Jump to content


Photo

Team budgets question


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 PhilKerr

PhilKerr
  • Member

  • 1,572 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 06 December 2004 - 13:47

It has probably been done before but my pc expires after any attempt to use the search facility as I am using a P2 300 atm so apologies if this subject has been covered before but does anyone have the list of what the teams spent in 2003 and 2004 budgets wise ?

Advertisement

#2 karlg

karlg
  • New Member

  • 11 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 07 December 2004 - 12:24

This should help:

The April 2004 issue of F1 Racing gave the following breakdown
(All figures in millions of US dollars)
Ferrari 418.2
Toyota 368.5
McLaren 359.2
Renault 359.0
Williams 309.9
BAR 255.2
Jaguar 154.6
Saucer 141.9
Jordan 79.92
Minardi 46.58

On the other hand here are BusinessF1 magazine's 2004 figures:
Ferrari 336.2
Toyota 321.15
McLaren 313.5
Renault 300.8
Williams 276.31
BAR 244.2
Jaguar 229
Sauber 142.43
Jordan 76.20
Minardi 50.34

Please be aware following table is my assumption based on EUROBUSINESS-April 2003 Volume 4 ISSUE 11 pp-62 and different other sources (e.g. Credit Suisse Formula 1 Office, WWW.PLAYBOY.DE)

Team 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Arrows 29.747 44.35 73.7 50 0
BAR Honda 86.76 191 194.5 235.4 223.4
Benetton 61.97 92.3 93 0 0
Renault 0 0 181 255.8 257.23
BMW Williams 85.58 143.1 193 230 230.1
Ferrari 173.58 239.6 284.4 302.4 298.75
Jaguar 37.18 168.2 177.4 211.8 209.95
Jordan 49.5 103.6 172.9 190 59.35
McLaren 99.15 224.8 274.6 287.8 289.15
Minardi 24.79 55.2 47 83.5 34.685
Prost 49.7 71.8 113 0 0
Sauber 48.26 71.8 82.7 104.4 114.41
Toyota 0 0 0 238.4 286.

#3 FordFan

FordFan
  • Member

  • 3,539 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 07 December 2004 - 14:12

The 2004 Jag numbers are almost certainly high. Ford contributed almost no money to the team, except for engines. I think Atlas in an article suggested just over 100 mil.

#4 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 26,196 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 07 December 2004 - 14:50

No one knows.

No matter what numbers are assigned to a team, arguments can be made for them actually being lower as well as actually higher.

:cool:

#5 armchair expert

armchair expert
  • Member

  • 1,936 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 11 December 2004 - 07:57

Originally posted by karlg
This should help:
Please be aware following table is my assumption based on EUROBUSINESS-April 2003 Volume 4 ISSUE 11 pp-62 and different other sources (e.g. Credit Suisse Formula 1 Office, WWW.PLAYBOY.DE)

Team 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Arrows 29.747 44.35 73.7 50 0
BAR Honda 86.76 191 194.5 235.4 223.4
Benetton 61.97 92.3 93 0 0
Renault 0 0 181 255.8 257.23
BMW Williams 85.58 143.1 193 230 230.1
Ferrari 173.58 239.6 284.4 302.4 298.75
Jaguar 37.18 168.2 177.4 211.8 209.95
Jordan 49.5 103.6 172.9 190 59.35
McLaren 99.15 224.8 274.6 287.8 289.15
Minardi 24.79 55.2 47 83.5 34.685
Prost 49.7 71.8 113 0 0
Sauber 48.26 71.8 82.7 104.4 114.41
Toyota 0 0 0 238.4 286.


There seems to be a dramatic increase for most teams between 99 and 2000. :eek:
Did they use a different accounting method? On the surface, it looks like this is when costs started to get way out of control. I don't remember any particular change to F1 at the time that may have caused this.

#6 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,248 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 11 December 2004 - 10:17

No way did Prost have a 113m budget in 2001.

#7 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:02

Originally posted by armchair expert


There seems to be a dramatic increase for most teams between 99 and 2000. :eek:
Did they use a different accounting method? On the surface, it looks like this is when costs started to get way out of control. I don't remember any particular change to F1 at the time that may have caused this.


I was thinking the same. Is it a coincidence that '99 was the last year that an 'independent' team was competitive (Jordan)?

If F1 budgets were at that kind of level then I think things could be a little closer. Combined with a redistribution of revenues that sort of level would be about right.

So what changed between '99 and 2000 ?

#8 skinnylizard

skinnylizard
  • Member

  • 9,641 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:21

Originally posted by angst


I was thinking the same. Is it a coincidence that '99 was the last year that an 'independent' team was competitive (Jordan)?

If F1 budgets were at that kind of level then I think things could be a little closer. Combined with a redistribution of revenues that sort of level would be about right.

So what changed between '99 and 2000 ?


quite simply from what i remember that was the year that Jordan pumped in cash something to the tune of $35million or something (IIRC) and Williams were still struggling so it was really between Ferrari and McLaren and Jordan pulled out those two wins and one crash while leading.

#9 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:22

Is it me or is it that teams like McLaren and Williams could be spending more on their chassis than Ferrari?

I remember reading that even though Ferrari have the biggest budget, 2/3 is spent on the engine department and the other 1/3 on the chassis department.

Team's like McLaren and Williams have Mercedes and BMW spending enormous amounts supplying and developing the engines leaving them with just having to spend their budgets on the chassis.
I think I remember reading that McLaren could match Ferrari when spending on the chassis because they had Mercedes supplying the engines.

The same analogy could be applied to the no.of employees. Ferrari may have the most but they have to be split them between the chassis and engine departments. Again teams like McLaren and Williams have their people solely working on their chassis'.


Do these numbers include the expenditure that a engine manufacturer spends behind the scenes on developing an engine (notoriously difficult)?

#10 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 66,578 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:22

BMW and Honda

#11 ralphrj

ralphrj
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:28

Originally posted by angst


I was thinking the same. Is it a coincidence that '99 was the last year that an 'independent' team was competitive (Jordan)?

If F1 budgets were at that kind of level then I think things could be a little closer. Combined with a redistribution of revenues that sort of level would be about right.

So what changed between '99 and 2000 ?


I think it was engine costs that caused the budgets to shoot up.

Ferraris engine budget is said to have increased from around $60m in 2000 to around $200m today.

The increased spending has been in response to the increased competition from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Renault, Honda & Toyota.

In 2000/2001 BMW were rumoured to have bought 7 engine dynos costing $25m each. In comparison Cosworth had one dyno costing around $7m.

#12 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 11 December 2004 - 11:41

Originally posted by F1Champion
Is it me or is it that teams like McLaren and Williams could be spending more on their chassis than Ferrari?

I remember reading that even though Ferrari have the biggest budget, 2/3 is spent on the engine department and the other 1/3 on the chassis department.


In Gilles Villeneuve's days? :confused:

There is absolutely no way that the present Ferrari team could be spending 2/3 on engines and 1/3 on chassis.

#13 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 00:16

The leap in budgets between 1999 and 2000 offers up a slightly different angle on Ford's involvement in(and withdrawal from) F1.
They would have believed that the budget they had for 2000 would have put them in a position to be competitive with the top teams - and that was obviously a level of funding that Ford's accountants were 'happy' with, or could accept. They were obviously not willing to up the ante as the other manufacturers have been.

It's probably akin to heresy to say this, but it's a pity the bean counters at Fiat (Ferrari/Maserati), Daimler-Chrysler, BMW, Toyota, Renault and Honda haven't had quite as much influence as they did/do at Ford. If a little more sense of economic realities prevailed within these companies then we might not find F1 in the mess it's in right now. I mean, can there really be enough of a return, on any level, for the amount of expenditure that's being made by these companies?

#14 Pioneer

Pioneer
  • Member

  • 1,627 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 12 December 2004 - 01:12

Bean counters at FIAT have 0 influence on Ferrari. The racing team is an entirely seperate business entity.

#15 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 01:30

Originally posted by Pioneer
Bean counters at FIAT have 0 influence on Ferrari. The racing team is an entirely seperate business entity.


So Gianni Agnelli's initials appeared on their 2003 car for what reason? Of course the Fiat group put toward the budget in some way. Jaguar Racing was an entirely seperate business entity to Ford. A company under the umbrella of the Fiat group is not going to be run without influence from the 'parent' company.

#16 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 01:40

A couple of (quite telling) little snippets of quotes about Gianni Agnelli, on his passing in 2003.

Jean Todt - "...and he was involved in all our decisions.."

Luca di Montezemelo - "....I attribute our success to him, knowing what a fundamental part he played in it.."

That doesn't sound like 0 influence to me.

#17 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 12 December 2004 - 02:00

Originally posted by angst
It's probably akin to heresy to say this, but it's a pity the bean counters at Fiat (Ferrari/Maserati), Daimler-Chrysler, BMW, Toyota, Renault and Honda haven't had quite as much influence as they did/do at Ford. If a little more sense of economic realities prevailed within these companies then we might not find F1 in the mess it's in right now. I mean, can there really be enough of a return, on any level, for the amount of expenditure that's being made by these companies?


The economic reality is that the abovementioned manufacturers spend billions on advertising and marketing. Toyota's F1 expenditure is said to be around 3% of their entire marketing budget if you believe F1Racing - and the numbers do make sense. Why would they sweat over 3%, or 6%, or 9% given the global exposure F1 provides?

Just as winning in F1 is a great promotion tool, losing and losing badly in F1 can cast a rather negative light on a car company as well. There is also the public perception problem of spending hundreds of millions when production is being cut and staff being laid off. This is where the effectiveness of F1 as a marketing tool works against itself.

#18 angst

angst
  • Member

  • 7,135 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 02:21

Originally posted by Racer Joe


The economic reality is that the abovementioned manufacturers spend billions on advertising and marketing. Toyota's F1 expenditure is said to be around 3% of their entire marketing budget if you believe F1Racing - and the numbers do make sense. Why would they sweat over 3%, or 6%, or 9% given the global exposure F1 provides?

Just as winning in F1 is a great promotion tool, losing and losing badly in F1 can cast a rather negative light on a car company as well. There is also the public perception problem of spending hundreds of millions when production is being cut and staff being laid off. This is where the effectiveness of F1 as a marketing tool works against itself.


I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that. Ford pulled the plug, so obviously somebody there questioned the expenditure. That might have had something to do with the closing of a Jag factory (well actually THE Jag factory in Coventry - a bit like shutting Ferrari's factory in Maranello) - but before that their expenditure had not risen with the other maufaturers. There are worries within Renault that their incoming chairman may not see the sense in what is being spent on a racing series.

No matter how small a percentage of whatever budget, if the returns (financial) don't correlate to the expenditure then the economic reality is that money is being wasted. As it is debatable that F1 helps to sell road cars then inevitably all of the maufacturers, given what they are spending, will eventually be forced by some form of accounting to pull out of F1. If budgets had been held at a more 'reasonable' level then maybe Ford would still be involved.

#19 Racer Joe

Racer Joe
  • Member

  • 2,886 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 12 December 2004 - 03:30

Originally posted by angst


I don't think it's quite as clear-cut as that. Ford pulled the plug, so obviously somebody there questioned the expenditure. That might have had something to do with the closing of a Jag factory (well actually THE Jag factory in Coventry - a bit like shutting Ferrari's factory in Maranello) - but before that their expenditure had not risen with the other maufaturers. There are worries within Renault that their incoming chairman may not see the sense in what is being spent on a racing series.


Oh I don't doubt that in Ford's case, it is the beancounters who pulled the plug when you have a board which is obviously not as keen on F1 as when Jac Nasser was around. What I was trying to say is that it is not necessarily only about money and cost.

In Renault's case, I think they have already made a commitment for another 4 years in F1. But yes, Carlos Ghosn is apparently not sold on F1.

No matter how small a percentage of whatever budget, if the returns (financial) don't correlate to the expenditure then the economic reality is that money is being wasted. As it is debatable that F1 helps to sell road cars then inevitably all of the maufacturers, given what they are spending, will eventually be forced by some form of accounting to pull out of F1. If budgets had been held at a more 'reasonable' level then maybe Ford would still be involved.


It is debatable whether any advertising or marketing brings in any tangible benefits. F1 is just another marketing exercise sharing the same intangibility. As we have seen, some boards are sold on F1 involvement, some aren't. Manufacturers have pulled out in 80's and 90's when budgets were reasonable.

I personally don't much care for Ford's involvement. Even when F1 wasn't as expensive as now, they never had the commitment to match other manufacturer's commitment and do the job properly.

Advertisement

#20 A Wheel Nut

A Wheel Nut
  • Member

  • 4,739 posts
  • Joined: July 03

Posted 12 December 2004 - 03:35

I'd be more interested in a break down of where the money comes from and where it is spent.

#21 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 3,268 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 10 February 2005 - 23:08

Ferrari are widely believed to have the biggest budget in Formula One, but Mosley claims that is not actually the case.

He believes the budgets of McLaren or Williams added to the cash spent by respective engine suppliers Mercedes and BMW, easily outweigh the resources at Ferrari's disposal.

"One of the great fallacies in Formula One is that Ferrari have more money," he said.

"They have more sponsors but they have to pay for their own engines. Mercedes and BMW offer these for nothing.

"You go to BMW and the facilities are just awesome - Ferrari is like a cottage industry.

"I am sure the total budget, certainly of McLaren and Williams and I suspect BAR and Renault, is greater than Ferrari's to get two cars on the grid.

"You could put [Ferrari sporting director] Jean Todt in any of the top five teams the last few years and he would have done the same job."



Interesting, no?

#22 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 11 February 2005 - 00:13

Originally posted by F1Champion
Ferrari are widely believed to have the biggest budget in Formula One, but Mosley claims that is not actually the case.

He believes the budgets of McLaren or Williams added to the cash spent by respective engine suppliers Mercedes and BMW, easily outweigh the resources at Ferrari's disposal.

"One of the great fallacies in Formula One is that Ferrari have more money," he said.

"They have more sponsors but they have to pay for their own engines. Mercedes and BMW offer these for nothing.

"You go to BMW and the facilities are just awesome - Ferrari is like a cottage industry.

"I am sure the total budget, certainly of McLaren and Williams and I suspect BAR and Renault, is greater than Ferrari's to get two cars on the grid.

"You could put [Ferrari sporting director] Jean Todt in any of the top five teams the last few years and he would have done the same job."



Interesting, no?


When I have suggested something similar along those lines, I have been called blind fan-boy. Now we have to include Max in that group; a person which presumably knows something about business of F1. Toyota builds their machines with which they manufacture equipment and tooling required to produce their cars. It is so, because of their possessive and demonic like desire for perfection. No one on the outside knows what it costs all, but I bet that it is not a part of annual budget speculations. Fixed cost is just simple buried elsewhere. Honda is not much different.

#23 metz

metz
  • Member

  • 14,101 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 11 February 2005 - 01:15

From above:
"When I have suggested something similar along those lines, I have been called blind (Ferarri) fan-boy. Now we have to include Max in that group;....."

Many have done so for some time.. :cool: