporate sister to Liberty Global, yet another entity within the media empire headed by John Malone - and, if it all sounded too good to be true, for once the hopes of millions of fans were realised.

Two weeks later, in Singapore, Chase Carey, the impressively moustached media executive who would assume the joint roles of chairman/CEO before dethroning Bernie Ecclestone, made his first official appearance at a grand prix; by the end of January the deal was completed and the ex-F1 tsar booted upstairs with the title of 'chairman emeritus'. The 86-year-old was last seen roaming the Spielberg paddock in July.

A year on, what progress has Liberty made towards returning F1 to the top of the Sunday afternoon entertainment pile; how many of the series' ills - undeniably there are many - have Carey and his key executives, namely Ross Brawn as managing director of sport and managing director of commercial Sean Bratches, managed to address?

When I meet with Carey in the FOM motorhome, our first topic of conversation is not F1 but another series. Given the announcements of recent months that Porsche and Mercedes are heading to Formula E at the expense of their respective LMP1 and DTM programmes, it seems opportune to ask how Carey feels about the upstart electric series having double F1's manufacturer count.

"Well, I don't think the announcements are anything new. The auto industry is obviously highly engaged in electrification. That's not confidential. Formula E is in a very different place [to] us," he says, adding that it is "a street party, and for the sponsors and the like it's identifying with a social cause that's important today - environmentalists and the like."

Indeed, Carey believes FE's popularity could have "positive" effects: "I think things that are good for automotive sports are good for us. We're the pinnacle, and that's why I think we ought to be more open to having different types of racing.

"We want to be more open to engaging with the broader auto sports world, because I think if we do our job well, bring more people into automotive sports, we'll all hopefully enable them to engage with us, and [F1], as the top of the pyramid, will benefit off that."

It is, though, undeniable, that FE has attracted premium automotive brands. Has F1 made progress in this direction?

"I try to reach out to as many as possible. Some of it is casual, going to events and meet-and-greet, and some are more than meet-and-greet. But we're part of a broader automotive sports. So certainly I know the teams we are in business with much better than others. But there's a large number of automotive companies that are not in our sport today that potentially could be."

Carey's response neatly leads into the next question: What does he believe to be F1's ideal grid size?

"I think it's much more important to have [10] strong teams - and 20 [cars] is the peak. If we had 20 cars that all had a shot to potentially compete, never mind an equal shot, that'll be great. So the priority is not just adding more. I think the core is to make the competition better and then I think from there you can look at 'Are we better off with 22 or 24?'"

Does the quality versus quantity conundrum apply equally to calendar size?

"It's just an arms race between guys that are spending it because the other guy spends it. It's creating a two-class competition" Chase Carey on F1's budget divide

"To some degree it's the same priority on events. We have 21 events [in 2018]. I think we can make the events much bigger, broader than they are. If the events are strong, we then figure out where we go from there.

"But all of those things are linked, so it's better if you help the teams get to a better [place]. If you add an event, there are costs to that. If you help make the team economics better, then all those things tie together in some manner.

"There are places we've been very public about looking to add. First and foremost a destination US race like New York or Miami, but our priority in both cases is to make [10] teams strong, make 21 races great. That's priority one, and then figure out from there."

FOM has made a large number of hirings recently - some very high profile - which points to some sort of marketing plan...

"I wouldn't say we have the plan, but we're building the plan. We need the people in place, we want them to have an opportunity to have input. We'll have a plan within the next couple of months, because not all of the key hires have started. By the time we get to September, hopefully we'll have the people in place.

"A plan is living, breathing; it's a plan that you continue to adjust and evolve. We've had meetings in the last two weeks, long meetings that began the process of digging into what are the issues to be dealt with, from both the motorsport and the commercial perspective. All of that is very much in progress."

A 'bilateral' structure replaced the Concorde Agreement in 2013, with agreements between commercial rights holder and teams being negotiated individually rather than on a composite basis - resulting in F1's skewed financial structure. Does Liberty plan to replace the bilaterals with more equitable revenue distribution?

"A preamble before I respond: In general I think when you're trying to work things out like this, you try to work them out with people you're doing business with, then describe what you're doing. This is a sport that seems to have a history of negotiating in public; I usually find that's not the way to get things done.

"Directionally, there are a number of things we'd like to address. The cost structure today, particularly what some teams spend, we don't think makes sense, we don't think it's money that's being spent to deliver better value for fans or better racing. I think it's just an arms race between guys that are spending it because the other guy spends it.

"Therefore it's not being deployed to really improve the product, in some ways it's undermining the product because it's creating a two-class competition that doesn't create the best action on the track. So there are cost issues.

"The revenue's probably more skewed than we'd like to see. Our goal is realistically to make sure we put a competition on the track that is as exciting as possible for fans, with action as exciting as possible, that an underdog has a chance to win, and I think all of that is important.

"The second thing we want is this to be a better business for teams. They have branding value, but I'm not sure any team makes money. And they should.

"It doesn't mean we don't have a negotiation to figure out how we split things or divide things, but hopefully it's in the context of a shared vision. We want to make owning a team a more attractive proposition, just as we obviously want to grow Formula 1 too. If we can grow it, everybody should be able to benefit."

All well and good, but is it not a reality that the teams spending the most are making their technologies available to others - examples being engines, gearboxes, hydraulics and electronics? Block that, and don't have trickle-down technology...

"There's an enormous amount being spent to take a half a second off, two-tenths of a second or one-tenth of a second. There's an enormous amount being spent just because they have to compete at that ultimate edge, for that tenth of a second, with the other guys.

"This formula is the pinnacle, technology should be part of it, but I think you want to make winning more about how well you invest your money, not how much you invest. I don't think success should be determined by who can spend the most. I think it should be determined by how well you spend the money.

"Within a limit. I think there should be flexibility. We certainly don't want to standardise it, we don't want to, to use the phrase, 'dumb it down'; we want technology. State-of-the-art technology is currently part of the DNA of the sport. We want it to continue to be so. But again, we want to make it more about how well do you invest a significant amount of money."

Does Carey foresee an equitable revenue structure in Formula 1?

"Again, I don't want to get too far down hypotheticals because they go with discussions, but we want to reward performance. Certainly a driving principle should be [that] you're rewarded for success. As I said earlier on, these are discussions that are better off to have with the teams and then, wherever we get to, we'll describe why we got to where we got to. I don't want to be positioning things in public."

The same question applies to governance: Does he see, say, Sauber having the same input as Ferrari has?

"Again, the same answer..."

"We have to be judged for what we do, not what we say. Talk is cheap. I've always believed you live off your results and your actions" Chase Carey

We keep hearing about plans to introduce some form of cost cap. Has progress been made in this regard?

"We've begun a process. Clearly costs in this sport are more complicated than US sports where you just add a player. You've got to deal with a lot of issues, so you need expertise and capabilities, and we need to understand some of the complexities. We want to make sure, again, that the teams maintain an ability to create unique identities.

"We're not looking to standardise, but there are probably things that we can put in place that help guide it."

He earlier used that phrase 'DNA'. As a relative newcomer, how does Carey define that for F1?

"I think the DNA of Formula 1 has a number of aspects to it. At its core it's a sport that has power, speed and sound that just awes the consumer. So it is a mind-blowing experience to see and hear the cars, the speed. It has drivers that are sort of defying the laws of gravity in the speed and capability of what they do.

"It has some incredible machines delivering that speed, power and sound, with drivers that are defying any human limits, all done within a context that represents glamour, premium stars: something that captures the world's imagination.

"It is incredible competition, combined with state-of-the-art technology in a setting that stands for premium, something that is recognised around the world for its glamour, star power, uniqueness, excellence, global."

Back to the plan: when will Liberty be in a position to share the key points of this plan with us, with fans?

"I think business is probably best focused on executing. You want to share the vision of where you're going. I think to get too much out there, you [then] spend too much time debating the rights and wrongs, and I think you should live on your results.

"We should do things and explain why we did them. Obviously first and foremost to the fans that care passionately about the sport, [who] want to know and want to believe that great things are coming. We need to make sure they feel engaged and excited about what's coming.

"The Wall Street guys always want to know where you're going to be. That's what I don't want to get into, debates of 'where are you going to be in this year?' So debating of projections of results I don't plan to get into."

Carey is a lot more transparent than his predecessor, I hazard...

"Well, that's a low bar!"

Is that comment off-record? (No reaction, so it stays). Yet until we know Liberty's plans, there is no real transparency.

"No, and realistically I think there's not. We have to be judged for what we do, not what we say. Talk is cheap. I've always believed you live off your results and your actions. You should be judged on your results, not how you spin something. I'm more than happy. We've done a lot, but realistically it's still early days. We've got a lot more to do than what we've done."

In July Liberty moved into an office in St James Square in London. What's that like?

"I actually like it. You know you're in Formula 1. Actually there are no Bernie posters and Bernie statues, it's all Formula 1 paraphernalia. Historic pictures, and we've got every one of the conference rooms named after a historic driver, so we've got the Schumacher Room, and the Lauda Conference Room."

Everybody moved out of Princess Gate?

"Yes, other than Bernie."

You may decide exactly how much progress Liberty has made in 12 months.