Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Mallett
Some may suggest that the manufacturers should ask a sum less than the cost of the engines so that it makes the whole thing more "fair". My answer is, stop pandering to road relevance, or the greens and go back to sticking big engines in small cars and make the drivers drive them. I'm sure a decent 4l V8 or V12 is going to cost substantially less than a V6 turbo power unit with all sorts of irrelevant (to racing) gubbins added to it.
Then the lesser teams will have more dosh to play with.
|
is it a given that going back in time is going to lead to more viewers, more sponsors, and hopefully more money for the teams?
given that TV numbers have been dwindling pretty much across the board for some time now and given that F1 has yet to recover/replace the loss of tobacco sponsorship is shaving 10-15 mil from the engine budget going to make any difference at all and even it did make a difference wouldn't all the the teams have freed up that same amount to spend on something else? rather wouldnt the status quo just be maintained?
just my opinion (well pretty common opinion these days
) but F1's problems has more to do with how much the promoter takes, how much the teams get paid and how much the teams are able to generate in sponsorship.
currently the promoter takes too much and pays it out unevenly while refusing to rethink a strategy that has failed to promote the growth of TV and live numbers. a shrinking audience following anemic teams will not allow for any growth in the sponsorship market.
ideas aimed at having at least 10 marques that all have the ability to be competitive so that they can survive long enough to build up awareness and a strong fan base is whats needed imo. i think if you do that the money will sort itself out if for no other reason then the money is already there to do it with.