144 replies to this topic

[Marklar]

As usual the system appears to be quite 'fair'....
 

 

 

There are constructors' championship bonus (CCB) payments for four teams - Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull and McLaren, which have been agreed in separate deals.

There is also a long-standing team payment for Ferrari and other fixed prize fund payouts such as a heritage bonus for Williams and negotiated payments for Red Bull Racing and Mercedes.

Red Bull receives its extra annual payment for being the first team to sign the current bi-lateral agreement, which runs to 2020, while Mercedes will earn its bonus annually from now on after meeting its agreed target of two world championships.

 

http://www.autosport...r-2016-revealed

[shonguiz]

No Bonus for Renault ? I thought that was a cardinal negociation point with BE.

[milestone 11]

Yeah very fair Marklar. I'm seriously pissed off to see Haas taking so much, greedy bastards.

[Timstr11]

This about the 2015 season which will not include the Renault deal or any other new team.

Edited by Timstr11, 06 April 2016 - 14:26.

[milestone 11]

No Bonus for Renault ? I thought that was a cardinal negociation point with BE.

Yes, I thought so too, or so the media would have us believe.

[milestone 11]

This about the 2015 season which will not include the Renault deal or any other new team.

Yep, agreed.

[Brod]

Huh? I thought that heritage bonuses are a main pillar of team payments, but the article is only talking about Williams. Or are those a thing of the past and the only thing that matters today is negotiation power? 

[10e10]

Why does Ferrar have a long standing bonus and not McLaren? Also no heritage bonus for McLaren?

 

What am I missing?

[FullThrottleF1]

Why does Ferrar have a long standing bonus and not McLaren? Also no heritage bonus for McLaren?

 

What am I missing?

Don't open that can of worms.

[CountDooku]

Why does Ferrar have a long standing bonus and not McLaren? Also no heritage bonus for McLaren?

 

What am I missing?

 

Because McLaren couldn't negotiate a pissup in a brewery. Plus Ron is too proud.

[clarkma5]

*sigh* fix this, go a long way toward fixing F1...

[Nemo1965]

Well, at least Mercedes get more than Red Bull now. In 2014 and 2015, if I am not mistaken, Mercedes got less than Ferrari AND Red Bull, despite spanking their...

[Marklar]

Well, at least Mercedes get more than Red Bull now. In 2014 and 2015, if I am not mistaken, Mercedes got less than Ferrari AND Red Bull, despite spanking their...

Yes, for 2015 (based on the 2014 season) Mercedes got less than Ferrari and Red Bull

 

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/118955

[ConsiderAndGo]

Same old.

[FullThrottleF1]

Does anyone have 2015 team budgets?

[Burtros]

All that money for Ferrari and so little to show for it. Hah. 

 

McLaren are really really starting to suffer compared to Red Bull, Ferrari and Merc,

 

Its not a wealth distribution model that really leads to anything other than stagnation at the top. 

Edited by Burtros, 06 April 2016 - 14:58.

[HoldenRT]

F1 is funny.

 

PS. I feel sorry for McLaren.

[superden]

And they wonder why F1 is broken.

[myusername]

so, haas team does not receive a fee from column 1 before 3 years from now??

[statman]

Why does Mclaren get a CCB bonus?

[Sebastian Tombs]

I imagine the 'Panama Papers' might have some interesting info on F1 and particularly those involved in its 'administration'

 

ST

[Fastcake]

Huh? I thought that heritage bonuses are a main pillar of team payments, but the article is only talking about Williams. Or are those a thing of the past and the only thing that matters today is negotiation power? 

 

The bonuses are all essentially whatever number Bernie draw up on the back of a napkin with individual teams.

 

Williams happened to get a fixed pot called a heritage payment for reasons.

 

McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari get a pot of money for constructor's championships divvied up by some convoluted method that rewards the least successful teams more.

 

Red Bull get an extra payment for stabbing the teams in the back before Ferrari got there.

 

Ferrari get their payment for the usual conspiring against everyone else.

 

Mercedes get another bonus for some sort of bollocks.

 

Why does Mclaren get a CCB bonus?

 

For winning championships, one would presume. The question is why Williams and Renault/Lotus do not get one.

[ensign14]

So Ferrari gets a bribe which, on its own, is higher than the amounts that half the teams in Formula 1 earn.

 

Wonder if the EU Commission has seen this.

 

And.  Seriously.  Ferrari.  How **** are you?  You stab everyone in the back, as per, you get more than everyone else, as per, and you've had 3 wins in 2 and a bit years?

[EthanM]

So Ferrari gets a bribe which, on its own, is higher than the amounts that half the teams in Formula 1 earn.

 

Wonder if the EU Commission has seen this.

 

And.  Seriously.  Ferrari.  How **** are you?  You stab everyone in the back, as per, you get more than everyone else, as per, and you've had 3 wins in 2 and a bit years?

 

yeah commercially though nobody gives a damn if any one of half the teams in F1 don't turn up to race tomorrow. Lots of people give a damn if Ferrari doesn't. Try to remember these are commercial agreements.

[LiftAndCoast]

No Bonus for Renault ? I thought that was a cardinal negociation point with BE.

Renault's bonus money is heavily back ended, mostly coming after 2020. That's when the other teams' deals expire, so there's more money in the pot available to divide up for the non-CCB teams/Ferrari.

Renault signed a 10 year deal IIRC, so they have committed to the sport until the mid 2020s.

I'll see if I can dig up some reports from last year which explained this.

[kevinracefan]

has anyone seen pictures of guns held to people's head?

 

wanna bigger check??

 

RUN BETTER...

 

as for bonus payments, find a way to make Bernie think you're important and demand $50 million..

 

not much mystery in how it works, really...

[LuckyStrike1]

Exactly, no mystery at all. 

 

All good and fine in column 1 and 2 based on performance more or less. 

 

After that - negotiation to earn extra favors. 

 

Would F1 be stronger with a different system, with a more "fair" distribution of the revenue amongst the teams? 

 

Probably. At least the bottom half of the F1 grid would be stronger financially. The upper half slightly weaker financially. 

 

So it is back to negotiation. 

 

No team has been forced to accept these terms. These are the terms currently part of being active in F1. 

[milestone 11]

I imagine the 'Panama Papers' might have some interesting info on F1 and particularly those involved in its 'administration'

 

ST

Seb. Indeed, I still get regular updates from "home".

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

Hi Bernie,

 

wanna save 50m? Of course you want to!

 

Instead of your system above that distributes 965m, simply take 915m. 60% of that is didvided equally between ALL the participating teams, no matter if they score points or not.

That would be 549m/11 or 49.9m per team. The remaining 40% should be distributed between ALL the teams according to the WCC standings.

 

A fan

 

PS: Please transfer half of the 50m via paypal to robinhood@fom.com

[EthanM]

Hi Bernie,

 

wanna save 50m? Of course you want to!

 

Instead of your system above that distributes 965m, simply take 915m. 60% of that is didvided equally between ALL the participating teams, no matter if they score points or not.

That would be 549m/11 or 49.9m per team. The remaining 40% should be distributed between ALL the teams according to the WCC standings.

 

A fan

 

PS: Please transfer half of the 50m via paypal to robinhood@fom.com

 

have him wire me 50 mil then, if people are handing out 50 mil for turning up at 20 races with an F1 car, I can copy paste a car and get 20 people to do all the travelling for 20 mil. It will be 10 seconds off the pace, but who cares, free 30 mil for me

[R Soul]

For winning championships, one would presume. The question is why Williams and Renault/Lotus do not get one.

 

There could be a time limit and a requirement of continuous involvement. That would explain Renault not getting anything, but McLaren's last constructor's championship was 1998. You'd think they'd choose a round number like 10 years, or 20 years to include McLaren, but the latter would mean Williams should get something for 1996 and 7. An 18 year limit? A strange number. Maybe it's 1st or 2nd within 10 years and with continuous involvement.

[Marklar]

Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes have some agreements with Bernie (e.g. if the grid falls under 20 cars that they will use a 3rd car). I assume that's why they get this CCB bonus in return.

 

Very strange that McLaren gets no herritage bonus though (well, its absurd that anyone of them gets a bonus, anyway)

Edited by Marklar, 06 April 2016 - 18:25.

[johnmhinds]

There could be a time limit and a requirement of continuous involvement. That would explain Renault not getting anything, but McLaren's last constructor's championship was 1998. You'd think they'd choose a round number like 10 years, or 20 years to include McLaren, but the latter would mean Williams should get something for 1996 and 7. An 18 year limit? A strange number. Maybe it's 1st or 2nd within 10 years and with continuous involvement.

 

That doesn't sound right, McLaren and Ferrari only won a single championship each in the last 10 years and get $32 & $35 million, but Red Bull won 4 in a row and only get $39 million a year?

 

Must be for something else.

[Hati]

So if you would divide cash handed out equally to eleven teams they all would get pretty much same amount that Williams gets now. With that there would probably be pretty even competition behind the over-spenders after couple of years of constant rules.

[Dolph]

That doesn't sound right, McLaren and Ferrari only won a single championship each in the last 10 years and get $32 & $35 million, but Red Bull won 4 in a row and only get $39 million a year?

 

Must be for something else.

 

Why are you assuimgn this is based on fairness?

[quaint]

So if you would divide cash handed out equally to eleven teams they all would get pretty much same amount that Williams gets now. With that there would probably be pretty even competition behind the over-spenders after couple of years of constant rules.

 

The thing is, the top teams wouldn't like to lose all those millions, and the lesser teams don't have a say. (F1 differs from many team sports in that teams don't have “home stadiums” to sell out, but they've still ended up dividing income unevenly.)

[YoungGun]

Can someone explain why Col. 1 money is the same for all teams, when it's based on their classification over 2 of the past 3 years?

[New Britain]

There could be a time limit and a requirement of continuous involvement. That would explain Renault not getting anything, but McLaren's last constructor's championship was 1998. You'd think they'd choose a round number like 10 years, or 20 years to include McLaren, but the latter would mean Williams should get something for 1996 and 7. An 18 year limit? A strange number. Maybe it's 1st or 2nd within 10 years and with continuous involvement.

 

There is no principle involved here. None whatsoever.

 

The payout formula was based on what individual deal each team was able to cut with Bernie at the time.

 

Red Bull, which has essentially zero "heritage", were then the dominant team and had become a fairly big draw, plus Mateschitz is tight with Bernie, he controlled the Austrian GP, and he controlled 4 out of 20 cars. This got RBR a great deal.

 

Mercedes got a great deal because they were the only major car-maker with a team of their own, and they were supplying a lot of engines, so Bernie needed them.

 

Over the two teams' histories, one could make arguments in favour of McLaren and Williams being treated alike, but again it was a question of the time when the deal was struck - on the back of Williams's having sunk low, whereas McLaren was still in the mix, and had one of F1's biggest draws in Hamilton.

 

As for Ferrari - well, with them it's the same old BS, isn't it? They draw in the morons fans, who pay the money, which goes to Bernie & Co. QED

[LiftAndCoast]

Can someone explain why Col. 1 money is the same for all teams, when it's based on their classification over 2 of the past 3 years?

Because it's column 2 payments you're thinking of.

[quaint]

Can someone explain why Col. 1 money is the same for all teams, when it's based on their classification over 2 of the past 3 years?

 

It's based on classification, but does only have two levels – one for those inside top-10 and another for the rest.

Edited by quaint, 06 April 2016 - 19:22.

[johnmhinds]

Can someone explain why Col. 1 money is the same for all teams, when it's based on their classification over 2 of the past 3 years?

 

Column 1 is mislabelled/misleading, it just means the team finished in the top 10, if you finish outside the top 10 you get none of the TV or track money.

 

This diagram makes it easier to understand the distribution system:

 

Source: https://joesaward.wo...four-sentences/

Edited by johnmhinds, 06 April 2016 - 19:54.

[YoungGun]

Cheers and thank you

[HP]

*sigh* fix this, go a long way toward fixing F1...

Look at WIlliams, higher income, but seemingly going backwards with the best customer engine.

 

And remember Toyota?

 

Even the odds would be appreciated, but running a successful racing team doesn't exclusively rely on the $$

[New Britain]

Look at WIlliams, higher income, but seemingly going backwards with the best customer engine.

 

And remember Toyota?

 

Even the odds would be appreciated, but running a successful racing team doesn't exclusively rely on the $$

 

What one could say is that having a big budget is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for winning a title.

 

The only exception to that in the last two decades may have been Renault in '05-'06, but, in addition to having perhaps the best driver and some very smart people, they may have had a couple of advantages that the other teams did not have.

[LeClerc]

Column 1 is mislabelled/misleading, it just means the team finished in the top 10, if you finish outside the top 10 you get none of the TV or track money.

 

This diagram makes it easier to understand the distribution system:

 

 

Source: https://joesaward.wo...four-sentences/

 

A complete cluster****, to be honest.

[Kalmake]

Because McLaren couldn't negotiate a pissup in a brewery. Plus Ron is too proud.

Ron has done a good job with sponsors and partners, though. They are still one of the big teams on budget and talent. Despite poor sporting results, they haven't fallen to mid tier like Williams did.

[Hati]

 

This diagram makes it easier to understand the distribution system:

 

 

I'm not greedy (well, I am but not _that_ greedy), give commercial rights to me and I will settle for a modest 100 million and give rest back to sport, each team equal payment between 100m and 150m depending on how many teams will be competing and if I give some money to track organizers also.

[ch103]

The shame of it all is that this proves F1 is a business first, sport second.  In fact, the way the customer car era is shaping up, it will be impossible to even call it a sport before too long.

[Paco]

The only team getting the shaft imo is FI. Williams arguable but their finish position is more to due to the PU and they have been a disappointment at how far off the pace of MGP they are...they didn't maximize their BMW years and now they are wasting their Mercedes years...

As for the rest.. About right if you ask me.

Edited by Paco, 06 April 2016 - 23:38.

[loki]

Look at WIlliams, higher income, but seemingly going backwards with the best customer engine.

 

And remember Toyota?

 

Even the odds would be appreciated, but running a successful racing team doesn't exclusively rely on the $$

While it wouldn't necessarily increase the racing performance, it would increase the sustainability of the business model.  For example helping minimize or eliminate thing like what happened at Manor and things like Sauber missing a payroll.