Tyrrell-BAR, Jordan-Midland etc...

Apologies for mentioning Midland in the Nostalgia forum, but I can't help noticing that since Midland purchased the Jordan team, they have retained the name 'Jordan' for 2005, announcing their intention of changing this to 'Midland' in 2006. Didn't a similar thing happen when BAR purchased Tyrrell, the name 'Tyrrell' was retained for the first year? And maybe (I don't follow these things too closely) the same with Renault - Benetton?

So my question (which finally gets around to nostalgia) is, how long has this sort of thing been going on? And why? In olden days a change of ownership might (or might not) be accompanied by an immediate change of name; Onyx became Monteverdi mid-season (is a mid-season name change unique?). So when did this 'one-year transitional period' come into fashion?

Originally posted by roger_valentine
So when did this 'one-year transitional period' come into fashion?

When the $48m bond became a protectionist barrier against new teams entering F1. It became better business to buy an exisiting 'franchise' that was on its last legs, pick over the remains and use those to set up your own new team. There might even be some Concorde Agreement rule that means that you have to be an existing owner before you can change the team's name - and one year is the minimum period?

Originally posted by roger_valentine
In olden days a change of ownership might (or might not) be accompanied by an immediate change of name; Onyx became Monteverdi mid-season (is a mid-season name change unique?).

With one very conspicuous exception.

Otherwise Nelson Piquet would have been World Champ in an Ecclestone-Cosworth.

I think there is a rule about name changes that means you need unanimity to change, to prevent the "franchising", but in practice if someone is definitely serious about F1 the other teams do not block it.

I don't see how the 'bond' can be relevent here. It may make buying an existing team more financially attractive than starting a new one, but why (temporarily) retain the existing name?

And while any mention of 'Concorde agreement' causes my eyes to mist over, surely this would imply some sort of 'written in stone' ruling - but Jaguar became Red Bull instantly (as, I think, Stewart became Jaguar instantly).

My thoughts are that perhaps it is something to do with Constructor's Championship benefits accruing to the (named) constructor rather than to the entrant, possibly stemming from the Larousse/Lola affair of 1990?

Is it not an issue of changing a team's name after the official entry to the championship?

At the present time, a team name change is permitted only when it is looked upon as beneficial to Formula One, i.e. depends on BCE.

Prost had no problem changing the team name from Liger to Prost, while Walkinshaw was not permitted to change the name of the Arrows team. I seem to remember it was said at the time that the Arrows name had "historical" value to F1.

Prost could only have taken control of the Liger team by using his name to front the operation, so it was looked upon as a valid commercial decision in that case.

BAR spent so much money they would not be denied a name change, while no one would stop the Ford Motor Company from re-naming a team they had financed from the start. However, Paul Stoddart will NEVER EVER be permitted to change the name of the Minardi team.

Different rules for different folks - just like the real world!

Originally posted by ensign14
Otherwise Nelson Piquet would have been World Champ in an Ecclestone-Cosworth.

ISTR that Alan Henry once asked BCE why he didn't rename the Brabham team when he bought it. BCE's reply was something along the lines that Brabham was a "good name", with associated history. He added "If we bought [British retailer] Marks & Spencer, we wouldn't rename it Ecclestone & Henry, would we?"

Thankfully Ron Dennis kept the McLaren name. Just imagine having two Project Fours on the grid.

Originally posted by Rob G
Thankfully Ron Dennis kept the McLaren name. Just imagine having two Project Fours on the grid.

Or a couple of "Dennis"es!

Some interesting theories here, but not many hard facts.

Could it really all be down to Bernie's whim? I don't buy this - why is 'Arrows' such a hisorically important name, and 'Ligier' not? You can't get much more historically important name than 'Tyrrell', but there was no objection to it being changed to that of some tobacco company. Bernie may be too intellegent to throw away such a valuable asset as the name 'Brabham', but if others want to, why should he care?

Unaimous agreement of the other teams? When have the teams ever agreed about anything? And think of the power this would give them: "Hmm, mega-rich company has bought a F1 team and wants to change its name and it is up to us to say yes or no. Now, let me think, what could possibly persuade us to say yes?". There would be so many sweetners to pay out that it would be cheaper just to pay the $48m and start a new team.

But neither of these theories address the central issue which is not why should someone want to change a team name to that of their own (obvious) or why should they want to retain the original name (equally obvious), but why should they retain the original name for a while, and then change it? I think Giles4ever may be on to something with the suggestion that it has something to do with changing a name after the championship entry has been accepted. But clearly the Onyx-Monteverdi change came after the championship entry, so back to my original question: WHEN did this change in policy happen?

Originally posted by David Hyland
ISTR that Alan Henry once asked BCE why he didn't rename the Brabham team when he bought it. BCE's reply was something along the lines that Brabham was a "good name", with associated history. He added "If we bought [British retailer] Marks & Spencer, we wouldn't rename it Ecclestone & Henry, would we?"

Dunno why, it sounds much posher -- on a par with Fortnum & Mason or Gieves & Hawkes ;)