192 replies to this topic

[FullThrottleF1]

F1 seeking 10-team limit in new Concorde Agreement – report – Motorsport Week

 

It's over isn't it? It's just a travelling circus now.

 

 

 

With F1’s value growing and the value of its teams along with it, there’s a call to shut up shop and stop the grid growing in the next Concorde Agreement, where commercial terms will be signed for a five-year period from 2026 through 2030. Reporter Joe Saward understands that both F1 and the teams within it wish to cap the number of competitors to 10, meaning the only way a new entrant could participate is if they bought an existing entry.

[LolaB0860]

Here's that full post from Liberty spokesperson, I mean F1 reporter, mr Saward

https://joesaward.wo...from-kankujima/

 

Anyway as for the thing itself

 

Edited by LolaB0860, 13 April 2024 - 18:36.

[Nathan]

Joe just needs to put out something different to be talked about.

[FullThrottleF1]

We can only hope the FIA vetoes it

[Anja]

I mean, even if it's not written down the last few months have proven that this limit is already a thing. Might as well put it in the rules so people like Andretti don't need to get their hopes up and waste a bunch of time and money. 

Edited by Anja, 13 April 2024 - 19:21.

[Cornholio]

Horrible and predictable in equal measure

[Ruusperi]

Some of these days my hatred for F1 exceeds my love for F1. At the moment it's something like 41-59. By allowing 13 teams, it could be 31-69.

[Pete_f1]

Christ alive

[F1 Mike]

Their greed is nackering the sport for the fans that pay their wages

[Risil]

That would be a big shame

[pdac]

Their greed is nackering the sport for the fans that pay their wages

 

Yet those fans will continue to pay their wages for many seasons to come.

Edited by pdac, 13 April 2024 - 20:08.

[PayasYouRace]

Hopefully this will be a hard no from the FIA.

[JHSingo]

Disgraceful. Just when you think the sport has exhausted the myriad ways it can disappoint/infuriate you, it comes up with sh*t like this. 

[Jellyfishcake]

If this goes through, it honestly does put 1 more nail in the coffin, getting closer to the time when I actually give up on F1.

The idea of that actually makes me feel sad, I never thought i'd be so disillusioned with how F1 was going

[Fastcake]

There's not a single sporting reason to limit the number of teams below the historic 26 car grid. More entries, more drivers, more racing, more interest. There is space at every circuit simply crying out for more racing cars.

[noikeee]

Hopefully this will be a hard no from the FIA.

Yeah isn't this the sort of thing that's FIA's job to stop? It's FIA's job to ensure a free and fair world championship.

[PayasYouRace]

Yeah isn't this the sort of thing that's FIA's job to stop? It's FIA's job to ensure a free and fair world championship.

I would say so, and I hope that they would uphold that duty and not sign a CA with a 10 team maximum stipulated within it.

[ARTGP]

I would say so, and I hope that they would uphold that duty and not sign a CA with a 10 team maximum stipulated within it.

 

Is the FIa considered a part of the concorde agreement? I thought it was just a document outlining among other things, the terms between the teams and FOM. 

[PayasYouRace]

Is the FIa considered a part of the concorde agreement? I thought it was just a document outlining among other things, the terms between the teams and FOM. 

Unless I’ve missed something, it was always an agreement between the FIA, the entrants and the commercial rights holder.

[Myrvold]

Well. It would free up some weekends if F1 keeps making me less and less interested.

It is weird that I don't even feel bad that I am working during 80% of the races, and can only watch it later. Before it would be a total crisis for me

[pdac]

I would say so, and I hope that they would uphold that duty and not sign a CA with a 10 team maximum stipulated within it.

 

If the FIA do not sign the CA, then they don't get paid (same as other parties that do not sign).

[Wuzak]

Is the FIa considered a part of the concorde agreement? I thought it was just a document outlining among other things, the terms between the teams and FOM. 

 

Yes, it is between the teams, the FIA and FOM.

[pdac]

Yes, it is between the teams, the FIA and FOM.

 

It was born as a way to resolve the bitter conflict between FISA and FOCA.

[MattPete]

FIA is essentially FISA.

[Myrvold]

If the FIA do not sign the CA, then they don't get paid (same as other parties that do not sign).

And if FIA doesn't agree. What Liberty owns cannot be called F1 World Championship, as that's something the FIA owns?

[John B]

Predictable but disappointing that the value and interest of having new teams and fuller grids gets little consideration.

[Deeq]

If the FIA do not sign the CA, then they don't get paid (same as other parties that do not sign).

If FiA does not sign, no one gets paid, no races = no income.
FiA sanctions the races!
The "product" you consume, rests on a three legend stool, of which FiA is one..

[wj_gibson]

If FiA does not sign, no one gets paid, no races = no income.
FiA sanctions the races!
The "product" you consume, rests on a three legend stool, of which FiA is one..

Yeah, but the FIA is also IMO the leg with the least overt power. Liberty has deliberately got the sport to a point where it could just go it alone if it wanted and the FIA is in a much weaker position than it was in 2009.

[FullThrottleF1]

Yeah, but the FIA is also IMO the leg with the least overt power. Liberty has deliberately got the sport to a point where it could just go it alone if it wanted and the FIA is in a much weaker position than it was in 2009.

I'd say stronger. Now that Todt isn't in charge

Edited by FullThrottleF1, 14 April 2024 - 08:03.

[Wuzak]

FIA is essentially FISA.

 

FISA was the sporting arm of the FIA until Mosley brought it all under the FIA banner.

 

Mosley was FISA president before he became the FIA president, holding both positions at the same time, before it became one.

[RedRabbit]

I'd say stronger. Now that that Todt isn't in charge

Todt would have suggested the 10 team limit, he was so weak.

I honestly think that F1 is better with 12 teams, because at least drivers like Lawson could get loaned out.

The real problem for younger drivers is the limit on F2, and not being able to defend a title.

[Dalton007]

The teams should not be making the rules.    12 teams allows more younger drivers to get a chance.

[pdac]

FISA was the sporting arm of the FIA until Mosley brought it all under the FIA banner.

 

Mosley was FISA president before he became the FIA president, holding both positions at the same time, before it became one.

 

My understanding (I may be wrong) is that FISA was what the FIA and FOM are now, except that, although they collected the money and distributed it to the teams, they had no real handle on how much money was available and failed to both with TV rights. Bernie saw that and set up his own company to get TV deals.

 

As is the case today, some teams felt that FISA were favouring the big teams over the small ones. FOCA was set up as a group to fight the corner of the smaller teams and was headed by Bernie along with Max. But when Max took over at the FIA and they wanted to separate the sporting and commercial sides, he gave the commercial contract to his old buddy Bernie (not FOCA) and killed off FOCA.

[IrvTheSwerve]

This was always coming, wasn’t it.   
 

May as well mandate 10 teams rather than speculate and talk about team entries that will never happen, I guess that is their angle. They can’t have another Andretti embarrassment if it physically can’t happen.

[Anderis]

This is a joke.

 

10 teams should be the bare minimum for F1, not a maximum. That's why we should have at least 11 teams- so that in case one of them collapses, there are at least 10 left.

[krea]

10 teams with Red Bull owning two of them

At least there should be a mechanism to get rid of teams like Haas which can‘t even cover the full budget cap

Edited by krea, 14 April 2024 - 09:35.

[Stephane]

Well, there's been 10 for a while anyway. But hopes are gone, now.

[pdac]

Well, there's been 10 for a while anyway. But hopes are gone, now.

 

The hopes went out the window for me when the Andretti thing first came to light and the response from ALL in F1 was lukewarm (to say the least). It became abundantly clear to me that they did not want any new teams (despite what people kept saying about "if there were a big manufacturer, they would make room").

[Clatter]

Todt would have suggested the 10 team limit, he was so weak.

I honestly think that F1 is better with 12 teams, because at least drivers like Lawson could get loaned out.

The real problem for younger drivers is the limit on F2, and not being able to defend a title.

13 teams is even better.

[SenorSjon]

With the desmissal if Andretti, it became clear as day that 10 is the max. There should be enough for 12, making the product more interesting.

[Clatter]

This is a joke.

10 teams should be the bare minimum for F1, not a maximum. That's why we should have at least 11 teams- so that in case one of them collapses, there are at least 10 left.

With the current system it's s very unlikely a team will collapse without selling.

[Clatter]

With the desmissal if Andretti, it became clear as day that 10 is the max. There should be enough for 12, making the product more interesting.

13 has been the max for a long time, let's not think 12 is the right number just because they dropped a slot in the last CA.

[SenorSjon]

Yes, but that is 30 years ago, 12 teams is at least somewhat recent.

[Secretariat]

In paraphrasing/ updating what was said in the Andretti thread, if this Concorde Agreement codifies a 10 team franchise system, I can easily envision in 10 years time, or maybe even in 2030 or sooner, an expansion system similar to the sports leagues F1 desires to copy. I will use NFL references because, it has been rather clear in the rhetoric and actions, F1 wishes to be the NFL on wheels. The team slots currently open in the regulations will be "deactivated" similarly to the Baltimore Ravens/Cleveland Browns in the 1990s (but no need to use similar language).

 

The latest monetary figures regarding NFL expansion/entry fees is anywhere from $3 to 5B. The last time the NFL expanded in 2002, the Houston Texans paid $700M ($1.2B in 2024). These figures are for one franchise. F1's dilution fee is just another version of this and it is no wonder with these monetary figures flying around for the NFL, that F1 teams do not want to follow what is currently agreed to and just wish to delay and delay. It certainly puts into context Toto Wolff's statements from 2022 that new teams would need "around a billion dollars" while talking around the edges of the existing agreement. Conveniently enough, Wolff also mentions the NFL in his comments.  However, the teams are not stupid. They know that everyone knows it's a cash grab, that they are greedy and so on. The future concession to closing the shop, is the expansion model which will allow them to say see, we are not against more teams all the while collecting these fees that subsidize their operations, just like their other sports entertainment friends. 

 

https://sportsnaut.c...ivision-future/

https://www.profootb...expansion-fees/

https://www.independ...i-b2021545.html

https://en.wikipedia...ion_controversy

[New Britain]

This was no less predictable than, say, the sunrise.

Liberty had no direct motive to block Andretti's application earlier this year; almost certainly Liberty's revenue would increase if Andretti were the 11th team. When Liberty issued their rejection, it seemed obvious (or at least quite likely) that Liberty's game was to create a ten-team franchise league which would increase the asset value of each team and thereby allow Liberty to reduce its expense of the annual prize fund below what it would otherwise be.

 

If Liberty is indeed actively discussing limiting the number of teams to ten, that would give the lie to their rejection statement made only a few weeks ago:

 

“We would look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 championship with a GM power unit, either as a GM works team or as a GM customer team designing all allowable components in-house”

 

What the fork is 'look differently' supposed to mean - 'Previously we rejected you because the teams leaned on us, whereas this time we're rejecting you because we're looking at the rules, which we have made different'?

[GlenWatkins]

After reading the article and Saward's blog, my take is that the article posted is based solely upon Joe's opinion that he posted in his blog.  "The 10 existing Formula 1 teams are seeking the limit of outfits allowed onto the grid to be reduced from 12 to 10 in the forthcoming Concorde Agreement, according to reports". "reports"  Being Joe's blog apparently.

 

No quotes from the FIA, FOM or Liberty or any other substantive evidence.  Why is everyone taking this seriously?   

[New Britain]

If FiA does not sign, no one gets paid, no races = no income.
FiA sanctions the races!
The "product" you consume, rests on a three legend stool, of which FiA is one..

There is no natural law that, in order to conduct a motor race, you must have an FIA sanction. It is however possible (I would say highly likely, as it was overseen by Mosley) that the contract by which the 100-year rights were sold to Bernie stipulated that the FIA would always be the sanctioning body for the application of those rights.

[New Britain]

After reading the article and Saward's blog, my take is that the article posted is based solely upon Joe's opinion that he posted in his blog.  "The 10 existing Formula 1 teams are seeking the limit of outfits allowed onto the grid to be reduced from 12 to 10 in the forthcoming Concorde Agreement, according to reports". "reports"  Being Joe's blog apparently.

 

No quotes from the FIA, FOM or Liberty or any other substantive evidence.  Why is everyone taking this seriously?   

Agreed that JS's opinions do not carry much weight. However, now that Formula One has become more about money than it is about motor racing, the logical objective of the teams is to maximise their total monetary value, which they would achieve by limiting themselves to their present number. Given how they treated the Andretti application, it would be surprising if they (at least most of them) were not aiming for a ten-team limit.

[Secretariat]

“We would look differently on an application for the entry of a team into the 2028 championship with a GM power unit, either as a GM works team or as a GM customer team designing all allowable components in-house”

 

What the fork is 'look differently' supposed to mean - 'Previously we rejected you because the teams leaned on us, whereas this time we're rejecting you because we're looking at the rules, which we have made different'?

It would seems like it. Today you need to pay $200M. In 2028, we hope you pay over $1B. I think the FIA did fans at large a favor in the midst of their battle with Liberty/FOM. 

Edited by Secretariat, 14 April 2024 - 11:03.

[GlenWatkins]

Agreed that JS's opinions do not carry much weight. However, now that Formula One has become more about money than it is about motor racing, the logical objective of the teams is to maximise their total monetary value, which they would achieve by limiting themselves to their present number. Given how they treated the Andretti application, it would be surprising if they (at least most of them) were not aiming for a ten-team limit.

Sure, I can see the logic of limiting the field to 10 teams so as not to reduce the 'piece of the pie' that the teams get.  However, US stick & ball franchise leagues have shown that additional teams grow the size if the pie where everyone benefits. 

 

Sorry OT, this discussion belongs in the Andretti thread.