75 replies to this topic

[Petroltorque]

It might be that Ecclestone is no longer the power broker and has made the admission to appear onside. It was Duncan McKenzie, CEO of CVC that agreed to address the imbalance in finances. It would be totally out of character for Ecclestone to admit that he got such a critical aspect of F1 business wrong. All out war in F1 is not going to allow an stock market float nor will it allow CVC to offload their remaining shares.

[billm99uk]

Maybe not, but at the end of the day they only need as many drivers as there are seats available, and right now pay drivers often prevent more talented drivers from taking those lower placed seats anyway. There are a lot of good reasons why losing these teams would be bad for the sport, but I don't think this is one of them.

 

If it reduces the number of available seats to allow drivers to attempt to "show their stuff", then I think it'll reduce the level of talent as those that get the chance will have less opposition to test themselves against. And few of the paying drivers are there solely because of their money, they're mostly talented guys with some sponsorship. When the likes of Maldonado, a dominant GP2 champion (and now GP winner), is considered a "pay driver" the standard is pretty high.

[pingu666]

wonder how real the threat of ferrari leaving or rbr pulling 4 cars is

 

cvc could bail out caterham and maursia, and then for next year call the teams in, and lay out how the money will be shared more equaly in future, and if the big teams kick up a fuss then shrug and say well we can brief all the tv teams to say shame xx team isnt here but they couldnt man up to a level playing field

[fykcha]

It really depends on how the contracts are written for the current profit sharing.

 

Ferrarri and RBR could have their share locked in for X amount of years.

[PlatenGlass]

This probably isn't anything you haven't heard, but it's got a general breakdown of where the money goes. http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/29905081

It just shows how unfair and ridiculous F1 is. Top teams (in particular Ferrari) get paid millions for simply existing, so it's not based on success. Well, you could argue it's on historic success but that's an idiotic and unfair way to run things. In any case, it certainly can't be accused of being a meritocracy.

And to have a separate pot for teams that are in the top 10 when you have 11 teams sounds like a desire to drive the bottom team out of F1.

And for Bernie to complain that the struggling teams are going round with their begging bowls and that they should just spend the money they have is quite simply trolling of the highest order. So, Caterham and Marussia have spent more money than they've got - well imagine how they would have done if they'd spent even less money. Let's think - they wouldn't exactly be higher up the grid would they? How about a fairer distribution of the money?

And then he just comes out and says "It's all my fault". Well, Bernie, you know where you can go.

[Clatter]

If it reduces the number of available seats to allow drivers to attempt to "show their stuff", then I think it'll reduce the level of talent as those that get the chance will have less opposition to test themselves against. And few of the paying drivers are there solely because of their money, they're mostly talented guys with some sponsorship. When the likes of Maldonado, a dominant GP2 champion (and now GP winner), is considered a "pay driver" the standard is pretty high.

Dominant? He took 4 years in GP2 before winning it. That's not being dominant and probably goes a long way to showing why the teams didn't hire him on his own merits.

[Timstr11]

Joe Saward ‏@joesaward  4h4 hours ago

The F1 financial structure explained (in four sentences)

http://wp.me/ppB1o-3Y1 

[Fastcake]

Wow. Putting it in a graph just shows how screwed up the money distribution is. At the very least, everything on the left hand side should be removed, and all the teams should be included in the column 1&2 payments.

 

Of course, it would be far better if they split it equally 14 ways, teams plus FIA.

[billm99uk]

Dominant? He took 4 years in GP2 before winning it. That's not being dominant and probably goes a long way to showing why the teams didn't hire him on his own merits.

 

Eventually dominant then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan, I just think labeling drivers as "pay drivers" merely because they have money is a bit much. I'm from an era when a pay driver was one of little discernible talent whatsoever.

[Clatter]

Eventually dominant then. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan, I just think labeling drivers as "pay drivers" merely because they have money is a bit much. I'm from an era when a pay driver was one of little discernible talent whatsoever.

He may have won the championship, eventually, but was in no way dominant. 

[Seano]

Pretty ballsy of Mr Saward to put that out - I doubt Bernie is going to be very pleased.

 

Of course we don't know and will never know the precise details, but I bet its not that far from the mark.

 

It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - that's perfectly illustrated here.

 

Seano

[InfectedPsy]

Bernie apologizing, how un-psychopathic of him.

 

Guilt and remorse is the key here.

[OO7]

Bernie blaming himself?

 

Now he is really showing signs of a serious illness. That kind of comments would he never had made if healty....

 

 

Henri

Was just about to post the same thing Henri.

[Mauseri]

 

Joe Saward ‏@joesaward  4h4 hours ago

The F1 financial structure explained (in four sentences)

http://wp.me/ppB1o-3Y1 

 

 

Quite obvious what is wrong:

-historical payments

-weak base payment outside top-10

-weak influence of performance to payments outside of top-3 (teams take pay drivers rather than competitive drivers)

 

The payments ensure that it is difficult to become serious contender from mid pack, that the gaps remain large on top, and that the same team wins easily 4 seasons in a row. That's what has been wrong with F1 for too long.

Edited by Mauseri, 06 November 2014 - 03:42.

[Nustang70]

To put things in perspective, based on Saward's numbers, last year CVC made more from TV revenues than Mclaren, Williams, Lotus, Force India, Sauber, Toro Rosso, Caterham, and Marussia combined.  

[sopa]

Don't really understand, why did the cut the line that only top 10 teams get "equal pot share" and "WCC performance" money. Especially as we had 12 teams for 2010. Basically with this financial structure it is pointless to have more than 10 teams, because whoever is left out of top 10, would struggle to survive anyway.

 

Also explains why Caterham and Marussia (and HRT) had such big trouble establishing themselves closer to the midfield, because IIRC Caterham got near the "top 10 pot" only after 2012? Which means during the first three years all new teams were financially left far behind others anyway. So if you are a newcomer, you are doomed, as you are not the natural and accepted part of the piranha club.

 

Well, good luck in attracting new teams to F1 then...

Edited by sopa, 06 November 2014 - 11:00.

[pdac]

Don't really understand, why did the cut the line that only top 10 teams get "equal pot share" and "WCC performance" money. Especially as we had 12 teams for 2010. Basically with this financial structure it is pointless to have more than 10 teams, because whoever is left out of top 10, would struggle to survive anyway.

 

Also explains why Caterham and Marussia (and HRT) had such big trouble establishing themselves closer to the midfield, because IIRC Caterham got near the "top 10 pot" only after 2012? Which means during the first three years all new teams were financially left far behind others anyway. So if you are a newcomer, you are doomed, as you are not the natural and accepted part of the piranha club.

 

Well, good luck in attracting new teams to F1 then...

 

Yes, these teams were attracted by the promised budget cap. Any prospective entrant would see what has happened to these two (and HRT). If I had enough money to buy or start an F1 team, I wouldn't.

[Rob]

"Doing it publicly is the wrong way to do it" - http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/29934672

 

Says the owner of a wealthy team that is probably quite happy with the current arrangement.

[pdac]

"Doing it publicly is the wrong way to do it" - http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/29934672

 

Says the owner of a wealthy team that is probably quite happy with the current arrangement.

 

Yes, it should be done behind closed doors. Otherwise people will know about it and Christian Horner will be asked awkward questions like "Why do Red Bull get so much more money than any of the midfield teams". God forbid.

[Clatter]

"Doing it publicly is the wrong way to do it" - http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/29934672

 

Says the owner of a wealthy team that is probably quite happy with the current arrangement.

He isn't the owner. He's the team principal and basically an employee who isn't risking his own money.

[Rob]

He isn't the owner. He's the team principal and basically an employee who isn't risking his own money.

 

I know he's not the owner. I don't know why I wrote owner. Insanity I guess.

[johnmhinds]

"Doing it publicly is the wrong way to do it" - http://www.bbc.co.uk...rmula1/29934672

 

Says the owner of a wealthy team that is probably quite happy with the current arrangement.

 

He does realise they've been doing it behind closed doors for years now right?

 

The only reason it has got so public is because the big teams have been sweeping it under the carpet for all that time and doing everything they can to continue to raise the costs in the sport to give themselves an advantage.

[Nemo1965]

 

Joe Saward ‏@joesaward  4h4 hours ago

The F1 financial structure explained (in four sentences)

http://wp.me/ppB1o-3Y1 

 

 

I would say after this post: 'Thank you. And goodnight.'

[Timstr11]

https://twitter.com/...056751169085440

The Independent: Redbull records highest expenditure for an F1 team (2014) in the history of F1.

http://www.independe...ty-9852378.html

Edited by Timstr11, 11 November 2014 - 08:18.

[pdac]

https://twitter.com/...056751169085440

The Independent: Redbull records highest expenditure for an F1 team (2014) in the history of F1.

http://www.independe...ty-9852378.html

 

I wonder how they would have faired under a $40m budget cap.

[Owen]

I wonder how they would have faired under a $40m budget cap.

They would leave the sport rather than face that.