Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do you take it seriously when bosses and leading figures urge for cost cuts?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 November 2013 - 20:52

I mean, c'mon.

Ten times, twenty over the last decade (since Arrows fell out)? Yet the show keeps going on.

It's not like we can take these alerts all that seriously until they just close the doors and the grid dwindles to some 14 cars or so.

 

Bernie's point system ideas seem more serious.


Edited by Atreiu, 08 November 2013 - 20:53.


Advertisement

#2 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 November 2013 - 21:03

Sometimes I wish DIETER RENCKEN's predictions come true.



#3 Tommay

Tommay
  • Member

  • 249 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 08 November 2013 - 21:42

The problem is if you cut costs in one area they'll just reinvest it into finding an extra tenth through aerodynamics etc

#4 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,232 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 November 2013 - 21:43

True.



#5 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:18

F1's supposed to be exhorbitant and ridiculously expensive, and if that eventually leads to the sport eating itself, so be it. More fans for IndyCar.



#6 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,394 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:34

No.



#7 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:41

I think the have nots are sincere but it‘s not up to them, so... The haves are supporting cost cutting with their words and blocking it with their deeds, except Mercedes which seems to be becoming more and more ovrtly opposed to the whole idea. It is very hard to take anything anyody says on the subject seriously any more.

#8 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 2,594 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:49

I think the have nots are sincere but it‘s not up to them, so... The haves are supporting cost cutting with their words and blocking it with their deeds, except Mercedes which seems to be becoming more and more ovrtly opposed to the whole idea. It is very hard to take anything anyody says on the subject seriously any more.

Because the size of their cheque-books are a major advantage they have over the opposition.

#9 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 November 2013 - 22:54

F1's supposed to be exhorbitant and ridiculously expensive, and if that eventually leads to the sport eating itself, so be it. More fans for IndyCar.

 

I don't know why a ''fan'' would ever wish for the death of a thing, even if that thing isn't quite what that ''fan'' wants at a given time. I have watched F1 for 30 years and I [and the rest of the sport] would all be poorer without it, even with all its' warts. IMO.



#10 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,911 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 08 November 2013 - 23:23

I don't want it to happen, but it wouldn't kill me if it does. I'm just an observer of the sport, I thoroughly enjoy it but it doesn't owe me anything. I don't have a personal stake in it. I want F1 to succeed and to be everything it's meant to be (and everything it thinks it is), but if it all goes tits up and there's 8 cars on the grid, it might be an effective wake-up call. F1 can ignore a few backmarker teams disappearing every now and then, but things are unlikely to get better until one day it's Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull and no one cares to watch. F1 is like a friend who is never going to deal with their problems until everything they love has left them. Some people have to learn like that. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, it does.



#11 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,958 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 09 November 2013 - 03:52

I don't want it to happen, but it wouldn't kill me if it does. I'm just an observer of the sport, I thoroughly enjoy it but it doesn't owe me anything. I don't have a personal stake in it. I want F1 to succeed and to be everything it's meant to be (and everything it thinks it is), but if it all goes tits up and there's 8 cars on the grid, it might be an effective wake-up call. F1 can ignore a few backmarker teams disappearing every now and then, but things are unlikely to get better until one day it's Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull and no one cares to watch. F1 is like a friend who is never going to deal with their problems until everything they love has left them. Some people have to learn like that. I hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does, it does.

 

F1 going tits up doesn't enhance the remaining motorsport series - it would diminish them all, as you would lose all of the ''casual'' viewers, those that know only F1 - and be left with only the hard-core niche fans.

 

And, in that case, all you would end up with will be very cheap spec. racing in every series.


Edited by 917k, 09 November 2013 - 03:53.


#12 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,272 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 November 2013 - 04:50

another series might rise in popularity



#13 JHSingo

JHSingo
  • Member

  • 8,941 posts
  • Joined: June 13

Posted 09 November 2013 - 14:03

We are always hearing about this, but there never seems to be any action. It's very well saying costs need to come down, but what about actually doing something about it?

 

Admittedly, the political side of F1 is not my strong point, but Dieter Rencken's articles always make it clear - the sport is in a mess right now. It just pains me that we can't have nice things in motorsport, without somebody, somewhere, doing their damndest to screw it all up. All the teams have their own separate agendas too, and instead of working together for the greater good of F1, they sort of have this shrug your shoulders and say "s'not my problem guv" attitude.

 

To paraphrase something Paul Stoddart said in-light of the Indianapolis 2005 farce "the FIA needs to get a grip of the sport before there's no ****ing sport to get a grip of any more."

 

I know that there has always been teams struggling financially, but it just seems worse than ever at the moment. Away from the big four, all the teams are struggling to survive, and more and more are having to resort to pay drivers. That can't be healthy, long term.


Edited by JHSingo, 09 November 2013 - 14:03.


#14 apoka

apoka
  • Member

  • 5,878 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 09 November 2013 - 14:44

another series might rise in popularity

 

That could happen, but a failure of the most popular motor sport series could also be seen as a failure of motor sport in general. It's not like there is a fixed world wide audience (fans of bicycle racing have experienced that the hard way).



#15 FullThrottleF1

FullThrottleF1
  • Member

  • 3,472 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 09 November 2013 - 14:53

I kinda hope it does because I do think it will act as a wake up call. The death sentence for F1 (I feel) began in 2009 when kers, drs and Pirelli tyres were introduced in and after 2009. When the audiences turn off due to woeful racing, sponsors pull, the grid is full of pay drivers and all the teams quit or fold, then I'd like to see Bernie and his rich friends after that.



#16 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 09 November 2013 - 15:38

When they say "F1", they actually mean "rival teams".



#17 Supertourer

Supertourer
  • Member

  • 260 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 09 November 2013 - 16:25

I refer to the old sayings

'A man with money won't sit in the dark because his neighbour is poor'
'A man with money won't give his neighbour who has none, half his money,as they will be equal'

Apply that to F1...

#18 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 2,607 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 09 November 2013 - 17:02

Saying something is too expensive is meaningless without a point of reference.  What they really mean is that whether they're spending two hundred or two hundred million, some teams are able to spend more than others.  And since the teams will always spend whatever they earn, what they really mean is that some teams earn more than others.  So the problem isn't the cost - the problem is that the income is too lop sided.  And it's lop sided for two reasons - a) FOM takes most of the money; and b) there aren't enough big sponsors to go around.  Both of these problems are Bernie's fault.  Had he not loaded up the sport with debt, then there would be more income to share with the teams; and if his company would do a better job of promoting the sport, then there would be more fan interest and more sponsors.  

 

Trying to cap the cost is a fool's errand in a sport like this.  With other sports it's easy - cap player salaries and you're done.  The FIA could never have the ability to properly police multi-divisioned companies and their suppliers; and as if that needed to be proven, we've seen exactly that with the RRA and the constant griping about Red Bull's compliance (and of course the fact that the team and engine manufacturer budgets are exactly the same as what they were before all this nonsense).


Edited by pup, 09 November 2013 - 17:04.