Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Price money re-think.


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:42

Abso-fookin-lutely.
Its just bonkers that the richest teams grab the most money....My suggestion...make it equitable.

Advertisement

#2 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,665 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 May 2014 - 12:54

It's not about the richest teams grabbing the most money. It's about the difference.

 

If the first team in WCC gets twice as much money, as the last, I'm relatively OK with that.

 

But if first gets 2,5 times as much as fourth, and 15 times as much as the last, then it's horrible. Especially if big part of this is completely independent of results and smaller teams can do nothing to overcome that difference.

 

I'll perhaps not watch this any longer if it is not solved within next 2 or 3 years. ):



#3 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,179 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 07 May 2014 - 13:01

Price money ...
Katie Price?
Vincent Price?
The Price is Right?

WTF
Jp

#4 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 886 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 07 May 2014 - 13:48

I think that out of the total money given to the team, 110M should be doled out based on championship standings.  20M for 1st, 18M for 2nd down to 2M for 10th.  The rest of the money should be distributed equally among all teams.  If the remainder is 615M, and there are 12 teams, each team gets 51.25M in addition to their standings money. 

 

So first place would get 71.25M, and 12th place would get 51.25M. 



#5 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 13:53

I think that out of the total money given to the team, 110M should be doled out based on championship standings.  20M for 1st, 18M for 2nd down to 2M for 10th.  The rest of the money should be distributed equally among all teams.  If the remainder is 615M, and there are 12 teams, each team gets 51.25M in addition to their standings money. 

 

So first place would get 71.25M, and 12th place would get 51.25M. 

 

The thing is that if Ferrari gets 70 million and a new useless team like HRT get 50 million it wouldn't be fair either. I agree that numbers need to be leveled more but not that much



#6 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 May 2014 - 13:54

Abso-fookin-lutely.
Its just bonkers that the richest teams grab the most money....My suggestion...make it equitable.

How is it bonkers that the winners get more than the losers?

A fairer distribution would seem sensible, but I don't think it will change a lot.

The richest teams will still be the richest teams by a considerable margin.

The subject of how to diminish the advantage of expenditure, whilst still fostering innovation is the more interesting one. 



#7 Timstr11

Timstr11
  • Member

  • 7,599 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 07 May 2014 - 13:59

Bernie's biggest weapon to divide and conquer.

 

Not going to change without EU intervention. 



#8 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,088 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:00

I think that out of the total money given to the team, 110M should be doled out based on championship standings. 20M for 1st, 18M for 2nd down to 2M for 10th. The rest of the money should be distributed equally among all teams. If the remainder is 615M, and there are 12 teams, each team gets 51.25M in addition to their standings money.

So first place would get 71.25M, and 12th place would get 51.25M.


I favour a system that works in that sort of way. You keep a small incentive for improving your championship position, if winning itself isn't enough, but the majority of the prize fun should be shared equally amongst all the teams.

#9 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,877 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:02

I think that out of the total money given to the team, 110M should be doled out based on championship standings.  20M for 1st, 18M for 2nd down to 2M for 10th.  The rest of the money should be distributed equally among all teams.  If the remainder is 615M, and there are 12 teams, each team gets 51.25M in addition to their standings money. 

 

So first place would get 71.25M, and 12th place would get 51.25M. 

A large portion of the F1 income, driven by its global appeal, can in percentage terms be attributed far more greatly to Ferrari, than Marussia. 

Its unfair to give Ferrari the same share as Marussia for taking part, when the size of the pot that Marussia are taking a share of, has been generated largely more by Ferrari.

No sense in Ferrari agreeing to that - and they have all the other teams over a barrel on this issue anyway.

I think the heritage values they give the teams is a good mechanism, its a bit out of kilter, but not flawed. 



#10 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,053 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:08

Ferrari already get a premium for being Ferrari, it's called sponsorship and merchandise.

 

Equally distribute the money earned by the group(TV rights, trackside sponsorship, etc). Let the money earned individually(team sponsorship) be kept individually.



#11 charly0418

charly0418
  • Member

  • 1,203 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:12

Ferrari already get a premium for being Ferrari, it's called sponsorship and merchandise.

 

Equally distribute the money earned by the group(TV rights, trackside sponsorship, etc). Let the money earned individually(team sponsorship) be kept individually.

 

I'd love that but this isn't the NFL. Ferrari is responsible for a big part of all this TV rights and sponsorship money coming in to F1



#12 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:21

No team is bigger than the sport. The teams need each other for the show as a package. Ferrari is also very much dependant on the F1-brand.

 

The thing is that if Ferrari gets 70 million and a new useless team like HRT get 50 million it wouldn't be fair either.

With today's regime, you don't even give them a chance to overcome the status of being useless as you call it. A term that I completely disagree with btw.



#13 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,935 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:21

How is it bonkers that the winners get more than the losers?
A fairer distribution would seem sensible, but I don't think it will change a lot.
The richest teams will still be the richest teams by a considerable margin.
The subject of how to diminish the advantage of expenditure, whilst still fostering innovation is the more interesting one.

Well,given that the hot topic as of now is about cutting costs,...presumably to make the tail end Charlies catch up the big boys so make a fairer play ground...Yes?

#14 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,053 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:31

I'd love that but this isn't the NFL. Ferrari is responsible for a big part of all this TV rights and sponsorship money coming in to F1

 

I think if we wanted to go full NFL we'd take the money set aside for the teams(say 600m) and divide it between 12 teams. Everyone gets 50m a year to race on. No team sponsorship, that's your budget. Design a car, hire a driver, race 20(ish) times. 

 

You've automatically got a budget cap* and with that artificial limit you could even open the tech rules up a lot. The car has to fit in a certain box and have some basic rules but as long as you stay inside your 50m...

 

*The first thing you'd do is race on 30m for a few years until you have 50-60 in the bank, then add it to your annual 50, but I never said it was perfect  :cool:

 

It probably wouldn't work for F1 given Ferrari and other works team issues, but it'd be an interesting format. Unfortunately F1 is the only series that could really pull it off, since they have a large enough income.

 

Might work in NASCAR actually, they're almost F1 sized in income. Give every team X-dollars, and they buy their cars/engines from the manufacturers and go racing.



#15 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,669 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 May 2014 - 14:34

you would need the big teams to mess up massively, or a small team to suddenly luck into a uncopyable big advantage otherwise. giving the teams more equal money should also tighten the field, rich will get slower and the poor get faster...

 

the odd situation is f1 has become so huge, that teams cant really look to run elsewhere now, unless they get maybe a works deal for wec or maybe wrc, and would still shed staff for that probably. and the teams are more tied to bernie as the sponsorship situation seems pretty darn bare :/



#16 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,244 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 15:08

Price money ...
Katie Price?
Vincent Price?
The Price is Right?

WTF
Jp

 

Always nice to see a mention for one of Brucie's shows!   ;)



#17 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 601 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 15:35

Always nice to see a mention for one of Brucie's shows!  ;)


It's a good game, good game.

#18 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,665 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 May 2014 - 15:41

Ok. I was thinking about that and I think I came to the solution which is a pretty good balance between promoting those, who contribute the most, and giving smaller teams their fair share of income.

 

I've assumed the whole amount of money to share is 725m and I divided it into 5 colums:

- Equality column: 65% of the whole money go to the all teams equally.

- Historical column: 10% of the whole money go to the teams with the most success over the F1 history.

- Technologic contribution column: 5% of the whole money go to the teams that are using their own solutions rather than buying it from others.

- WCC results column: 15% of the whole money is shared on the basis of place of the team in WCC in previous year.

- WCC points column: 5% of the whole money is shared on the basis of the amount of points scored by the team in WCC in previous year.

 

More detail:

Equality column: the whole column is shared equally to all teams, so each team gets 42,841m through this.

Historical column:50% of all column is shared per WCC title in F1's history (I've counted Brawn's title to Mercedes, and Renault's titles to Lotus, but didn't count previous Team Lotus' titles), 30% of all column is shared equally to all teams, that are in F1 for at least 20 years (Ferrari, McLaren, Willaims and Sauber), and 20% of all column is shared equally to all teams that won at least one race in the last 5 years.

Technologic contribution: for simplification I've assumed 50% of all column is shared equally to all engine's manufacturers (this gives a chance to some independent manufacturers, like Cosworth, to get the part of the income and increase their capabilities thanks to that) and 50% of the whole column is shared equally to all teams that design their own gearbox. Of course we can use more sophisticated method.

WCC result column: I've assumed the prizes are:

1st: 24,556m

2nd: 19,294m

3rd: 15,786m

4th: 12,278m

5th: 10,524m

6th: 8,770m

7th: 7,016m

8th: 5,262m

9th: 3,508m

10th: 1,754m

WCC points column; The whole column is shared per point scored in the previous season.

 

Final outcome:

1. Red Bull: 86,993m

2. Mercedes: 75,098m

3. Ferrari: 87,789m

4. Lotus: 67,957m

5. McLaren: 72,345m

6. Force India: 53.066m

7. Sauber: 56.371m

8. STR: 48,727m

9. Williams: 63.843m

10. Marussia: 44.595m

11. Caterham: 42,841m

 

+6,041m to Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault as engine manufacturers.

 

I think fair enough to the all parties. Of course we can disagree on how to count the historical success or technologic contribution of all teams, or we can modify some % slightly, but I wanted to show the overall concept and I think it's pretty OK.

 

To assure some teams won't come for an easy money and exit after one or two year we can introduce the rule:

- In your first year you only get 50% of what would you get normally. (you have to participate in all weekends if you want to get the money)

- This amount is  increased to 75% in second year if you manage to qualify to at least 80% of races in your first year. (you have to participate in all weekends)

- Again the amount is increased to 100% if your third year if you manage to qualify to at least 80% of races in your second year.



#19 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 15:49

It has been mentioned a million times, but not in this thread:

 

If Lotus had somehow managed to win the F1 championship for drivers in 2013, it still would have gotten less money from Bernie than Ferrari and Red Bull. That Lotus-boss Lopez therefore raised the topic, is very poignant. 

 

Anderis list is fine, as long as it is arranged that if this year Mercedes wins, it gets that amount. Not that some secret deal between Ferrari and Bernie and Red Bull, they still will get less for whatever reason. 



Advertisement

#20 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 07 May 2014 - 16:30

It takes every single team to put on the show. The proceeds should therefore be distributed evenly. Sponsorship and marketing reward success.

 

If there is more demand for places on the grid than supply, the last placed team should bid of the slot in an auction with the prospective entrants. . 



#21 Tommay

Tommay
  • Member

  • 149 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 07 May 2014 - 17:31

Make sure every team has enough money to make it within the 107% rule, money per race an we are sorted...

#22 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 584 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 07 May 2014 - 20:39

When we are talking about money I think it's strange that F1 do not take any responsibility for what they are putting out. Like a swarm of grasshoppers they come in, suck the place dry and have zero care for the damage caused. Why don't work together with race promoters to make shure it's sustainable? Splitting ad-space, ticket revnnue etc.


Edited by ollebompa, 07 May 2014 - 20:42.


#23 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 483 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 07 May 2014 - 20:47

Blame Ferrari for killing FOTA and taking all the money Bernie gives them, even though they already have Marlboro bankrolling them.



#24 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 2,665 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 07 May 2014 - 21:02

Blame Ferrari for killing FOTA and taking all the money Bernie gives them, even though they already have Marlboro bankrolling them.

I would love to blame Ferrari but I can't blame them for taking care of their own interests.

 

I blame FIA they're not firm enough to enforce solutions that would bring more fair competition between teams and I blame Bernie that he would rather give $100m to one team than $10m to each team.



#25 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,088 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 07 May 2014 - 21:28

I would love to blame Ferrari but I can't blame them for taking care of their own interests.

 

I blame FIA they're not firm enough to enforce solutions that would bring more fair competition between teams and I blame Bernie that he would rather give $100m to one team than $10m to each team.

 

I could blame them, and I would go even further and blame them for selling FOTA out and not even taking care of their own interests. Had the teams (and the FIA) stuck together, they could of achieved a much larger pay-out from Bernie and everyone, including Ferrari, would be earning more. Instead, they decided to come to a secret arrangement that led to them earning a few million more than the other teams, but still less than they could of achieved fighting for a more equitable distribution. You could say Ferrari care more about being the special snowflake than the income.

 

It's hardly surprising Bernie has ruled F1 for so long with geniuses like Monty around.