Moto journalists have a tendency to write unusual articles. When rumors were circulating that Liberty Media might buy MotoGP, Simon Patterson chimed in to let everyone know that he googled CVC and 2006, and discovered that a Liberty Media takeover was impossible. We don't know if the courts will thwart Liberty's ambition to consolidate F1 and MotoGP, but regardless of their decision, Liberty Media could end up choosing MotoGP over F1, as unlikely as that seems.
The article by Lewis Duncan is also a bit strange. We are fans, not shareholders, not creditors, not advertisers. It's not important to us that MotoGP becomes increasingly profitable forever. The sport was valued at 500 million euros in 2006. Is the sport 9 times better today that it was back then from a fan standpoint? We're not corporate shills. We don't care if PE is looting the sport.
Furthermore, the comparison to F1 is partially irrelevant because one of the major sticking points was racing on street circuits in the USA. The teams thought this was not economically viable. Suffice it to say, they were clueless about the US sports market and how it works. MotoGP cannot race street circuits in the US, which limits the potential upside by reducing the number of potential bidders for events. MotoGP requires dedicated circuits. If the F1 business model doesn't work, why suppose fans will endure pain from a business model they can't use?
It is possible we will endure the pain associated with an influx of know-nothing fans and instagram trollops, but the ignore feature might help with that.