Mateschitz: Teams should own F1 [Archive]

Oli_M

18th February 2009, 11:35

I love the quote on Planet-F1 from Max : "You don't get to own a restaurant by eating in it every night"

So, the guy in charge of world motorsport seems to think the multi-billion dollar worldwide industry of Formula 1 draws likenesses to me having a Big Mac..... riiiiiight.....

IMO yes the teams should have considerably more say in the running of F1, perhaps I wouldn't go as far as complete ownership but probably owning 50% would be a sensible idea.

Andrewmcm

18th February 2009, 12:13

Bad idea.

You should never have the inmates running the asylum.

CART proved that several times....

Mark

18th February 2009, 12:26

CART proved that several times....

Exactly; CART collapsed due to weak leadership. The last thing F1 needs is for the teams to own it, they would never get anything done.

555-04Q2

18th February 2009, 12:52

Mateschitz - proof that money cant buy you brains :(

Cr@p idea :down:

ioan

18th February 2009, 13:56

Bad idea.

You should never have the inmates running the asylum.

They do not want to run it, they want to own it.

I think that people are not seeing the problem the teams are referring to.
They don't want to get rid of the FIA but of FOM, CVC and Bernie.

The FIA will still remain the one deciding the regulations, but the teams would have full ownership of the series including all the money that results from it!

ioan

18th February 2009, 13:58

Mateschitz - proof that money cant buy you brains :(

Cr@p idea :down:

I disagree, Mateschitz is proof that brains can bring you money.

Ranger

18th February 2009, 14:09

They do not want to run it, they want to own it.

I think that people are not seeing the problem the teams are referring to.
They don't want to get rid of the FIA but of FOM, CVC and Bernie.

The FIA will still remain the one deciding the regulations, but the teams would have full ownership of the series including all the money that results from it!

Tell us how you think the money distribution will work.

I disagree, Mateschitz is proof that brains can bring you money. I'll agree with that.

ArrowsFA1

18th February 2009, 14:14

I think that people are not seeing the problem the teams are referring to.
They don't want to get rid of the FIA but of FOM, CVC and Bernie.

When you stop and think about the problems for any period of time - which most of the people involved do not do - you realize that all the current problems in Formula 1 can be traced to one specific event: the FIA's decision to lease the commercial rights of F1 to Formula One Management. This was something that FIA President Mosley was able to sell to the FIA members as providing long-term guarantees that the federation would survive whatever happened in the future and that the FIA would have a foundation to fund Mosley's various automobile-related schemes and give the FIA president a political voice. That gave the job some more interest for him and created a solid structure which gave Ecclestone, quite literally, the deal of the century. What no-one at the FIA recognised (or at least said out loud) was that the deal pawned the FIA's family silver for generations, in exchange for a relatively small sum of money.
The money that is generated now goes to the Ecclestone Family trust funds, to the teams or to banks. Nothing goes back to the member clubs (which actually own F1) and that means that developing the sport around the world is just as difficult as ever it was. If you are the man in Bujumbura or Kampala you are more worried about paying the fees to be a member of the FIA than you are about developing the sport by building a kart track or sending a youngster to a racing school in Europe.
http://www.grandprix.com/gt/gt14787.html

ioan

18th February 2009, 14:17

Tell us how you think the money distribution will work.

X% of the profit should be divided equally.
(100-X)% will be divided based on points standing in a proportional way:

(Y amount of money / 39*number of races) * number of points the team managed during the season.

Once they decide how much X is (I would hazard a figure between 60 and 80%), they should sign a binding agreement for let's say 10 years. This will provide the required financial stability for the series and any team willing to join the series will know what to expect.

Ranger

18th February 2009, 14:22

X% of the profit should be divided equally.
(100-X)% will be divided based on points standing in a proportional way:

(Y amount of money / 39*number of races) * number of points the team managed during the season.

Once they decide how much X is (I would hazard a figure between 60 and 80%), they should sign a binding agreement for let's say 10 years. This will provide the required financial stability for the series and any team willing to join the series will know what to expect.

Sounds alright. However on your first point, some teams will still get more than others.

Then again, this is all speculative because Max sold Bernie the F1 rights for 100 years (which is what Arrows' article is about), undervaluing that sum by billions.

ioan

18th February 2009, 14:33

Sounds alright. However on your first point, some teams will still get more than others.

Yes, but some teams will also invest more, and there always must be an incentive to fight for.

Then again, this is all speculative because Max sold Bernie the F1 rights for 100 years (which is what Arrows' article is about), undervaluing that sum by billions.

The teams should ground the Grand Prix Formula series or something like that and live Bernie and the CVC with the suddenly overvalued F1 rights. Who would broadcast and who would watch a series with no participants?! ;)

Ranger

18th February 2009, 14:50

The teams should ground the Grand Prix Formula series or something like that and live Bernie and the CVC with the suddenly overvalued F1 rights. Who would broadcast and who would watch a series with no participants?! ;)

No one! ;)

Brilliant in theory but it won't happen.

The thing is that money talks, and Bernie is a very good businessman.

The teams were going to split from the FIA in 2003 before Ferrari struck their personal slice of FOM revenue and stayed on the FIA boat. Everyone else did the same, because F1 can't exist without Ferrari and everyone knows that.

With the subsequent collapse and lessons learnt from CART and ChampCar, the teams will all stick to the devil they know.

Knock-on

18th February 2009, 16:12

It's a tricky one.

I very much agree with the Grandprix article. The deal was done for Bernie and Max alone and not for some higher plane.

However, we now have what the legacy of their greed delivered.

You just cannot turn around to CVC et al and take away their business that they paid good money for. It's not their fault.

You cannot turn all commercial right to the teams because it would kill F1.

What needs to be done is some way of including the Manufacturers and teams to increase their stakeholding. However, there HAS to be a cost to F1 otherwise it becomes less important in the focus of these companies.

ioan

18th February 2009, 18:59

With the subsequent collapse and lessons learnt from CART and ChampCar, the teams will all stick to the devil they know.

Maybe if Bernie and the CVC agree to share 80% of the revenue with the teams, otherwise I doubt it.

Don't forget that there is no more money around in this moment, and the teams don't exist in order to make Bernie and the CVC happy bunnies!

ioan

18th February 2009, 23:25

BDunnell

18th February 2009, 23:52

And, surprise!
FOTA called for a press conference in Geneva on the 5th March. They are going to make public their views about what should be done for the future of the sport.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73344

I know someone who will be having sleepless nights from now on! ;)

With this and continued talk of the IRC and WRC being the subject of some sort of merger, which simply has to happen for the good of rallying, it isn't just Bernie who ought to be having sleepless nights, but Max too. These moves on the part of FOTA, no matter how mild the statements turn out to be, and the very existence of the IRC represent a challenge to the supremacy of the FIA in two of its most important branches of world motorsport. It will still end up in authority over F1 and world rallying, I'm pretty sure of that, but it really should wake up and realise that it's not just dissatisfaction with the commercial rights holders that have brought about the rise of FOTA and the IRC.

jso1985

19th February 2009, 05:02

the FIA should own F1, not lease the rights to medieval elfs...

Teams owning the sport could work, it certainly didn't work in CART but it worked for example on the English Premier League

ArrowsFA1

19th February 2009, 11:27

With this and continued talk of the IRC and WRC being the subject of some sort of merger, which simply has to happen for the good of rallying, it isn't just Bernie who ought to be having sleepless nights, but Max too. These moves on the part of FOTA, no matter how mild the statements turn out to be, and the very existence of the IRC represent a challenge to the supremacy of the FIA in two of its most important branches of world motorsport. It will still end up in authority over F1 and world rallying, I'm pretty sure of that, but it really should wake up and realise that it's not just dissatisfaction with the commercial rights holders that have brought about the rise of FOTA and the IRC.
I agree 100% :up:

It will be interesting to see what FOTA's "vision" is and how (or whether) it can be aligned with the aims of the FIA.

555-04Q2

19th February 2009, 12:20

I disagree, Mateschitz is proof that brains can bring you money.

Well OK then :p :

Knock-on

19th February 2009, 16:58

I agree 100% :up:

It will be interesting to see what FOTA's "vision" is and how (or whether) it can be aligned with the aims of the FIA.

It doesn't sound like the exhibition is to threaten either FOM or FIA. More a vision for where they see the sport progressing to make it more attractive to the public.

I thought Dennis was very candid when he stated he doesn't agree withs some of the proposed ideas but realised it was about the public and not the idealism of F1.

Hope the DNA isn't over contaminated though :?:

truefan72

19th February 2009, 22:58

Bad idea.

You should never have the inmates running the asylum.

works fine in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL, all teams get revenue share, all teams can be somewhat competitive, all teams have the same rules and the same conditions. Ownership is more for financial clarity and clarity of rules than anything else. It would make sense when they pass a rule knowing that all the teams agreed to it rather than being dictated too.

Cooper_S

19th February 2009, 23:24

why should a guy five minutes in the sport think he has a right to ownership...

I have to agree with those clear thinking individuals who see this for the disaster in waiting it truly is...

ioan

20th February 2009, 10:54

why should a guy five minutes in the sport think he has a right to ownership...

Because he's one of those who invested lots of money (by now it would be a billion USD for sure) in the sport.

Just stop and think about it. Teams invest every year billions on this sport, while CVC and Bernie invested 3 billions once and now are getting back more than all the teams together, every year!

It is obvious that either CVC and Bernie agree to give the teams in excess of 75% of the profit every season or the teams need to take action and dump CVC and Bernie ASAP.

ioan

20th February 2009, 10:56

Knock-on

20th February 2009, 13:03

I agree with you.
This myth saying that the teams can't do it themselves is just an idea launched by Bernie and for some reason many fans take it for granted when it is just a load of BS.

My dear ioan. Stop and ask yourself what the NFL, NHL etc all have in common?

They are all teams that compete as part of a sport. If the NFL for example was no longer attractive to the Cowboys and Panthers, they wouldn't up stick and join the NHL.

If you had a series with Williams, McLaren, Ferrari and a few other teams in, then it would make more sense for the sport to be closely aligned from a financial perspective. These teams almost exsist to race in F1 and it's in their interest to safeguard the series.

However, if teams like Honda, Toyota and Renault had that control, their primary focus is profit which has little bearing on F1.

ioan

20th February 2009, 13:28

My dear ioan. Stop and ask yourself what the NFL, NHL etc all have in common?

They are all teams that compete as part of a sport. If the NFL for example was no longer attractive to the Cowboys and Panthers, they wouldn't up stick and join the NHL.

If you had a series with Williams, McLaren, Ferrari and a few other teams in, then it would make more sense for the sport to be closely aligned from a financial perspective. These teams almost exsist to race in F1 and it's in their interest to safeguard the series.

However, if teams like Honda, Toyota and Renault had that control, their primary focus is profit which has little bearing on F1.

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say! Maybe a thorough explanation would help.

Your dear Ioan! :D

Knock-on

20th February 2009, 13:39

I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say! Maybe a thorough explanation would help.

Your dear Ioan! :D

< Janet and John mode >

F1 is a lot more transient than the other sports mentioned with far less interest from teams and manufacturers (i.e. Posh Sponsors) running teams.

To allow those people to govern F1 finances would result in catastrophic short term decision making and be a disaster for the sport.

I'm no fan of Bernie and think more money needs to be recognised by the teams but you have to admit, he has driven F1 forward abd been very sucessful at it because it's his bread and butter.

< /Janet and John mode >

Malbec

20th February 2009, 14:10

works fine in the NBA, NFL, MLB, and NHL, all teams get revenue share, all teams can be somewhat competitive, all teams have the same rules and the same conditions. Ownership is more for financial clarity and clarity of rules than anything else. It would make sense when they pass a rule knowing that all the teams agreed to it rather than being dictated too.

The thing is that joint ownership and administration is only feasible if rules are totally stable. When was the last major rule change in football, American football, basketball or whatever? On the other hand constant and major regulation changes are par for the course in F1 even if its just to improve safety, costs and performance. Given the vastly different resources available to teams their interests are going to be different, hence the scope for serious crippling disagreement in motorsports is far far greater.

That is why motorsports series run by dictatorships like NASCAR or F1 have done better than those that aren't like IRL/CART.

ioan

20th February 2009, 18:36

< Janet and John mode >

F1 is a lot more transient than the other sports mentioned with far less interest from teams and manufacturers (i.e. Posh Sponsors) running teams.

To allow those people to govern F1 finances would result in catastrophic short term decision making and be a disaster for the sport.

I'm no fan of Bernie and think more money needs to be recognised by the teams but you have to admit, he has driven F1 forward abd been very sucessful at it because it's his bread and butter.

< /Janet and John mode >

You're kidding right?!
You believe that Mateschitz, Williams, Dennis, Mallya and whoever will buy Honda (and that's already 5 teams) will take stupid actions and wouldn't take the right decisions in order to insure that their money give a return for the lots of money they invest?! :rolleyes:

Think again.

ioan

20th February 2009, 18:38

The thing is that joint ownership and administration is only feasible if rules are totally stable. When was the last major rule change in football, American football, basketball or whatever? On the other hand constant and major regulation changes are par for the course in F1 even if its just to improve safety, costs and performance. Given the vastly different resources available to teams their interests are going to be different, hence the scope for serious crippling disagreement in motorsports is far far greater.

That is why motorsports series run by dictatorships like NASCAR or F1 have done better than those that aren't like IRL/CART.

The fact that all the decisions within FOTA are taken only with 100% agreement it's enough to ensure that no one will be left out in the cold.

Malbec

20th February 2009, 18:53

The fact that all the decisions within FOTA are taken only with 100% agreement it's enough to ensure that no one will be left out in the cold.

Yep, its consensus decision making. I'm sure you know that the problem with that style of decision making is that one party who disagrees can hold the whole process up, and if anyone disagrees strongly enough they can leave completely torpedoing the whole thing. Thats why almost all organisations of all types around the world go for majority and not consensus rule.

It ain't going to last except in utopia.

ioan

20th February 2009, 20:43

Malbec

21st February 2009, 12:48

Nothing lasts forever anyway.
Still I believe that it's better than if half the teams go bankrupt while Bernie and CVC take most of the profit out of the sport.

Well, if half the teams go bankrupt Bernie will send some cash their way to keep them ticking over, better that than have no F1 at all to inflate his bank account.

I agree that things would be better without CVC but they are now locked into the sport and have very little wiggling room to negotiate, thats why I'm pessimistic about FOTA's chances of negotiating more money.

truefan72

21st February 2009, 18:37

Yep, its consensus decision making. I'm sure you know that the problem with that style of decision making is that one party who disagrees can hold the whole process up, and if anyone disagrees strongly enough they can leave completely torpedoing the whole thing. Thats why almost all organisations of all types around the world go for majority and not consensus rule.

It ain't going to last except in utopia.

My god, folks here are speaking up against transparency, democracy and equality LOL

1.Team owned leagues are not utopia, in fact they are the norm from the premiership to the the big 4 in the united states.

2. Although the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL are team owned, they still have a commissioner, a valid punishment system for violations by players and teams, a rules committee, proper revenue sharing, financial incentives based on performance, teams still fold, new teams still come in, propr opportunities for dissent without vindictiveness. Clear media contracts. Independant sponsorships and marketing strategies by teams, and most importantly no dictatorships!

3. Nascar is a dictatorship and borders on sports entertainment than true competition. Many situations and issues are manufactured to make the sport "entertaining" and neutered. Its biggest attraction to the fans is a potential for a multi-car wreck, which the broadcasters play up ni anticipation like giddy kids on xmas eve. Nascar works because its a marketing machine. and is ideally customized to attract legions of fans in the southeast untied states and a "certain type " of demograsphic elswhere. Inspite of that, at least they have fairly transparent rules (although they change when one team succeeds) and a clear money structure that anyowne can see for themselves.

Malbec

21st February 2009, 19:14

My god, folks here are speaking up against transparency, democracy and equality LOL

1.Team owned leagues are not utopia, in fact they are the norm from the premiership to the the big 4 in the united states.

2. Although the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL are team owned, they still have a commissioner, a valid punishment system for violations by players and teams, a rules committee, proper revenue sharing, financial incentives based on performance, teams still fold, new teams still come in, propr opportunities for dissent without vindictiveness. Clear media contracts. Independant sponsorships and marketing strategies by teams, and most importantly no dictatorships!

3. Nascar is a dictatorship and borders on sports entertainment than true competition. Many situations and issues are manufactured to make the sport "entertaining" and neutered. Its biggest attraction to the fans is a potential for a multi-car wreck, which the broadcasters play up ni anticipation like giddy kids on xmas eve. Nascar works because its a marketing machine. and is ideally customized to attract legions of fans in the southeast untied states and a "certain type " of demograsphic elswhere. Inspite of that, at least they have fairly transparent rules (although they change when one team succeeds) and a clear money structure that anyowne can see for themselves.

Refer to post 33 as to my explanation as to why your argument is invalid for F1.

ioan

21st February 2009, 22:51

My god, folks here are speaking up against transparency, democracy and equality LOL

I find that bizarre given how they also ask for Max to go away invoking the very same reasons. :D

truefan72

22nd February 2009, 05:24

Refer to post 33 as to my explanation as to why your argument is invalid for F1.

rules are changed and amended every year and sometimes, but rarely, in the middle of the season my friend. Now your arguments main point is that F1 is unpredictable, full of fluid rule changes, and therefore having a stable, transparent and effective rules committee and revenues sharing won't work?

you even go as far as to point out that the vast differences in budgets would be an obstacle to rule changes as they would affect certain teams.

Well that sounds like a perfect reason to get a team owned league, with revenue sharing, so that the teams with the smaller budget can still have an adequate budget floor from which to run an effective team. In fact F1 is trying to reverse course to make things cheaper and institute more reasonable costs. They are even floating the idea of budget caps for R&D which is akin to the salary caps. I could go on and on about the merits, but you have yet to produce one valid reason why the current system is better than what I propose. Your strongest points only enhance my argument. :)

Malbec

22nd February 2009, 10:44

rules are changed and amended every year and sometimes, but rarely, in the middle of the season my friend. Now your arguments main point is that F1 is unpredictable, full of fluid rule changes, and therefore having a stable, transparent and effective rules committee and revenues sharing won't work?

you even go as far as to point out that the vast differences in budgets would be an obstacle to rule changes as they would affect certain teams.

Well that sounds like a perfect reason to get a team owned league, with revenue sharing, so that the teams with the smaller budget can still have an adequate budget floor from which to run an effective team. In fact F1 is trying to reverse course to make things cheaper and institute more reasonable costs. They are even floating the idea of budget caps for R&D which is akin to the salary caps. I could go on and on about the merits, but you have yet to produce one valid reason why the current system is better than what I propose. Your strongest points only enhance my argument. :)

Thanks for highlighting the problems with your own proposals so effectively.

I'm sure Ferrari, McLaren and Toyota will be just fine ensuring Force India gets a budget almost equal to theirs. Given the difference in sponsorship that would mean subsidising the smaller teams wouldn't it. Yep, I can just see the Ferrari that demanded a $100 million bribe to jump ship from the GPMA just begging to see that reform put in.

Those FOTA reforms you speak of are put in due to fear caused by the credit crunch and of course work to help everyone in F1 (except the staff being laid off as a result). Problem is, what happens when times are good again and the cash just rolls in... but only for the top four/five teams? There will always be teams at the bottom like Minardi or Jordan who don't get enough cash, and what they want is usually not what the top teams want. Are the lessons of the GPMA or the cheap engine deals Stoddart and Jordan wanted forgotten so quickly? These guys will split up and if they happen to be running F1 as well you'll see paralysis.

ioan

22nd February 2009, 13:04

Thanks for highlighting the problems with your own proposals so effectively.

I'm sure Ferrari, McLaren and Toyota will be just fine ensuring Force India gets a budget almost equal to theirs. Given the difference in sponsorship that would mean subsidising the smaller teams wouldn't it. Yep, I can just see the Ferrari that demanded a $100 million bribe to jump ship from the GPMA just begging to see that reform put in.

Those FOTA reforms you speak of are put in due to fear caused by the credit crunch and of course work to help everyone in F1 (except the staff being laid off as a result). Problem is, what happens when times are good again and the cash just rolls in... but only for the top four/five teams? There will always be teams at the bottom like Minardi or Jordan who don't get enough cash, and what they want is usually not what the top teams want. Are the lessons of the GPMA or the cheap engine deals Stoddart and Jordan wanted forgotten so quickly? These guys will split up and if they happen to be running F1 as well you'll see paralysis.

From your POV in this thread and that about manufacturers going belly up, in another thread, I come to the conclusion that you are rather willing to see the privateers fell of F1 and only have 5 or so manufacturers teams for the future.
The problem is that if the privateers go bankrupt than there will be no more F1 so no more revenues for the manufacturer backed teams either.
You see, they all have an interest in making this happen.

Well, if nothing is done that is exactly what will happen. I hope you'll be happy then.

And you base your opinion on how the teams will not be able to make it work.
I say it will work because this time teams are fighting for survival and not for undermining each other. The bad economical situation that we are experiencing has created the need and also the incentives that the teams needed in order to move towards a better organization of F1.
And this is a huge difference that you are ignoring on purpose.

Malbec

22nd February 2009, 13:29

From your POV in this thread and that about manufacturers going belly up, in another thread, I come to the conclusion that you are rather willing to see the privateers fell of F1 and only have 5 or so manufacturers teams for the future.

Actually my view of an ideal F1 isn't that far from yours, but the problem is that I don't see how it can be achieved due to several factors, namely the economic climate, Bernie/Max's desire to profit as much as they can and the inability of F1 teams to work together for a common goal based on historical precedent (current circumstances excepted).

Yes I'd love more privateers, grids approaching 30 cars and fine close racing every other weekend, isn't that what you want too? You have to realise though that it simply isn't going to happen outside fantasyland.

Dave B

22nd February 2009, 15:43

Yes I'd love more privateers, grids approaching 30 cars and fine close racing every other weekend, isn't that what you want too? You have to realise though that it simply isn't going to happen outside fantasyland.
Why not, though? Your ideal scenario (mine too as it happens) was reality for much of the 1980s and certainly didn't detract from the top quality racing at the sharp end of the grid.

The days of an Eddie Jordan or a Jackie Stewart taking their teams from a feeder series and making the jump to F1 appear long gone, but I'd like to believe it's not beyond the wit of man to reproduce the circumstances under which it would be possible again - even in a tough economic climate.

In a way, the credit crunch could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to F1: an exodus of big-money manufacturers and backers leaving the way clear for a new generation of garagistes to produce competitive machinery on a sensible budget, designed by the cleverest and driven by the most talented.

Dave B

22nd February 2009, 15:57

Ignore, duplicate post

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 16:30

Why not, though? Your ideal scenario (mine too as it happens) was reality for much of the 1980s and certainly didn't detract from the top quality racing at the sharp end of the grid.

The days of an Eddie Jordan or a Jackie Stewart taking their teams from a feeder series and making the jump to F1 appear long gone, but I'd like to believe it's not beyond the wit of man to reproduce the circumstances under which it would be possible again - even in a tough economic climate.

In a way, the credit crunch could turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to F1: an exodus of big-money manufacturers and backers leaving the way clear for a new generation of garagistes to produce competitive machinery on a sensible budget, designed by the cleverest and driven by the most talented.

The trouble was that there were probably too many teams in the 1980s and early '90s. This happens with championships sometimes, the mid-1990s BTCC being a perfect example. Inevitably, some of those teams are habitually at the back of the field and it isn't worth their while carrying on. Very few 'new' teams have ever survived long in F1, and this was true 15-20 years ago or more. Quite a lot simply didn't deserve to. Others did, but failed to survive for whatever reason.

I think all of us, including Dylan and ioan, may seem to disagree but want exactly the same thing — a strong, truly competitive F1 world championship with a large grid and exciting races. But in thinking how this can be achieved, we have to be realistic. The cost cuts that need to be made now are truly massive, and have to be made into a long-term measure. I've said it many times before but one of F1's biggest problems nowadays is that its conspicious display of wealth looks increasingly vulgar and out of step with reality. Another great difficulty is that, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to reconcile the view that the march of technical/technological development that most feel ought to be part of F1 with the desire for a genuinely competitive championship offering great racing.

markabilly

22nd February 2009, 16:50

My god, folks here are speaking up against transparency, democracy and equality LOL

3. Nascar is a dictatorship and borders on sports entertainment than true competition. Many situations and issues are manufactured to make the sport "entertaining" and neutered. Its biggest attraction to the fans is a potential for a multi-car wreck, which the broadcasters play up ni anticipation like giddy kids on xmas eve. Nascar works because its a marketing machine. and is ideally customized to attract legions of fans in the southeast untied states and a "certain type " of demograsphic elswhere. Inspite of that, at least they have fairly transparent rules (although they change when one team succeeds) and a clear money structure that anyowne can see for themselves.

You mean sort of like the FIA and bernie's companies.....exxcept for the money of course

AndyRAC

22nd February 2009, 18:42

The trouble was that there were probably too many teams in the 1980s and early '90s. This happens with championships sometimes, the mid-1990s BTCC being a perfect example. Inevitably, some of those teams are habitually at the back of the field and it isn't worth their while carrying on. Very few 'new' teams have ever survived long in F1, and this was true 15-20 years ago or more. Quite a lot simply didn't deserve to. Others did, but failed to survive for whatever reason.

I think all of us, including Dylan and ioan, may seem to disagree but want exactly the same thing — a strong, truly competitive F1 world championship with a large grid and exciting races. But in thinking how this can be achieved, we have to be realistic. The cost cuts that need to be made now are truly massive, and have to be made into a long-term measure. I've said it many times before but one of F1's biggest problems nowadays is that its conspicious display of wealth looks increasingly vulgar and out of step with reality. Another great difficulty is that, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to reconcile the view that the march of technical/technological development that most feel ought to be part of F1 with the desire for a genuinely competitive championship offering great racing.

Completely agree, however isn't the whole 'raison d'etre' of F1 the technology. That's why it's the 'Blue Riband' of Motorsport - or so we are told.
I'm not mad keen on the Manufacturers having a big stake in the sport - when it doesn't suit their needs anymore, they'll up and go. That's why I'll always have great respect for Williams, and latterly Jordan, Minardi, Lotus, etc
I'd love to seea return to the late 80's early 90's with huge grids and pre-qualifying (remember that?), but I'm not sure it's possible. Remember the customer engines - Cosworth DFV, Judd, etc

BDunnell

22nd February 2009, 19:41

I'd love to seea return to the late 80's early 90's with huge grids and pre-qualifying (remember that?), but I'm not sure it's possible.

I don't think it's even desirable, let alone possible, for the reasons I gave. A lot of those teams had very short life spans.

Malbec

23rd February 2009, 21:20

I think all of us, including Dylan and ioan, may seem to disagree but want exactly the same thing — a strong, truly competitive F1 world championship with a large grid and exciting races. But in thinking how this can be achieved, we have to be realistic. The cost cuts that need to be made now are truly massive, and have to be made into a long-term measure. I've said it many times before but one of F1's biggest problems nowadays is that its conspicious display of wealth looks increasingly vulgar and out of step with reality. Another great difficulty is that, in my opinion, it is almost impossible to reconcile the view that the march of technical/technological development that most feel ought to be part of F1 with the desire for a genuinely competitive championship offering great racing.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say in a clearer way!

In addition I just can't see there being much change given the way things are tied up. CVC isn't going to disappear and they're going to demand more money off Bernie as are the teams via FOTA, but CVC have much more clout. Max isn't going to go away despite his earlier promises, and if he's going to be ousted his replacement will be an equally conniving dirty political SOB, he'd need to be to be strong enough to oust Max in the first place.

truefan72

24th February 2009, 06:34

from BBC article about Serie A vs. Premiership

The Premier League sells its TV rights as a collective then divides the revenues between the 20 teams.

The clubs occupying the Premier League during the 2007/2008 season received a guaranteed £22.8m from TV revenue.

On top of that clubs were paid prize money relative to their final position in the league and, if that was not enough, the 20 clubs received income from the live matches in which they were featured.

Unsurprisingly, title winners Manchester United came out on top with £49.3m.

seems a reasonable solution to me for F1 to adopt if it decided to become team owned. Now assign a commisioner, a rules committee and technical board and go racing.

Knock-on

24th February 2009, 11:36

ioan

24th February 2009, 16:24

Not wanting to piss on your fireworks but Max sold the commercial rights to Bernie for the next Millinium in exchange for a gigantic kickback.

Bernie sold 90% of the main rights to CVC who now own them.

Just how do you get CVC to relinquish their legitimate investment.

Let's call it GP Racing instead of Formula1. Problem solved.
Without the competing teams F1 is worth nothing, really nothing!

Malbec

24th February 2009, 20:17

Let's call it GP Racing instead of Formula1. Problem solved.
Without the competing teams F1 is worth nothing, really nothing!

Good plan, try and kill Bernie by making him laugh so hard!

I think its pretty clear after the GPMA fiasco that the F1 teams simply don't have the ability or inclination to launch their own formula. Of all the groups vying for more cash the constructors have the weakest hand of all to play with.

truefan72

24th February 2009, 23:26

Not wanting to piss on your fireworks but Max sold the commercial rights to Bernie for the next Millinium in exchange for a gigantic kickback.

Bernie sold 90% of the main rights to CVC who now own them.

Just how do you get CVC to relinquish their legitimate investment.

I know and we were discussing the the hypothetical and not the reality, which is pretty depressing in terms of the stranglehold the CVC and FIA have on the sport.

i think we all know that save a breakaway series, not much is going to change in the F1 Operations

ioan

25th February 2009, 01:01

Good plan, try and kill Bernie by making him laugh so hard!

I think its pretty clear after the GPMA fiasco that the F1 teams simply don't have the ability or inclination to launch their own formula. Of all the groups vying for more cash the constructors have the weakest hand of all to play with.

That was 5 years ago, time to catch up with the economical realities that are pushing the teams to unite or die.

Knock-on

25th February 2009, 13:42

I know and we were discussing the the hypothetical and not the reality, which is pretty depressing in terms of the stranglehold the CVC and FIA have on the sport.

i think we all know that save a breakaway series, not much is going to change in the F1 Operations

It really is depressing, isn't it.

CVC really have the bull by the horns and have no reason to move their position as Bernie pointed out in his rumbustious statement recently.

We will have a very bloody war in the next few years I think and F1 will be split asunder. Hopefully a phoenix will rise from the ashes

PolePosition_1

25th February 2009, 14:58

Joined this a bit late, but I agree with those who don't think it'll work.

I just don't see how it would work, maybe if the FOTA continues as it is for 10 years, and they keep their cohesion together, they'd have a case. But its been going for 6 month, personally I don't trust the teams to stick together over a long term period, putting F1 at risk.

You also have to look at it from a business point of view. CVC paid for their share, I honestly don't understand how they expect them to give a slice of their profits to them for free.

The only way I can see this happening is if FOTA club together and buy a relevant share from CVC.

ioan

25th February 2009, 16:01

Judging by the pessimism and opposition to change that some people display in here I'm amazed that our society still manages to move ahead.

BDunnell

25th February 2009, 16:13

I didn't think blind optimism is much help either, to be honest.

PolePosition_1

25th February 2009, 16:31

I didn't think blind optimism is much help either, to be honest.

I agree, and the FOTA members haven't shown anything to suggest that they can continue working as a constructive team over a long term period.

Knock-on

25th February 2009, 17:25

Judging by the pessimism and opposition to change that some people display in here I'm amazed that our society still manages to move ahead.

Blind optimism is fine but the cold reality is bourne out by years of experience ;)

ioan

25th February 2009, 19:48

I didn't think blind optimism is much help either, to be honest.

How nice of you. Optimism wasn't enough, you had to call it blind!
People you better stop exaggerating in every second phrase you write.

I don't call it optimism I call it "realism"!

PS: Sooner or later your pessimism will destroy you so better start working on it straight away.

Malbec

25th February 2009, 20:50

Judging by the pessimism and opposition to change that some people display in here I'm amazed that our society still manages to move ahead.

Its not pessimism or opposition to change. I for one would love to see the old guard swept out and new blood come in when it comes to running F1 but the guys running the sport whether Mosley, CVC, Bernie or the teams have strong vested interests and are strongly entrenched.

F1 doesn't reflect society either, there aren't many developed countries that are as corrupt as F1 is for example ;)

BDunnell

25th February 2009, 21:55

How nice of you. Optimism wasn't enough, you had to call it blind!
People you better stop exaggerating in every second phrase you write.

I don't call it optimism I call it "realism"!

PS: Sooner or later your pessimism will destroy you so better start working on it straight away.

So suggesting that you are 'amazed that our society still manages to move ahead' judging by the views expressed on this forum, and that the pessimism of those who dare to disagree with you will 'destroy' us, aren't examples of exaggeration, are they?

truefan72

25th February 2009, 23:22

err, a black man named Barack Obama just won the presidential elections in the united states based on a platform of change.

I do believe that the current situation is depression. I do think that not much will change if they continue on the same path in F1, but I do have hope that something radical will occur to shake up the rank and file. That the teams would realize the strength nit heir numbers and cache in their names. That they are not simply pawns on the chessboard of the CVC, Bernie, and Max, but actual invaluable assets whose absence completely devalues the entire series.

I for one hope for a Breakaway series and like ioan said call it F1GPor some other name. But institute a fair open and transparent system with proper revenue sharing and decent technology.

BDunnell

26th February 2009, 00:42

err, a black man named Barack Obama just won the presidential elections in the united states based on a platform of change.

A bit different to blind optimism, though, isn't it?

PolePosition_1

26th February 2009, 10:10

How nice of you. Optimism wasn't enough, you had to call it blind!
People you better stop exaggerating in every second phrase you write.

I don't call it optimism I call it "realism"!

PS: Sooner or later your pessimism will destroy you so better start working on it straight away.

On what basis do you call it realism ? Where have FOTA shown they can stay together as a team over a long period of time?