Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

Andretti Global lodges F1 entry; FOM rejects it, AGREEMENT REACHED [updated again]


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
9015 replies to this topic

#7901 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 September 2024 - 16:14

GhostR, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:00, said:

FOM's statement laid out a mix of commercial and non-commercial reasons (largely based on assumptions, some of which were subsequently disputed), and it lacked the detail required to determine if the commercial reasons would stand up to scrutiny on their own.

 

Maybe such vagueness and ambiguity is their process? It seems they want it to be an objective process rather than subjective.



Advertisement

#7902 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 12 September 2024 - 16:18

Nathan, on 12 Sept 2024 - 14:05, said:

We have already discussed how Cadillac can participate and profit from participating in F1 without Andretti.  Honda does now, and GMs chief domestic rival is coming only as an engine maker. I've also never seen a Cadillac banner trackside at a Grand Prix.  Andretti fans can still turn a F1 race on, subscribe to F1 TV, buy tickets to races.  The idea they can only become F1 fans through Andretti's participation is rubbish.

 

The fact that Cadillac can "participate" in Formula 1 in other ways does not matter. It's the fact that they are being denied a specific avenue of participation that is available to others that matters. If FOM/Liberty cannot satisfy the DoJ that they have excluded Andretti/Cadillac on legitimate grounds, then the DoJ will go after them and they won't care that Cadillac had other options.



#7903 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 12 September 2024 - 16:25

pdac, on 06 Sept 2024 - 16:01, said:

The context for this was about the DoJ (or whoever) ordering FOM/Liberty to allow Andretti to compete with a commercial contract in F1. My question (albeit hypothetical) was related to what powers the DoJ (or whoever) would have to force that, given that other parties affected by such an order are not under their jurisdiction. What action could take should FOM/Liberty fail (through no fault of their own) to enact an order of this kind?

 

Think this has been covered multiple times in this thread. The DoJ can't force the FOM to accept the Andretti entry. They do, however, have a number of other potential penalties / avenues they could take that might ... shall we say encourage FOM / Liberty to change their mind in order to avoid the consequences of the DoJ acting against them.

 

So the end result might be a mutual agreement between FOM/Liberty and the DoJ that the DoJ will drop their investigation if Andretti's application is accepted. The DoJ can't force it, but they can influence it into happening through the other things they can do.



#7904 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 16:46

Nathan, on 12 Sept 2024 - 14:05, said:

We have already discussed how Cadillac can participate and profit from participating in F1 without Andretti.  Honda does now, and GMs chief domestic rival is coming only as an engine maker. I've also never seen a Cadillac banner trackside at a Grand Prix.  Andretti fans can still turn a F1 race on, subscribe to F1 TV, buy tickets to races.  The idea they can only become F1 fans through Andretti's participation is rubbish.

We've been through this before, my friend.  ;)

 

Whether there might be another route (or even another route that most neutral experts would consider likely to work better), for Cadillac to participate in F1 without Andretti, is totally effing irrelevant. It is not for any party other than Cadillac to choose what route it wishes to take. As a general principle, for outside parties to collude, or a dominant party to attempt, to frustrate a would-be competitor from entering what should be a competitive market is illegal. There are limited, narrow exceptions specific to their circumstances, but in this case motor sport should not be one of them.



#7905 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 16:53

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 14:37, said:

They might well decide to take a chance that it won't (or, rather, the whole thing will just blow over). I personally think it's very likely a 10-team limit will be on the table. It could equally be that the FIA unilaterally declare a 10-team limit and then propose to have it written into the Concorde Agreement. That would leave FOM and the teams in the clear.

The FIA would have to be insane to agree to a 10-team limit. They now have a bloody 13-team limit, for goodness sake! What would have changed to justify their shrinking their limit by nearly 25%?

The size of circuits has not changed. Under the new formula, the cars will be getting smaller, not bigger. The cars are safer than ever.

The only motivation the FIA would have had to reduce the maximum grid size would have been capitulation to pressure from FOM and the teams - thus proving beyond doubt that FOM and the teams have engaged in illegal anti-competitive behaviour.



#7906 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 September 2024 - 17:17

GhostR, on 12 Sept 2024 - 15:48, said:

Unless they've changed it, the rules that set 12 teams being the maximum in Formula 1 are based on a formula (*ahem) that is also used for other categories. The FIA would have to either change the formula used for all categories, or change Formula 1 to use a different approach. If they did the latter, they'd be opening themselves up to be included in DoJ action - so I very much doubt that will happen. And I don't think they'll change the underlying formula for all categories any time soon.

 

Edit to add: especially doubt they'll want to risk changing the max entries rules given they a) opened the process to take applications, b) considered applications from multiple teams, and c) approved Andretti's application. They've by doing so clearly indicated that they do think the grid can take at least 1 more team (from sporting side). They'd be taking a massive risk to within a short time frame turn that around and say "only 10 teams from now on".

 

It would be very simple ... all they need to do is decide that there is not enough room in Monaco for the garages and use that as the reason. I posted the pit map a while ago and it seemed to me that it's not very difficult to make a case that there is no room for an 11th team.

 

Edit:

Here's the document - see page 32

There are 13 garages, but one is used by the FIA, one is used by FOM and one is jointly assigned to FIA/FOM. I'm sure they can easily make a case that all of the space allocated to the FIA and FOM are required to run the event.


Edited by pdac, 12 September 2024 - 17:26.


#7907 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 17:24

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 17:17, said:

It would be very simple ... all they need to do is decide that there is not enough room in Monaco for the garages and use that as the reason. I posted the pit map a while ago and it seemed to me that it's not very difficult to make a case that there is no room for an 11th team.

But there was enough room a year ago when the FIA approved the Andretti application?

There was enough room when the FIA published the 2024 Formula One Sporting Regs that specified a maximum of 26 cars?

I don't think so!



#7908 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 September 2024 - 17:49

New Britain, on 12 Sept 2024 - 17:24, said:

But there was enough room a year ago when the FIA approved the Andretti application?

There was enough room when the FIA published the 2024 Formula One Sporting Regs that specified a maximum of 26 cars?

I don't think so!

 

But it's easy for them to introduce new 'safety' rules which would make it impossible now. I think you have too much faith in the legal process.



#7909 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 September 2024 - 18:15

No time for a summer friend
No time for the love you send
Seasons change and so did I
You need not wonder why
You need not wonder why
There's no time left for you
No time left for you

 

GhostR, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:18, said:

The fact that Cadillac can "participate" in Formula 1 in other ways does not matter. It's the fact that they are being denied a specific avenue of participation that is available to others that matters. 

 

As Loki says, what matters for the moment is how the U.S. courts look at these, and we can see by the entire professional sports complex in the U.S., nothing stops a sports league from saying "nope, beat it".  You also see it in American business via sales territories, product exclusivity agreements and McDonalds being able to tell me "we don't want you to own an operate a McDonalds restaurant' and then turn around and sell one to someone else they feel more fit.

 

 

New Britain, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:46, said:

 

Whether there might be another route (or even another route that most neutral experts would consider likely to work better), for Cadillac to participate in F1 without Andretti, is totally effing irrelevant. 

 

It isn't though.  Going with McDonalds telling me "no", I won't successfully sue McDonalds claiming they are preventing me from selling hamburgers and fries to the public because they didn't give me a franchise.  Nor will I get sympathy claiming without a McDonalds franchise I can't possible sell as many hamburgers and fries as I think I otherwise can.  Even in real estate it is common in a lease for say a shoe store to have a clause saying the landlord can't rent another spot in the complex to another shoe store. It escapes because of other opportunities in the direct market because there are other retail complexes.  You can still compete for the same customers, just not in this exact spot. It's not as cut and dry and to the word as many seem to think.

 

New Britain, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:46, said:

It is not for any party other than Cadillac to choose what route it wishes to take. 

 

There are so many examples in the general economy that debunk this.   I just can't call up Coca-Cola, make a wholesale order and start competing with the regional Coca-Cola distributor.  If I said to myself "I want to be the potato chip king of Calgary" unless I plan to make my own brand of potato chips I'm probably SOL. No court is forcing Frito Lays and Pringles to let me sell potato chips on their behalf.   If I go buy an AHL hockey team with aspirations of it becoming an NHL team, I can't just saunter into NHL HQ and show them how the league is going to bend to my plan.  These entities hold the control, not the person with the aspirations.


Edited by Nathan, 12 September 2024 - 18:23.


#7910 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 19:53

Nathan, on 12 Sept 2024 - 18:15, said:

It isn't though.  Going with McDonalds telling me "no", I won't successfully sue McDonalds claiming they are preventing me from selling hamburgers and fries to the public because they didn't give me a franchise.  Nor will I get sympathy claiming without a McDonalds franchise I can't possible sell as many hamburgers and fries as I think I otherwise can.  Even in real estate it is common in a lease for say a shoe store to have a clause saying the landlord can't rent another spot in the complex to another shoe store. It escapes because of other opportunities in the direct market because there are other retail complexes.  You can still compete for the same customers, just not in this exact spot. It's not as cut and dry and to the word as many seem to think.

 

There are so many examples in the general economy that debunk this.   I just can't call up Coca-Cola, make a wholesale order and start competing with the regional Coca-Cola distributor.  If I said to myself "I want to be the potato chip king of Calgary" unless I plan to make my own brand of potato chips I'm probably SOL. No court is forcing Frito Lays and Pringles to let me sell potato chips on their behalf.   If I go buy an AHL hockey team with aspirations of it becoming an NHL team, I can't just saunter into NHL HQ and show them how the league is going to bend to my plan.  These entities hold the control, not the person with the aspirations.

 

Your examples do not fit the FOM-Andretti situation.

 

McDonalds are not at liberty to refuse a valid application for any reason they might fancy - there are limits. They may not refuse an application based on race, religion, or gender, for example.

If McDonalds - acting alone - thought that a proposed new site would be unprofitable, or a proposed new franchisee was unqualified, of course they may refuse the application.

On the other hand, however, if a new-franchise application to McDonalds would otherwise have been approved, but the ten franchisees closest to the proposed new site got together, went to McDonalds and informed them that they were strongly opposed to having a new competitor nearby and, if it were approved, the ten objectors were going to make new demands on McDonalds, and in reaction McDonalds had refused the worthy applicant, that would be restraint of trade and all eleven parties would be in legal jeopardy.

 

Re the NHL, a few historical numbers:

 

Number of teams:

 

            NHL         Formula One

1966 -    6              20                     

2024 -    32            10

 

In recent decades, none of the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB has been a closed shop. They have had controlled structures, but each league has grown its number of franchises substantially over time. Formula One is now exactly the opposite.

Furthermore, and equally apposite, I have explained in this thread several times that the nature of team sports such as football and baseball, when at the highest level there are hundreds of matches every season, and thus each individual contest has little status or meaning on its own, is fundamentally different from sports such as golf, tennis, and indeed Formula One, in which The Masters, Wimbledon, and British GP can stand on their own and do not require commercial rights holders to give them meaning or make them financially viable.

The history of motor sport is completely different from the history of American stick-and-ball sports, and attempts to superimpose on one the competitive structure of the other do not work.

 



#7911 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 12 September 2024 - 20:20

Nathan, on 12 Sept 2024 - 14:05, said:

We have already discussed how Cadillac can participate and profit from participating in F1 without Andretti.  Honda does now, and GMs chief domestic rival is coming only as an engine maker. I've also never seen a Cadillac banner trackside at a Grand Prix.  Andretti fans can still turn a F1 race on, subscribe to F1 TV, buy tickets to races.  The idea they can only become F1 fans through Andretti's participation is rubbish.

 

The DOJ investigation is regarding disallowing a Cadillac factory team as a barrier to market.   The fact F1 intervened to separate them from Andretti can be problematic.  That F1 offered them another way is irrelevant under US law.  What they were offered was not a standalone team but forcing them to choose something else to participate.  The reasons given for the denial most of the current grid can’t fulfill are problematic.  They aren’t holding current entrants to the same standard as new entrants.  These reasons were listed in both houses of Congress letters to Liberty and the DOJ requesting to investigation.  It’s one of the few things members of both parties agree on in the current administration.

 

They applied under a set of defined rules and were admitted by one portion while the other denied them entry under nebulous and sometimes contradictory reasons.  The initial comments from the teams about losing money are problematic.  This isn’t about fans or consumers.  It’s about predatory practices to deny a manufacturer the opportunity to market and advertise to a particular segment.  Those behaviors are what’s called per se illegal.  That means there is no defensible excuse or way that’s ever legal.  F1 and the teams could have positioned themselves to have a better propensity of evidence case but they couldn’t keep their mouths shut.  They were too busy smelling their own farts to realize they could be subject to Sherman Act violations.



#7912 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 September 2024 - 20:51

GhostR, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:00, said:

Not sure if I agree whether the answer to question 3 being "yes" is so cut and dried. FOM's statement laid out a mix of commercial and non-commercial reasons (largely based on assumptions, some of which were subsequently disputed), and it lacked the detail required to determine if the commercial reasons would stand up to scrutiny on their own.

Lacking detail in a public statement that might be subject to legal challenge is exactly the advice that any good lawyer would provide to a client - say as little as possible is always the advice. Whether every last reason given was commercial or some might be non-commercial is probably a matter of semantics or legal interpretation but FOM might actually be entitled to do that, based on the agreement between itself and the FIA on how decisions on possible new entries are made - and that agreement is not a public document. The only info that the public have on FOM supposedly only considering commercial matters is from journalists, who also haven't seen the agreement and who have a long tendency to over-simplify such things. For all we know, the FOM may well have the right under the agreement to consider applications on commercial and also non-commercial grounds, such as event logistics (that might mean paddock space as an example).

 

Nathan, on 12 Sept 2024 - 16:14, said:

Maybe such vagueness and ambiguity is their process? It seems they want it to be an objective process rather than subjective.

Could well be and I think likely based on legal advice too. Like you, I believe that FOM sees & wants the process to be objective rather than subjective.



#7913 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 September 2024 - 21:08

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DoJ investigation just that - an investigation. To me that means that there is suspicion that something untoward has happened, not that it has. So the investigation could find that Liberty/FOM has done nothing wrong. So we are just debating events and comparisons that may demonstrate something or not. Right?



#7914 sterlingfan2000

sterlingfan2000
  • Member

  • 521 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 12 September 2024 - 21:36

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 21:08, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DoJ investigation just that - an investigation. To me that means that there is suspicion that something untoward has happened, not that it has. So the investigation could find that Liberty/FOM has done nothing wrong. So we are just debating events and comparisons that may demonstrate something or not. Right?


Yes but it's also a Political Message from the US Government to Car Manufacturers like Mercedes and Ferrari, Audi, Honda. Let them in

#7915 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 22:01

arrysen, on 12 Sept 2024 - 20:51, said:

For all we know, the FOM may well have the right under the agreement to consider applications on commercial and also non-commercial grounds, such as event logistics (that might mean paddock space as an example).

So why, only three years previously, did FOM sign a contract accepting the principle that as many as 12 teams could be accommodated at Formula One races - has the paddock space shrunk? And why did Liberty suggest that Andretti re-apply for 2028 - will the paddock space be expanded again?



#7916 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 September 2024 - 22:03

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 21:08, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DoJ investigation just that - an investigation. To me that means that there is suspicion that something untoward has happened, not that it has. So the investigation could find that Liberty/FOM has done nothing wrong. So we are just debating events and comparisons that may demonstrate something or not. Right?

Agree - unless someone on here is a bona fide legal expert on the relevant US anti-trust laws, many of the posts in this thread are simply circling around in conjecture. We'll only have something definitive once decisions are made at the end of the investigation and (if recommended by the investigation) any litigation that follows. So I guess that we might know a definite outcome by about 2026 or maybe 2027 or possibly 2028 if appeals come into the picture.

 

sterlingfan2000, on 12 Sept 2024 - 21:36, said:

Yes but it's also a Political Message from the US Government to Car Manufacturers like Mercedes and Ferrari, Audi, Honda. Let them in

Well, Mercedes was "let in" by running its own team, then (much later) supplying engines, then purchasing an existing entrant, Ferrari has always been its own entrant, Audi purchased an existing entrant, Honda was an entrant, stopped, then supplied engines to several teams, then bought an existing entrant, now supplies engines. Cadillac is free to do exactly what those manufacturers did.


Edited by arrysen, 12 September 2024 - 22:14.


#7917 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 12 September 2024 - 22:12

New Britain, on 12 Sept 2024 - 22:01, said:

So why, only three years previously, did FOM sign a contract accepting the principle that as many as 12 teams could be accommodated at Formula One races - has the paddock space shrunk? And why did Liberty suggest that Andretti re-apply for 2028 - will the paddock space be expanded again?

Not being "in the room" I'd speculate that FOM signed that agreement on the basis that at least some paddocks would need to be enlarged for an expansion of team numbers to happen, which in turn would need FOM to re-negotiate commercial terms with the relevant promoter(s). The time frame for that all to happen is not known and if, for example, a particular Grand Prix simply didn't have paddock expansion room, then either substantial work to enlarge it would be required or that Grand Prix might have to lose its place on the calendar. So, in that instance, an entry might get accepted (if all other boxes were ticked) but wouldn't be able to actually start competing for a couple of years, to allow the paddock expansion work to be negotiated, specified and completed.

 

One of the many things that came out of the discussion around Andretti was that paddock space could possibly be enlarged, but doing so by 2026 might be tight - the Zandvoort promoter for example was one that said so from memory.



#7918 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 12 September 2024 - 22:35

arrysen, on 12 Sept 2024 - 22:12, said:

Not being "in the room" I'd speculate that FOM signed that agreement on the basis that at least some paddocks would need to be enlarged for an expansion of team numbers to happen, which in turn would need FOM to re-negotiate commercial terms with the relevant promoter(s). The time frame for that all to happen is not known and if, for example, a particular Grand Prix simply didn't have paddock expansion room, then either substantial work to enlarge it would be required or that Grand Prix might have to lose its place on the calendar. So, in that instance, an entry might get accepted (if all other boxes were ticked) but wouldn't be able to actually start competing for a couple of years, to allow the paddock expansion work to be negotiated, specified and completed.

 

One of the many things that came out of the discussion around Andretti was that paddock space could possibly be enlarged, but doing so by 2026 might be tight - the Zandvoort promoter for example was one that said so from memory.

Only 5 seasons before FOM signed the Concorde Agreement which accepted the principle of 12 teams, there were 11 teams on the grid. Had that much changed in those 5 years?

Is it likely that the extant contracts, which are always multi-year, with promoters would specify that the promoter was obliged only to accommodate 10 teams/20 cars, especially when the FIA F1 Sporting Regs for years have allowed as many as 26 cars, and it is the FIA, not FOM, that approves a circuit's eligibility for an F1 race?

You mention a shortage of space at Zandvoort. A year ago (i.e. several months before Liberty rejected Andretti), Zandvoort announced that for the 2024 race they would be expanding the paddock by six garages in order that they could accommodate 12 teams.

https://www.autospor...-2024/10513065/

 ;)



#7919 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 00:02

New Britain, on 12 Sept 2024 - 22:35, said:

Only 5 seasons before FOM signed the Concorde Agreement which accepted the principle of 12 teams, there were 11 teams on the grid. Had that much changed in those 5 years?

Is it likely that the extant contracts, which are always multi-year, with promoters would specify that the promoter was obliged only to accommodate 10 teams/20 cars, especially when the FIA F1 Sporting Regs for years have allowed as many as 26 cars, and it is the FIA, not FOM, that approves a circuit's eligibility for an F1 race?

You mention a shortage of space at Zandvoort. A year ago (i.e. several months before Liberty rejected Andretti), Zandvoort announced that for the 2024 race they would be expanding the paddock by six garages in order that they could accommodate 12 teams.

https://www.autospor...-2024/10513065/

 ;)

Has that much changed in 5 years? Of course it has - space needs for teams and the FIA have increased. Could they reduce? On the face of it of course, but it may not actually be that simple. There is also the question of paddock space (different from pit lane space) which is still something to be extended at Zandvoort I believe. Then there's parking space for all the team rigs that bring in the hospitality units etc. Probably not insurmountable but for sure those needs would change over 5 years and there may be a genuine need for some time to get ALL venues sorted for an additional team - particularly if the existing teams say they genuinely need the space they currently use and the new team needs the same space (which I imagine it would to be able to compete on a level playing field). 

 

FIA works its circuit density by a formula based on length, width, number of corners but the maximum density is also set by the number of pit lane spaces & the FIA defines a pit and space as being 4m in length - so I'd suggest that all current circuits would comply with that formula for up to 24 cars (which is the current FIA possible ceiling). What that doesn't take into account is the actual room that the teams use, both in the pit lane & garages and also in the paddock - that would be an FOM thing to sort out with promoters.

 

Look, on the face of it, paddock space may well be a furphy, but it also might be real enough that it can't just be dismissed either. For example, if all existing teams were required to use less space, would they then raise OHS concerns?


Edited by arrysen, 13 September 2024 - 00:04.


Advertisement

#7920 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 September 2024 - 00:29

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 00:02, said:

Has that much changed in 5 years? Of course it has - space needs for teams and the FIA have increased. Could they reduce? On the face of it of course, but it may not actually be that simple. There is also the question of paddock space (different from pit lane space) which is still something to be extended at Zandvoort I believe. Then there's parking space for all the team rigs that bring in the hospitality units etc. Probably not insurmountable but for sure those needs would change over 5 years and there may be a genuine need for some time to get ALL venues sorted for an additional team - particularly if the existing teams say they genuinely need the space they currently use and the new team needs the same space (which I imagine it would to be able to compete on a level playing field). 

 

FIA works its circuit density by a formula based on length, width, number of corners but the maximum density is also set by the number of pit lane spaces & the FIA defines a pit and space as being 4m in length - so I'd suggest that all current circuits would comply with that formula for up to 24 cars (which is the current FIA possible ceiling). What that doesn't take into account is the actual room that the teams use, both in the pit lane & garages and also in the paddock - that would be an FOM thing to sort out with promoters.

 

Look, on the face of it, paddock space may well be a furphy, but it also might be real enough that it can't just be dismissed either. For example, if all existing teams were required to use less space, would they then raise OHS concerns?

And yet they manage to make it work in Monaco.

 

Liberty can come up with all the far-fetched excuses they like. If it were true that there simply was not enough space to accommodate an eleventh team, that would apply equally if Toyota or Porsche, rather than Andretti, were the applicant. Does anyone believe that Liberty would have rejected Porsche or Toyota?

Moreover, these same space constraints - if they exist - would apply in 2028, unless something were done about them in the meantime. Are you aware of any Liberty plan to require circuits to expand their facilities by then? One would think that it would have been reported somewhere in the specialist media that Liberty were preparing for the possibility of 12-team grids. I have heard nothing about that. Have you?

 

Liberty's legalistic justifications for rejecting Andretti had about as much credibility as Donald Trump's appeals against the litany of indictments and convictions against him - desperate and intellectually dishonest word-smithing in order to try to deny what we all know was the underlying truth.



#7921 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 01:06

New Britain, on 13 Sept 2024 - 00:29, said:

And yet they manage to make it work in Monaco.

 

Liberty can come up with all the far-fetched excuses they like. If it were true that there simply was not enough space to accommodate an eleventh team, that would apply equally if Toyota or Porsche, rather than Andretti, were the applicant. Does anyone believe that Liberty would have rejected Porsche or Toyota?

Moreover, these same space constraints - if they exist - would apply in 2028, unless something were done about them in the meantime. Are you aware of any Liberty plan to require circuits to expand their facilities by then? One would think that it would have been reported somewhere in the specialist media that Liberty were preparing for the possibility of 12-team grids. I have heard nothing about that. Have you?

 

Liberty's legalistic justifications for rejecting Andretti had about as much credibility as Donald Trump's appeals against the litany of indictments and convictions against him - desperate and intellectually dishonest word-smithing in order to try to deny what we all know was the underlying truth.

The same space constraints wouldn't apply in 2028, if Liberty used the time window between now and then to deal with them - and I guess from FOM's point of view, there's no need to announce anything re paddock upgrades as there is not (yet) the need for the space that an additional team would require. Monaco to me is the most difficult place of all to accomodate an additional team and is, on the face of it, a good example of other teams maybe having OHS concerns if an eleventh team was to be squeezed into the existing footprint.

 

Neither Toyota nor Porsche were applicants - although it should be noted that both in the past have had their own teams. If either had applied, it may well have gained a green light - in the same manner that once GM has its own engine and Andretti becomes a team bringing a new manufacturer (in 2028) then the FOM release indicated the answer might well be different. Let's not ignore the fact that paddock space was merely one of the reasons listed and a lesser priority one at that.

 

Regardless of what you think of FOM's justifications, the fact is that FOM had the right to say "no" and did so and has explained its reasoning. The only people who can truthfully declare that the "no" answer is an attempt to "deny what we all know was the underlying truth" are the people who were part of those deliberations. Now, IF the US DoJ demands all docs and then IF it releases those docs, then "we" will get to know the whole truth - but until then, claims of us knowing the whole truth are simply hyperbole and conjecture.



#7922 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 02:04

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 21:08, said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the DoJ investigation just that - an investigation. To me that means that there is suspicion that something untoward has happened, not that it has. So the investigation could find that Liberty/FOM has done nothing wrong. So we are just debating events and comparisons that may demonstrate something or not. Right?

They usually don’t take a request from Congress to investigate something.  Congress provides reasoning and evidence to support the claim though the DOJ is under no obligation to investigate.  When they do investigate it’s an indication there is enough evidence (and jurisdiction) to support the request.  According to activist group Co-Equal there have been 183 legitimate Congressional investigative referrals to the DOJ since 1924.  Of those 37% led to indictments.  Once there is an indictment Fed conviction rates (across all charges) are well over 90% including pleas and settlements.  Only a few percent go to trial. 

 

Liberty could be found to have operated under the law but the DOJ doesn’t launch an investigation without some evidence there was unlawful activity.  My guess would be if there is smoke there will eventually be a consent decree entered into that addresses any structural defects in the process.  The DOJ doesn’t have the power to dictate they allow Andretti Cadillac an entry though can fine them and institute structural changes.  It’s possible they could be allowed under a negotiated agreement though I don’t know that’s likely at this point.  This action would be to correct behavior and punish actions not get an Andretti Cadillac an entry.

 

https://www.co-equal...ents#statistics



#7923 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 02:12

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 01:06, said:

 

Neither Toyota nor Porsche were applicants - although it should be noted that both in the past have had their own teams. If either had applied, it may well have gained a green light - in the same manner that once GM has its own engine and Andretti becomes a team bringing a new manufacturer (in 2028) then the FOM release indicated the answer might well be different. Let's not ignore the fact that paddock space was merely one of the reasons listed and a lesser priority one at that.

 

Andretti Cadillac was already a factory team with an announced independent engine program prior to F1 refusing the entry.   F1 and the teams don’t want any new entrants due to money.  It’s all about revenue sharing.  Has been from the beginning regardless of what the teams and apologists say.



#7924 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 21,965 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 04:31

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 17:17, said:

It would be very simple ... all they need to do is decide that there is not enough room in Monaco for the garages and use that as the reason. I posted the pit map a while ago and it seemed to me that it's not very difficult to make a case that there is no room for an 11th team.

 

Edit:

Here's the document - see page 32

There are 13 garages, but one is used by the FIA, one is used by FOM and one is jointly assigned to FIA/FOM. I'm sure they can easily make a case that all of the space allocated to the FIA and FOM are required to run the event.

They could say that, but it would be more nonsense added to the pile. They gave APX GP a garage for that same 2023 Monaco GP ffs. There is a lot of new office space and there are 39 garages, not 13, and they are currently occupied by 20 cars, the FIA, and FOM. They have room. They've had as many as 13 teams there in the past, before the garages and office space were ever expanded. They can do it again. They are simply just making excuses.


Edited by AustinF1, 13 September 2024 - 04:34.


#7925 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 07:01

AustinF1, on 13 Sept 2024 - 04:31, said:

They could say that, but it would be more nonsense added to the pile. They gave APX GP a garage for that same 2023 Monaco GP ffs. There is a lot of new office space and there are 39 garages, not 13, and they are currently occupied by 20 cars, the FIA, and FOM. They have room. They've had as many as 13 teams there in the past, before the garages and office space were ever expanded. They can do it again. They are simply just making excuses.

You're partially right - APX GP hasn't been filmed at Monaco - confirmation on where filming has been done is included in this article.

 

However, you ARE right on the 39 garages (assigned in blocks of 3, meaning 13 garages effectively). The FIA Race Director's notes from this year spell out who is allocated to what and from that, assuming that the FIA/FOM needs can be met elsewhere or use less space, it looks like an extra team could in fact squeeze in. So a bit more room there than I originally thought.



#7926 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 51,889 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 07:26

GhostR, on 12 Sept 2024 - 15:48, said:

Unless they've changed it, the rules that set 12 teams being the maximum in Formula 1 are based on a formula (*ahem) that is also used for other categories. The FIA would have to either change the formula used for all categories, or change Formula 1 to use a different approach. If they did the latter, they'd be opening themselves up to be included in DoJ action - so I very much doubt that will happen. And I don't think they'll change the underlying formula for all categories any time soon.

Edit to add: especially doubt they'll want to risk changing the max entries rules given they a) opened the process to take applications, b) considered applications from multiple teams, and c) approved Andretti's application. They've by doing so clearly indicated that they do think the grid can take at least 1 more team (from sporting side). They'd be taking a massive risk to within a short time frame turn that around and say "only 10 teams from now on".


I’ve never heard this before. Surely the maximum number of entries, or starters, is determined by each series own sporting regulations, not some overarching regulation in the sporting code?

#7927 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 51,889 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 07:28

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 17:17, said:

It would be very simple ... all they need to do is decide that there is not enough room in Monaco for the garages and use that as the reason. I posted the pit map a while ago and it seemed to me that it's not very difficult to make a case that there is no room for an 11th team.

Edit:
Here's the document - see page 32
There are 13 garages, but one is used by the FIA, one is used by FOM and one is jointly assigned to FIA/FOM. I'm sure they can easily make a case that all of the space allocated to the FIA and FOM are required to run the event.


If that’s the case they can do like what happened pre-1987 and limit the number of starters to 20 at Monaco only. There are always sporting avenues that can be taken rather than anti-competitive business practices.

#7928 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 September 2024 - 08:35

pdac, on 12 Sept 2024 - 17:17, said:

It would be very simple ... all they need to do is decide that there is not enough room in Monaco for the garages and use that as the reason. I posted the pit map a while ago and it seemed to me that it's not very difficult to make a case that there is no room for an 11th team.

 

Edit:

Here's the document - see page 32

There are 13 garages, but one is used by the FIA, one is used by FOM and one is jointly assigned to FIA/FOM. I'm sure they can easily make a case that all of the space allocated to the FIA and FOM are required to run the event.

 

Those garages are only being used by FIA & FOM because there are no teams to fill them. FIA & FOM can use other facilities if need be. That's a non-starter IMO (in terms of convincing DoJ that a 10 team restriction is correct).



#7929 GhostR

GhostR
  • Member

  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 September 2024 - 09:39

PayasYouRace, on 13 Sept 2024 - 07:26, said:

I’ve never heard this before. Surely the maximum number of entries, or starters, is determined by each series own sporting regulations, not some overarching regulation in the sporting code?

 

I'll see if I can dig it out - I read about it some time ago (and it may have changed), but there is (or was) a formula for it. It has some flexibility built in, but IIRC not enough that they could flex it down to 10 teams. It theoretically sets the limit for Formula 1 to 13 teams, but the reality is I very much doubt we'll ever see that (Monaco) and 12 is the realistic maximum.



#7930 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 09:42

PayasYouRace, on 13 Sept 2024 - 07:28, said:

If that’s the case they can do like what happened pre-1987 and limit the number of starters to 20 at Monaco only. There are always sporting avenues that can be taken rather than anti-competitive business practices.

 

They could do that. Or they could limit the field to 20 for the entire season. It can be one or the other and the simplest (and, I would say, most likely one) is to place a limit on the entrants rather than the single event.



#7931 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 09:49

GhostR, on 13 Sept 2024 - 08:35, said:

Those garages are only being used by FIA & FOM because there are no teams to fill them. FIA & FOM can use other facilities if need be. That's a non-starter IMO (in terms of convincing DoJ that a 10 team restriction is correct).

 

I don't agree. Look at the layout. The two on the extreme ends do not seem very practical for a racing team. The FIA would need one for random weighing and scrutineering. I'm sure FOM needs some space for their equipment too. The needs of F1 in terms of equipment and personnel is different to most other, smaller, series. Personally, looking at the layout, I could imagine them squeezing 1 more team in there, but I could equally imagine there being many practical problems in attempting to do that and probably plenty of complaints from those who have to work there.



#7932 Sterzo

Sterzo
  • Member

  • 6,089 posts
  • Joined: September 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 10:43

The discussion of garage space is a red herring. FOM rejected Andretti's bid on the following grounds* :

  1. F1 conducted analysis involving key stakeholders and decided an 11th team "would not on its own add value".
  2. F1 also does "not believe the applicant would be a competitive participant".
  3. F1 said it would "look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 championship with a GM power unit

There is a clear division between the responsibilities of the FIA (sporting) and FOM (commercial). The reasons stated for rejecting Andretti do not read like commercial reasons, let alone valid ones.

 

Perhaps, loki, if you read this, you could repost the link to the excellent university paper on the subject of anti-trust in the context of sports organisations, which anyone interested in the subject really ought to read. (You posted the link about seven thousand posts ago...)

 

 

*(F1's reasons copied from a BBC report made at the time and edited by me)


Edited by Sterzo, 13 September 2024 - 10:44.


#7933 Deeq

Deeq
  • Member

  • 11,133 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 11:10

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 07:01, said:

You're partially right - APX GP hasn't been filmed at Monaco - confirmation on where filming has been done is included in this article.

However, you ARE right on the 39 garages (assigned in blocks of 3, meaning 13 garages effectively). The FIA Race Director's notes from this year spell out who is allocated to what and from that, assuming that the FIA/FOM needs can be met elsewhere or use less space, it looks like an extra team could in fact squeeze in. So a bit more room there than I originally thought.

I understand you are playing a Devils advocate here but Adretti could race next year if they want, And can be without FOMs money!
FiA gave them green light, no practical or safety hinders exist for their participation.
FOM rejected them on commercial grounds, their remit but nothing else.
F1 owners (FiA) accepted them that is it.

#7934 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 September 2024 - 11:16

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 01:06, said:

The same space constraints wouldn't apply in 2028, if Liberty used the time window between now and then to deal with them - and I guess from FOM's point of view, there's no need to announce anything re paddock upgrades as there is not (yet) the need for the space that an additional team would require. Monaco to me is the most difficult place of all to accomodate an additional team and is, on the face of it, a good example of other teams maybe having OHS concerns if an eleventh team was to be squeezed into the existing footprint.

 

Neither Toyota nor Porsche were applicants - although it should be noted that both in the past have had their own teams. If either had applied, it may well have gained a green light - in the same manner that once GM has its own engine and Andretti becomes a team bringing a new manufacturer (in 2028) then the FOM release indicated the answer might well be different. Let's not ignore the fact that paddock space was merely one of the reasons listed and a lesser priority one at that.

 

Regardless of what you think of FOM's justifications, the fact is that FOM had the right to say "no" and did so and has explained its reasoning. The only people who can truthfully declare that the "no" answer is an attempt to "deny what we all know was the underlying truth" are the people who were part of those deliberations. Now, IF the US DoJ demands all docs and then IF it releases those docs, then "we" will get to know the whole truth - but until then, claims of us knowing the whole truth are simply hyperbole and conjecture.

You seem to be positing a Catch-22: FOM needs more than 2 years of lead-time (2024 plays 2026) in order to ensure that all the paddocks are large enough (or any other of Liberty's amorphous allusions to 'operational difficulties') to accommodate an 11th team. But if FOM won't know until 2026 whether Andretti will be an 11th team, FOM would still have only 2 years (2026 plays 2028) in which to overcome those forbidding operational difficulties - so still not enough time!

The fact is that in 2021 Liberty and the teams formally agreed that there could be two additional teams. They did that in the full knowledge that, if an 11th team (never mind a 12th!) were to join the grid, there would be required an additional 10% of a lot of things. Running more than 10 teams had never been an insuperable obstacle in the past, and there was no reason why these teams, who comprise some of the cleverest, most highly-motivated and pragmatic people in the world, could not cope with an 11th team in 2024 or '25.

 

Sure, FOM had the right to say 'No', but not an unlimited right: they could not say 'No' if that were motivated by racism, or by other illegal motivations such as colluding to restrict competition.

 

It is true that as of today we the public could not say with confidence sufficient to satisfy a criminal standard that FOM refused Andretti not for the reasons FOM alleges but rather in concert with the teams who wanted to avoid having a new competitor on the grid. But this forum is not a criminal court. We are talking about what seems reasonable, what makes sense - not to a criminal standard but essentially to a balance of probabilities standard.

As far as we know, FOM did absolutely nothing to make it more possible for Andretti to join. Why was that? How could it possibly have been in Liberty's direct financial interest to refuse the biggest racing name in the biggest economy in the world? With Andretti on the grid, F1 would not have attracted even one more racing fan? Not even one new American sponsor would have been induced to buy advertising space at the Las Vegas GP? General Motors and Cadillac have literally zero brand power? Come on....

 

The best that FOM could come up with was, 'Well, we had one of our underlings send an email to one of Andretti's underlings and we didn't get a reply, so we figured Andretti had nothing more to say.' No follow-up phone call, not even a second email? Serious people don't do business that way. Has John Malone made billions in all sorts of businesses by giving up if his first email wasn't returned immediately or his initial phone call wasn't answered? Hardly.

 

I think it was painfully obvious that, feeling intense pressure from the commercially most important teams - with whom FOM would strongly prefer to have a partner-like relationship during the current Concorde Agreement negotiations - Liberty was desperate to placate the teams and therefore contrived a collection of nonsensical pseudo-justifications for rejecting Andretti, when the real reason all along was that the teams did not want to have a new competitor in their business.



#7935 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 September 2024 - 11:23

Sterzo, on 13 Sept 2024 - 10:43, said:

The discussion of garage space is a red herring. FOM rejected Andretti's bid on the following grounds* :

  1. F1 conducted analysis involving key stakeholders and decided an 11th team "would not on its own add value".
  2. F1 also does "not believe the applicant would be a competitive participant".
  3. F1 said it would "look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 championship with a GM power unit

There is a clear division between the responsibilities of the FIA (sporting) and FOM (commercial). The reasons stated for rejecting Andretti do not read like commercial reasons, let alone valid ones.

 

Perhaps, loki, if you read this, you could repost the link to the excellent university paper on the subject of anti-trust in the context of sports organisations, which anyone interested in the subject really ought to read. (You posted the link about seven thousand posts ago...)

 

 

*(F1's reasons copied from a BBC report made at the time and edited by me)

There have actually been several papers on the general subject of why sports businesses are unlike other businesses, and how anti-trust law does or should apply.

Was it the Farzin paper:

https://digitalcommo...j/vol22/iss1/2/



#7936 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 18,513 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 12:01

Sterzo, on 13 Sept 2024 - 10:43, said:

The discussion of garage space is a red herring. FOM rejected Andretti's bid on the following grounds* :

  1. F1 conducted analysis involving key stakeholders and decided an 11th team "would not on its own add value".
  2. F1 also does "not believe the applicant would be a competitive participant".
  3. F1 said it would "look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 championship with a GM power unit

There is a clear division between the responsibilities of the FIA (sporting) and FOM (commercial). The reasons stated for rejecting Andretti do not read like commercial reasons, let alone valid ones.

 

Perhaps, loki, if you read this, you could repost the link to the excellent university paper on the subject of anti-trust in the context of sports organisations, which anyone interested in the subject really ought to read. (You posted the link about seven thousand posts ago...)

 

 

*(F1's reasons copied from a BBC report made at the time and edited by me)

 

The discussion regarding garages is in the context of F1 (the FIA, the teams and the commercial rights holder) permanently closing down Andretti by setting the limit on the number of entrants to 10 in the near future and the reasons that they could use to do this.

 

But yes, this discussion is really about the current reasons for their rejection. In that context, though, there is little to discuss, as they've been rejected and that's the end of it, apart from whether the decision might have repercussions for Liberty/FOM. But the whole Andretti entry is dead in the water now (apart from the theoretical possibility that they would attempt to compete without a commercial contract in place)



#7937 Grippy

Grippy
  • Member

  • 590 posts
  • Joined: June 18

Posted 13 September 2024 - 13:05

PayasYouRace, on 13 Sept 2024 - 07:28, said:

If that’s the case they can do like what happened pre-1987 and limit the number of starters to 20 at Monaco only. There are always sporting avenues that can be taken rather than anti-competitive business practices.

I'm sure I remember there was a formula (when there was pre-qualifying) of 1 car for each 1/10th mile of circuit length, so a 2 mile circuit = 20 cars, 2.8 mile = 28 cars, etc.

I read this in book/mag pre internet and can't now find any ref on the Web.

Did I imagine this?



#7938 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 13:42

GhostR, on 13 Sept 2024 - 09:39, said:

I'll see if I can dig it out - I read about it some time ago (and it may have changed), but there is (or was) a formula for it. It has some flexibility built in, but IIRC not enough that they could flex it down to 10 teams. It theoretically sets the limit for Formula 1 to 13 teams, but the reality is I very much doubt we'll ever see that (Monaco) and 12 is the realistic maximum.

 

 

Grippy, on 13 Sept 2024 - 13:05, said:

I'm sure I remember there was a formula (when there was pre-qualifying) of 1 car for each 1/10th mile of circuit length, so a 2 mile circuit = 20 cars, 2.8 mile = 28 cars, etc.

I read this in book/mag pre internet and can't now find any ref on the Web.

Did I imagine this?

There is definitely a formula that FIA uses - don't think it's in the ISC, think that it's in the Circuit Guidelines (that don't get published for IP reasons). The formula is based on a number of things - I remember circuit length, width, number of corners for example but it is also governed by the number of available pit bays. 



#7939 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 September 2024 - 13:47

Sterzo, on 13 Sept 2024 - 10:43, said:

 

Perhaps, loki, if you read this, you could repost the link to the excellent university paper on the subject of anti-trust in the context of sports organisations, which anyone interested in the subject really ought to read. (You posted the link about seven thousand posts ago...)

 

On the Antitrust Exemption for Professional Sports in the United States and Europe (villanova.edu)



Advertisement

#7940 arrysen

arrysen
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 September 2024 - 14:01

New Britain, on 13 Sept 2024 - 11:16, said:

You seem to be positing a Catch-22: FOM needs more than 2 years of lead-time (2024 plays 2026) in order to ensure that all the paddocks are large enough (or any other of Liberty's amorphous allusions to 'operational difficulties') to accommodate an 11th team. But if FOM won't know until 2026 whether Andretti will be an 11th team, FOM would still have only 2 years (2026 plays 2028) in which to overcome those forbidding operational difficulties - so still not enough time!

The fact is that in 2021 Liberty and the teams formally agreed that there could be two additional teams. They did that in the full knowledge that, if an 11th team (never mind a 12th!) were to join the grid, there would be required an additional 10% of a lot of things. Running more than 10 teams had never been an insuperable obstacle in the past, and there was no reason why these teams, who comprise some of the cleverest, most highly-motivated and pragmatic people in the world, could not cope with an 11th team in 2024 or '25.

 

Sure, FOM had the right to say 'No', but not an unlimited right: they could not say 'No' if that were motivated by racism, or by other illegal motivations such as colluding to restrict competition.

 

It is true that as of today we the public could not say with confidence sufficient to satisfy a criminal standard that FOM refused Andretti not for the reasons FOM alleges but rather in concert with the teams who wanted to avoid having a new competitor on the grid. But this forum is not a criminal court. We are talking about what seems reasonable, what makes sense - not to a criminal standard but essentially to a balance of probabilities standard.

As far as we know, FOM did absolutely nothing to make it more possible for Andretti to join. Why was that? How could it possibly have been in Liberty's direct financial interest to refuse the biggest racing name in the biggest economy in the world? With Andretti on the grid, F1 would not have attracted even one more racing fan? Not even one new American sponsor would have been induced to buy advertising space at the Las Vegas GP? General Motors and Cadillac have literally zero brand power? Come on....

 

The best that FOM could come up with was, 'Well, we had one of our underlings send an email to one of Andretti's underlings and we didn't get a reply, so we figured Andretti had nothing more to say.' No follow-up phone call, not even a second email? Serious people don't do business that way. Has John Malone made billions in all sorts of businesses by giving up if his first email wasn't returned immediately or his initial phone call wasn't answered? Hardly.

 

I think it was painfully obvious that, feeling intense pressure from the commercially most important teams - with whom FOM would strongly prefer to have a partner-like relationship during the current Concorde Agreement negotiations - Liberty was desperate to placate the teams and therefore contrived a collection of nonsensical pseudo-justifications for rejecting Andretti, when the real reason all along was that the teams did not want to have a new competitor in their business.

Holy long post Batman - bit to cover off but will give it a shot.

 

No Catch 22 at all re timeline. If FOM believes that Andretti will have another go for 2028 when it becomes a factory GM team (defined not by sponsorship, but by having a GM engine - in the same way that Sauber is not yet Audi) then FOM may well have started the ball rolling on the logistics and how to fit an extra team, what additional garages for paddock space will be needed etc and taking steps to at the very least have the plans ready to push the button - thus cutting a lot of time out of the process. So 2028 really quite different from a possible 2025 or 2026 in that regard.

 

I don't agree that FOM should have done anything extra to make it possible for Andretti - that would show blatant favouritism and might give FOM problems with others. Not convinced that Andretti really is " the biggest racing name" in the US - I suspect that Petty or Foyt or Penske (or Ganassi or a couple of other NASCAR teams) may well be bigger - probably depends on the measurements used to determine "biggest".

 

Again, why would FOM make any follow up calls following the email sent to Andretti? It is Andretti looking to come in, not FOM chasing Andretti. I actually think that FOM not following up on that email is completely logical and that if I were Andretti, I would have contacted FOM independently suggesting such a meeting. I can see why the lack of response to the email from Andretti & also the lack of proactive contact from Andretti might have FOM wondering how serious or how driven the Andretti bid was.

 

I don't think that it's "painfully obvious" at all - although I expect there were discussions. For sure many are assuming that to be the case but I think it's only one of several possibilities or at best one part of the overall reasoning - the majority of which was enumerated in the FOM rejection statement.

 

Further to all that, I DO however suspect that there might be a lack of belief in Andretti from those in the paddock who were around when Michael tried to be an F1 driver. The way he did it was lackadaisical and didn't show commitment, with his team mate conducting nearly all testing for arguments sake because Michael only ventured from the US for each race, lack of fitness compared to other F1 drivers at the time didn't help his image either. It was a failure, no doubt about it & given that the current Andretti plan is similar, I can imagine senior figures in FOM and the pit lane generally having doubts on the pre-GM engined period.


Edited by arrysen, 13 September 2024 - 14:03.


#7941 AustinF1

AustinF1
  • Member

  • 21,965 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 15:57

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 07:01, said:

You're partially right - APX GP hasn't been filmed at Monaco - confirmation on where filming has been done is included in this article.

 

However, you ARE right on the 39 garages (assigned in blocks of 3, meaning 13 garages effectively). The FIA Race Director's notes from this year spell out who is allocated to what and from that, assuming that the FIA/FOM needs can be met elsewhere or use less space, it looks like an extra team could in fact squeeze in. So a bit more room there than I originally thought.

I just remember the Sky crew talking about it that weekend and then it being talked about on this board.



#7942 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:39

pdac, on 13 Sept 2024 - 09:49, said:

I don't agree. Look at the layout. The two on the extreme ends do not seem very practical for a racing team. The FIA would need one for random weighing and scrutineering. I'm sure FOM needs some space for their equipment too. The needs of F1 in terms of equipment and personnel is different to most other, smaller, series. Personally, looking at the layout, I could imagine them squeezing 1 more team in there, but I could equally imagine there being many practical problems in attempting to do that and probably plenty of complaints from those who have to work there.

Until fairly recently teams were limited to two garages each including the space behind them.  Teams have grown into three and in some cases four garages during the Euro based ground transport leg.  In fact Grade 1 circuit regs are written with each team having two garages plus FIA for 13 teams.  This is before we factor in the garages used for the movie set during a number of the Euro races.  If there is room for a fake movie team there is room for a real team.

 

The motorhomes have expanded to take the available space.  Even then down toward the end there is enough room for at least another one or two.  The teams are able to entertain on flyaways with an order of magnitude less space than in Europe.  This is a case of a manufactured excuse when (like the new team entrant rules) the rules have been well defined in the regs for several years.  The teams took all that space because no one else was using it.



#7943 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:43

Grippy, on 13 Sept 2024 - 13:05, said:

I'm sure I remember there was a formula (when there was pre-qualifying) of 1 car for each 1/10th mile of circuit length, so a 2 mile circuit = 20 cars, 2.8 mile = 28 cars, etc.

I read this in book/mag pre internet and can't now find any ref on the Web.

Did I imagine this?

Circuit lengths are set out i. the FIA Grade 1 regs.



#7944 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 9,197 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:43

Do we think the smoking gun is proving how many garages the FIA can really provide?



#7945 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 45,765 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:53

loki, on 13 Sept 2024 - 17:43, said:

Circuit lengths are set out i. the FIA Grade 1 regs.


I'm sure the regs also specified at least 13 garages for a grade 1 circuit, but I can't find it now. Maybe that rule has been removed.

#7946 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:56

Nathan, on 13 Sept 2024 - 17:43, said:

Do we think the smoking gun is proving how many garages the FIA can really provide?

Just another brick in the wall of weak excuses.  None of the reasons given for the denial will be used for significant evidence in the DOJ investigation.  The investigation is regarding F1 not allowing Cadillac a team entry and in effect illegally denying them access to a marketing segment enjoyed by others.  The key allegation is conspiracy to deny Cadillac equal footing in the European market.  There are defined rules for a new team and prior statements from both F1 and the teams indicate the reason is they don’t want to split the money.  Unless there is a Trump administration the investigation will take at least another year if not two.  The DOJ doesn't have the authority to award those harmed damages should they be found guilty but a verdict would go a long way in a civil court verdict.  It would also negate any arbitration clause as in the US arbitration can’t be used to defend against illegal actions.  Still a long way to go on this one and either way won’t be the thing that grants them entry.



#7947 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 13,813 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 13 September 2024 - 17:57

Clatter, on 13 Sept 2024 - 17:53, said:

I'm sure the regs also specified at least 13 garages for a grade 1 circuit, but I can't find it now. Maybe that rule has been removed.

It was there last I looked.  It was two garages per team for 13 teams.  A good number of those are considered a single garage with two bays.

 

ETA:  I can’t find garage specs in the current regs or back to 2019.


Edited by loki, 13 September 2024 - 18:37.


#7948 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 9,459 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 13 September 2024 - 18:05

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 14:01, said:

Holy long post Batman - bit to cover off but will give it a shot.

 

No Catch 22 at all re timeline. If FOM believes that Andretti will have another go for 2028 when it becomes a factory GM team (defined not by sponsorship, but by having a GM engine - in the same way that Sauber is not yet Audi) then FOM may well have started the ball rolling on the logistics and how to fit an extra team, what additional garages for paddock space will be needed etc and taking steps to at the very least have the plans ready to push the button - thus cutting a lot of time out of the process. So 2028 really quite different from a possible 2025 or 2026 in that regard.

 

I don't agree that FOM should have done anything extra to make it possible for Andretti - that would show blatant favouritism and might give FOM problems with others. Not convinced that Andretti really is " the biggest racing name" in the US - I suspect that Petty or Foyt or Penske (or Ganassi or a couple of other NASCAR teams) may well be bigger - probably depends on the measurements used to determine "biggest".

 

Again, why would FOM make any follow up calls following the email sent to Andretti? It is Andretti looking to come in, not FOM chasing Andretti. I actually think that FOM not following up on that email is completely logical and that if I were Andretti, I would have contacted FOM independently suggesting such a meeting. I can see why the lack of response to the email from Andretti & also the lack of proactive contact from Andretti might have FOM wondering how serious or how driven the Andretti bid was.

 

I don't think that it's "painfully obvious" at all - although I expect there were discussions. For sure many are assuming that to be the case but I think it's only one of several possibilities or at best one part of the overall reasoning - the majority of which was enumerated in the FOM rejection statement.

 

Further to all that, I DO however suspect that there might be a lack of belief in Andretti from those in the paddock who were around when Michael tried to be an F1 driver. The way he did it was lackadaisical and didn't show commitment, with his team mate conducting nearly all testing for arguments sake because Michael only ventured from the US for each race, lack of fitness compared to other F1 drivers at the time didn't help his image either. It was a failure, no doubt about it & given that the current Andretti plan is similar, I can imagine senior figures in FOM and the pit lane generally having doubts on the pre-GM engined period.

Re the biggest name in American racing, without a proper national poll it is impossible to be sure, and as you say one needs to define 'biggest', but as someone who went to his first race in the US more than 60 years ago, I think my opinion may be no more worthless than most other people's.

IMO, the biggest name next to Andretti would actually be 'Earnhardt'. Ganassi: no way. Penske: Roger stopped driving at an early age, so his fame is only as a team owner, and at this point I daresay his name is better known as the proprietor of a massive fleet of rental trucks. You and I know him as the guy whose team has won more 500s than anyone else, but 'Penske' is not a household word.

'Petty' was a household word years ago, but Richard's last win was 40 years ago, after he retired Petty Enterprises did not achieve that much, and Kyle tried his best but was never one of the top Cup drivers in his own era. 

AJ was arguably a better driver than even Mario, but, like Richard Petty, after he retired his racing team never was the same, and his scions were rarely amongst the top runners of their era.

'Andretti', on the other hand, has been continuously in the racing (and general sports) news since the mid-'60s, different Andrettis have been successful in multiple types of series under multiple sanctioning bodies, Mario's son was a far more successful driver than Kyle Petty or Larry Foyt was, and currently or in recent years Andretti Racing has been active in IndyCar, Formula E, Extreme E, IndyNXT, and IMSA.

 

Anyhow, as to whether Liberty ought to have made any effort to facilitate Andretti's application, I could not disagree with you more.

Yes, Liberty is a private company the primary formal obligation of which is to its shareholders. However Liberty's proposed purchase of the Commercial Rights had to be approved by the FIA, and one has no doubt whatsoever that, during Liberty's own application process, it undertook to the FIA to act in the best interests of motor sport and of motorsport fans.

How could rejecting Andretti have been considered (by serious people, not by the shills who wrote Liberty's rejection statement) to be in the best interests of motor sport? That rejection was contrary to the practices, principles, and ethos of the entire history of motor sport.

How could facilitating Andretti's application process - how could being genuinely open at least to the possibility - have been showing favoritism? Andretti was the only eligible applicant. Liberty's responsibility is to make the show better, not to protect the profitability of the existing 10 teams (which profitability is already vastly better than the teams expected in 2021 when they agreed to two more teams with an entry fee of $200m each).

 

As to your suggestion that within F1 there might be a lack of belief in Andretti because of Michael's short-lived F1 career 30 years ago, I would point out that Michael's entire F1 career was spent at McLaren, if he let down anyone it was McLaren, and yet the one team that came out in full public support of Andretti's application was McLaren! So if that was a reason, it wasn't a legitimate reason, although it may have been an excuse.



#7949 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 8,520 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 13 September 2024 - 18:08

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 14:01, said:

Holy long post Batman - bit to cover off but will give it a shot.

 

No Catch 22 at all re timeline. If FOM believes that Andretti will have another go for 2028 when it becomes a factory GM team (defined not by sponsorship, but by having a GM engine - in the same way that Sauber is not yet Audi) then FOM may well have started the ball rolling on the logistics and how to fit an extra team, what additional garages for paddock space will be needed etc and taking steps to at the very least have the plans ready to push the button - thus cutting a lot of time out of the process. So 2028 really quite different from a possible 2025 or 2026 in that regard.

 

I don't agree that FOM should have done anything extra to make it possible for Andretti - that would show blatant favouritism and might give FOM problems with others. Not convinced that Andretti really is " the biggest racing name" in the US - I suspect that Petty or Foyt or Penske (or Ganassi or a couple of other NASCAR teams) may well be bigger - probably depends on the measurements used to determine "biggest".

 

Again, why would FOM make any follow up calls following the email sent to Andretti? It is Andretti looking to come in, not FOM chasing Andretti. I actually think that FOM not following up on that email is completely logical and that if I were Andretti, I would have contacted FOM independently suggesting such a meeting. I can see why the lack of response to the email from Andretti & also the lack of proactive contact from Andretti might have FOM wondering how serious or how driven the Andretti bid was.

 

I don't think that it's "painfully obvious" at all - although I expect there were discussions. For sure many are assuming that to be the case but I think it's only one of several possibilities or at best one part of the overall reasoning - the majority of which was enumerated in the FOM rejection statement.

 

Further to all that, I DO however suspect that there might be a lack of belief in Andretti from those in the paddock who were around when Michael tried to be an F1 driver. The way he did it was lackadaisical and didn't show commitment, with his team mate conducting nearly all testing for arguments sake because Michael only ventured from the US for each race, lack of fitness compared to other F1 drivers at the time didn't help his image either. It was a failure, no doubt about it & given that the current Andretti plan is similar, I can imagine senior figures in FOM and the pit lane generally having doubts on the pre-GM engined period.

 

I can imagine it, but first a. it is not true, Michael Andretti's heritage in F1 is unimportant, otherwise Mario Andretti's career would surely compensate for that, right? b. It is nonsense, but say for the sake of argument, one would put this forward. Alain Prost, 4 times world-champion made a mess of his team. John Surtees became an also-ran with his own team. Bobby Rahal was not a success at Jaguar, nor was Niki Lauda (he later had some revanche with Mercedes).

 

It.is.about.the.money. They.moved.the.goalposts. One can talk until one is blue in the face, but that is about it. 



#7950 eibyyz

eibyyz
  • Member

  • 2,029 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 13 September 2024 - 18:22

arrysen, on 13 Sept 2024 - 14:01, said:

 

Further to all that, I DO however suspect that there might be a lack of belief in Andretti from those in the paddock who were around when Michael tried to be an F1 driver. The way he did it was lackadaisical and didn't show commitment, with his team mate conducting nearly all testing for arguments sake because Michael only ventured from the US for each race, lack of fitness compared to other F1 drivers at the time didn't help his image either. It was a failure, no doubt about it & given that the current Andretti plan is similar, I can imagine senior figures in FOM and the pit lane generally having doubts on the pre-GM engined period.

 

D00d--1993 was 31 years ago.  None of the current TPs were around then. Only a few current owners were around then (and those that are are from a family ownership).  None of the drivers, and only a few journos.  

 

Since 1993, Michael not only resumed his CART career and won more races, but more to the point he built his ownership resume from a two-car team to one what has won Indy five times, a host of season titles, expanded to multiple series and won titles in those series.  

 

Should the 1993 Michael been allowed to enter cars on the F1 grid at that time?  He probably would have stunk up the place, but he would have been allowed to try.

 

But that's not the point.  The point is that he's had years of learning--and maturing--behind him.  The 2024 Michael is more than capable of fielding a respectable team.  He couldn't do any worse, statistically, than HAAS, Alpine, Sauber, VCARB.