Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Marussia confirm unsuccessful merger talks with Caterham


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,456 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:03

http://www1.skysport...-s-merger-claim

Marussia have confirmed to Sky Sports they held discussions with Caterham over the winter following Bernie Ecclestone's bombshell disclosure the two outfits considered a merger which would have reduced the 2013 grid to just ten teams.

Speaking in the Sepang paddock ahead of this weekend's Malaysian GP, Marussia President Graeme Lowdon told Sky Sports Online: "I can confirm that discussions took place. I wasn't involved in them and as I understand it, the conclusion was unacceptable to our shareholders. So nothing happened."

Caterham are yet comment on the claims.



Advertisement

#2 Slackbladder

Slackbladder
  • Member

  • 1,524 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:06

I guess the only thing you can take is that both of them are probably struggling.. but that's not especially new.

#3 wj_gibson

wj_gibson
  • Member

  • 3,375 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 March 2013 - 10:55

I wonder who wanted the merger most. I suspect Caterham more than Marussia.

#4 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 10,436 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:00

I wonder who wanted the merger most. I suspect Caterham more than Marussia.

Bernard

#5 HuddersfieldTerrier1986

HuddersfieldTerrier1986
  • Member

  • 2,440 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:03

Bernard


Probably yup, as hasn't he said before he'd ideally just want 10 teams in F1?

#6 muramasa

muramasa
  • Member

  • 8,202 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:05


Marrusiaham

#7 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:27

Probably yup, as hasn't he said before he'd ideally just want 10 teams in F1?


I think he wants to get rid of the commercial terms where Caterham, Marussia and HRT were all paid 10m each per year simply for being new teams in 2010.

Back to 10 teams would mean every team would get payments simply for the top 10 WCC results and $30 could either go back to Bernie, the FIA or the rest of the teams share.

Marussia are looking to have a better car than Caterham for the moment, but traditionally theyve been behind and even behind HRT at some stages. Fundamentally i think Caterham are a stronger team so i'm curious what part of the merger they would bring, perhaps just part of the technical staff around Pat Symonds? Undoubtebly the Caterham drivetrain is stronger as theres no real comparison to the Cosworth and the 2011 Williams gearbox.

#8 Wingcommander

Wingcommander
  • Member

  • 1,440 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 21 March 2013 - 14:12

I think he wants to get rid of the commercial terms where Caterham, Marussia and HRT were all paid 10m each per year simply for being new teams in 2010.

Back to 10 teams would mean every team would get payments simply for the top 10 WCC results and $30 could either go back to Bernie, the FIA or the rest of the teams share.


It's kind of sad when someone like Bernie wants less teams in the sport. It has probably something to do with his A teams & B teams plan. 11 doesnt fit very nicely into that.

Fundamentally i think Caterham are a stronger team so i'm curious what part of the merger they would bring, perhaps just part of the technical staff around Pat Symonds? Undoubtebly the Caterham drivetrain is stronger as theres no real comparison to the Cosworth and the 2011 Williams gearbox.


I'd say Marussia probably have better facilities than Caterham, plus their McLaren collaboration has proved to be quite effective. Atleast their updates work. IMO the only aspect where Caterham beats Marussia atm is budget.

#9 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 21 March 2013 - 14:24

It's going to be especially satisfying to see Bianchi thrash the Caterhams this year.

#10 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 9,258 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 March 2013 - 15:06

caterham had more hype and press coverage too

#11 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 March 2013 - 16:54

I think he wants to get rid of the commercial terms where Caterham, Marussia and HRT were all paid 10m each per year simply for being new teams in 2010.

Back to 10 teams would mean every team would get payments simply for the top 10 WCC results and $30 could either go back to Bernie, the FIA or the rest of the teams share.

Marussia are looking to have a better car than Caterham for the moment, but traditionally theyve been behind and even behind HRT at some stages. Fundamentally i think Caterham are a stronger team so i'm curious what part of the merger they would bring, perhaps just part of the technical staff around Pat Symonds? Undoubtebly the Caterham drivetrain is stronger as theres no real comparison to the Cosworth and the 2011 Williams gearbox.

It's not a question of removing the commercial deal for the new team as that agreement only ran for 3 seasons. In any event FOM only paid out $20 millions a year over the length of the agreement as Caterham always received the column 2 monies for tenth spot. Ecclestone as a CVC has a remit to save money for the shareholders so has no interest restoring column 3 payments for teams outside the top 10. One wonders why the FIA remains so supine about this whole affair. I suppose if things become critical Marussia could test the legality of the allocation of monies at CAS.
As an aside, there's no doubting the supremacy of thr red Bull power train if it's in a RB9 however its not good enough to compensate for a chassis as bad as Caterham's. That's why Marussia's "inferior" tech is besting Caterham.

Edited by Petroltorque, 21 March 2013 - 16:58.


#12 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 22 March 2013 - 02:35

Column 3 payments dont cancel out the column 2 payments though. Otherwise Caterham wouldnt have put in so much effort to retain 10th as it was only worth about $10m - basically what the column 3 payment was for the 3 teams anyway.

#13 Reinmuster

Reinmuster
  • Member

  • 901 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:19

Marrusiaham


Caterusia? :lol:




#14 kedia990

kedia990
  • Member

  • 412 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 22 March 2013 - 03:52

Caterusia? :lol:


Cucumar.

#15 tjkoyen

tjkoyen
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 04:31

Cucumar.


Posted Image

#16 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 05:40

Column 3 payments dont cancel out the column 2 payments though. Otherwise Caterham wouldnt have put in so much effort to retain 10th as it was only worth about $10m - basically what the column 3 payment was for the 3 teams anyway.

I think the reason Caterham put the effort into keeping tenth spot last year was that column 2 payments were worth as much as $15 million. As I understand it Caterham would still receive column 1 payments as they have finished in the top 10 two out of 3 seasons. They would not receive column 3 payments though. So their loss of budget would have been $15 million.

#17 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,374 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:12

The teams can take payments from any column eligible.

After doing some research, the columns are as follows:
Column 1 is payments based on finishing top 10 WCC for 2 of the past 3 years.
Column 2 is payments based on finishing top 10 WCC for previous year.
Column 3 is a $30m pot for the new 2010 teams.

Caterham finishing 10th in the WCC for 2010, '11 and '12 will get money from all 3 columns. Had Marussia finished 10th last year they wouldve gotten Column 2 and 3 only.

With the demise of HRT, both teams will now get $15m from Column 3 as opposed to $10m. Ive seen nothing yet suggesting the Column 3 payments for only 3 years other than the concorde agreement only lasting for 3 more years including 2010.

#18 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 22 March 2013 - 06:24

The teams can take payments from any column eligible.

After doing some research, the columns are as follows:
Column 1 is payments based on finishing top 10 WCC for 2 of the past 3 years.
Column 2 is payments based on finishing top 10 WCC for previous year.
Column 3 is a $30m pot for the new 2010 teams.

Caterham finishing 10th in the WCC for 2010, '11 and '12 will get money from all 3 columns. Had Marussia finished 10th last year they wouldve gotten Column 2 and 3 only.

With the demise of HRT, both teams will now get $15m from Column 3 as opposed to $10m. Ive seen nothing yet suggesting the Column 3 payments for only 3 years other than the concorde agreement only lasting for 3 more years including 2010.

I'm sorry but your post is 100% wrong about column 3 payments. Those payments were only for 3 years as it was an agreement brokered by FOM and the then FIA President Max Mosely. In addition the column 3 payments were only for new teams finishing outside the top 10. Caterham nee Team Lotus never received column 3 payments. FOM only had to pay $20 million a year since USF1 never materialised. Bernie Ecclestone does not have any arrangement for column 3 for this year, that's why Maurussia don't have a commercial agreement. It's for that reason Marussia had tentative talks about a merger. At present Marussia are paying all their travel costs and shipment costs. It's for that reason the tenth spot battle is now a dog fight. As I said earlier there is not a lot of commercial value of any team outside the top ten in the constructors championship.

Edited by Petroltorque, 22 March 2013 - 07:44.


#19 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 5,536 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:35

it just shows how tough it is to survive at the back of the grid. The FIA must do something and cut the budgets and provide more funding for the smallest teams (more honest distribution of the money).

Advertisement

#20 Doughnut King

Doughnut King
  • Member

  • 624 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:40

it just shows how tough it is to survive at the back of the grid. The FIA must do something and cut the budgets and provide more funding for the smallest teams (more honest distribution of the money).


It obviously doesn't help when one of the bosses of the sport doesn't want you there. They were enticed to enter only a few years ago, and now they're being told they aren't wanted.

Bernie should remember that a few years back F1 could have been down to 8 teams.

Edited by Doughnut King, 22 March 2013 - 08:42.


#21 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:42

The FIA must do something to attract more sponsors to the minnow teams and the sport as a whole. Cost cutting and budget caps seems like such a hard thing to enforce, most teams are against it IIRC.

#22 William Hunt

William Hunt
  • Member

  • 5,536 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 22 March 2013 - 08:57

A Budget Cap is a must imho. For teams like Sauber, Williams or Force India it's also & struggle to survive, not just Caterham & Marussia. The costs of running an F1 team is simply outrageous, even more so in these dire economic times.

#23 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 6,103 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 22 March 2013 - 09:00

Customer cars

#24 gm914

gm914
  • Member

  • 6,046 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:30

Cucumar.



Posted Image

I'll be needing a fresh cup of coffee. :lol: