|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
2 Oct 2015, 10:38 (Ref:3578817) | #126 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Quote:
|
||
|
2 Oct 2015, 14:37 (Ref:3578849) | #127 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
i much preferred when he masked his first person narrative behind the Mole and the various Penelopes.
|
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
2 Oct 2015, 20:59 (Ref:3578935) | #128 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,320
|
Saward is a fine guy but isn't saying anything original really. In broad terms, it's views that we articulate on here from time to time.
The rub is in the implementation and how to pry away vested interests and to give this sport a bit fresh air and reform to see these plans and principles at work. Getting vested interests to give up their cashcow or reduce their cashcow for long term conservation of this sport is nigh on impossible in political terms -- unless the EU forces the issue. |
||
__________________
If I had asked my customer what they wanted, they would've said a faster horse. -Henry Ford |
3 Oct 2015, 11:34 (Ref:3579014) | #129 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Everyone in F1 has a vested interest from the cleaner to the team principal so they can't be just done away with. It is the greed and corruption that would be nice to see gone but no one ever got rich by being honest my mum used to say. You could say even the journalist who covers the F1 circus has a vested interest in the good health and occasional scandal of F1.
|
|
|
5 Oct 2015, 20:47 (Ref:3579825) | #130 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 135
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
5 Oct 2015, 21:47 (Ref:3579840) | #131 | |
Veteran
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,211
|
Yes, it is a personal thing, to me it is him trying to be king of the kids.
|
|
|
5 Oct 2015, 22:02 (Ref:3579845) | #132 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
||
|
31 Dec 2016, 22:43 (Ref:3699421) | #133 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
Dieter Rencken has been writing in Autosport about team budgets for 2016. He has come up with approx figures for each team based on what he could find from various sources, that likely to be close to the actual income and expenditure of each team. As most teams spend what they get in income usually equals expenditure but not always.
Starting at the bottom in £ millions sponsors, shareholders/owners/other, FOM, Total Manor 20, 30, 35, 85 Sauber 30, 25, 40, 95 Renault 25, 80, 45, 150 Haas 10, 90, 00, 100 Toro Rosso 15, 40, 45, 100 Williams 50, 00, 60, 110 McLaren 120, 00, 65, 185 Force India 30, 10, 50, 90 Ferrari 150, 00, 150, 300 Red Bull 55, 55, 110, 220 Mercedes 82, 50, 133, 265 Notes on those figures Half of McLaren's sponsorship comes from Honda. Haas gets no FOM money as it is a new team. The FOM money is split into 2 groups where Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes and to a small extent Williams get extra bonus figures of £80, £56.6, £25, £56.6 £7.5 million. Ferrari's FOM money of £150 million is more than the FOM income of any 3 of the non bonus teams combined. NB I could not get the spacing to work properly on the figures Last edited by wolfhound; 31 Dec 2016 at 22:53. |
|
|
1 Jan 2017, 00:35 (Ref:3699451) | #134 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,088
|
If the above figure is correct for Mercedes ....
What without any engine budget, and some huge costs sunk in previous years?! Their salary bill alone must be eye watering with that management structure and the number of people they have "incentivized" to join them. Driver salaries for 2016: http://www.f1reader.com/#/news/f1-20...ed-most-162225 Max for 500 000 Euros, major bargain! Youth wages? RBR probably have the best driver pairing now, and are paying peanuts! |
|
|
2 Jan 2017, 18:25 (Ref:3699724) | #135 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
Ferrari needs to get its act together.
for me, calls for a budget cap falls to the wayside the moment there are two teams competing at the sharp end at the same time...and if one of those teams was Ferrari then i would also care much less about their extra money. just speculation on my part, but i think its entirely possible that the declining TV numbers has a lot to do with Ferrari's almost decade long decline...perhaps even to a greater degree then the move behind a paywall/failure to embrace social media/internet. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
2 Jan 2017, 18:34 (Ref:3699730) | #136 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,864
|
Quote:
But IMHO, a budget cap is more to help the smaller teams than it is to tear down the bigger ones. To your point, if there was a tighter race at the front, there would be less complaining and by extension, less less talk of "fixing things" and helping the smaller teams be competitive. Small teams in financial distress also fuels budget cap talks. Maybe we need a team or two to collapse. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
2 Jan 2017, 18:58 (Ref:3699737) | #137 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,746
|
for sure i am a believe in budget caps but in all honesty what would be a realistic cap number that would give the smaller teams the chance to compete?
40mil was a ridiculous suggestion by Max, and the current small team budget region of sub 100mil is still way too low and honestly would probably lead to a more mundane sport to watch overall. as i said i like the idea of budget caps, but being honest, the ideal cap number for me would be one that allows Williams to be in the mix and less about protecting the small teams like Sauber and Manor. ultimately it still has to be high...like plus 200mil a year and increase each year. the small teams will never hit those budgets cap or no cap and sadly would still face the same problem of folding. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
2 Jan 2017, 19:13 (Ref:3699742) | #138 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,549
|
If the current bonuses that Bernie's favored teams get were removed and every team was to get another £20 million from Bernie it would leave a more even playing field and Bernie would have some change in his pocket.
If that were to happen only 3 teams would lose a significant amount of money namely Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes. Mclaren would lose about £5 million and everybody else would gain Fat chance of that happening though. |
|
|
3 Jan 2017, 07:41 (Ref:3699840) | #139 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,179
|
The BRDC are saying that the future for the British GP is 'bleak' and are apealing to Liberty regarding a freeze or cut in the hosting fee. So it will be interesting to see what response they get and no doubt part of what Liberty has bought is the heritage of F1's heartland that sells it to the rest of the world.
If the BRDC get any support from Liberty we can expect a queue behind them from other significant but struggling venues, which could ultimately impact on the figures quoted that go to the teams as they are determined from the overall income. |
|
|
3 Jan 2017, 08:37 (Ref:3699851) | #140 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 8,298
|
The hosting fees are utterly preposterous, when you consider Bernie also owns the trackside advertising too, so the only way BRDC can recoup money is to force ticket prices up and up.
These are the things that need sorting out, not the teams budgets. There is not much you can do about that and all sport suffers from disparity. Also, hosting fees have now dripped down into all sorts of rubbish championships that do not slightly warrant hosting fees, like SBK, WRX, WTCC. And them having that fee means the series does not go to good tracks, it goes to tracks that can afford the hosting fee and has the budget to cover it. This also means series never have a stable calendar, as when you sign a deal to host a series, it is never just for one year, usually two or three, to hold tracks in for profit for a while and make sure the revenue is steady for at least a few years. It is ruthless money making and is part of the reason why motorsport as a spectator sport is falling off a cliff. |
||
|
3 Jan 2017, 09:05 (Ref:3699858) | #141 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,179
|
Silverstone have hit the ceiling on ticket prices, hence the predicament they find themselves in. The guy who came in to turn the business around cut the general ticket price but of course that they needs even higher sales to get the same income, following which there was a plan to create another 25,000 grandstand seats as an 'arena' layout, but they have no funds to build those.
Sorry OT! |
|
|
3 Jan 2017, 10:17 (Ref:3699868) | #142 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Chunder is correct IMO, as most posters know I feel personally that there is no chance of a budget cap working. Better distribution of income, perhaps not purely on merit but with the equivalent of starting money (equal for all starters) plus reward for points scored. I wonder if we should consider points for all finishers? I see this as an urgent matter but we could lose a big name.
Newey has reignited the wind tunnel ban idea but that is not workable and would impact most on the smaller teams who do not have a bank of knowledge to call on. In any case you cannot ban wind tunnel research by non F1 bodies, Cranfield for example must teach students and students will undertake research. Ferrari will research airflow for the GTE car and so on. If Liberty are serious in wanting to even things out hosting contracts do also need prompt attention. In any commercial activity there has to be an element of risk and reward |
||
|
3 Jan 2017, 10:30 (Ref:3699873) | #143 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 8,298
|
It is fairly hilarious the Silverstone thing, especially when you consider they have just announced plans to build a rallycross circuit! lol.
Budget caps never work, unless you want to introduce a spec formula. And even then if a team wants to attract a huge sponsor and the budget cap is say 100 million, all they do is do what they do in football and say someone like Puma has announced a 100 million kit deal or renaming a stadium or whatever. They haven't at all, Puma probably only put in 10, the rest is from Marlboro or Emirates or something. Or has already been paid and this is the teams way of revealing it as per law. There are always ways round it, that's why sports teams have clever lawyers and marketing teams. For me the hosting fees situation needs addressing urgently. It is utterly ruining a lot of worldwide motorsport. Perhaps not the higher echelons like MotoGP and F1 (though quite why we need 4 GP races in Spain is amazing to me, isn't it Dorna you Spanish greedy men). But certainly series like WEC, WTCC, SBK, rallycross, even some big national series. Charging circuits is a thing of a time, it is not a thing of our time, that time is gone and it only still exists because it is seen as the template of how to run a series. Namely F1, no others really warrant hosting fees to the level they are. When you have championships going to places that have no interest, no passions for motorsport and they last the contract length and disappear as quickly, you have to ask questions as to whether they should have even been present or not. But money talks. |
||
|
4 Jan 2017, 15:03 (Ref:3700138) | #144 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Dieter Renkenen poses the question in Autosport as to where do the biggest teams spend (or waste?) all the money and quotes a figure of about £90 million as the real cost of running a two car team.
His piece also suggests that the real difference between the front of the grid and the back is <2 secs measured at Barcelona (he is suggesting for the purpose of the piece Lewis is worth only 1 second over Haryanto). Is the cost of finding those 2 secs really £150 million is his basic question. By my reckoning that is 0.14 secs per corner at that circuit, a small gain in straight line speed would cut that. So what is the real impact of the vast budgets on the performance and again one asks, what would a top driver get out of the Manor car? |
||
|
4 Jan 2017, 15:08 (Ref:3700139) | #145 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Further question of course is, if the smaller teams chose drivers on merit rather than budget how much closer would they be?
|
||
|
4 Jan 2017, 16:42 (Ref:3700153) | #146 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,459
|
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Jan 2017, 22:51 (Ref:3700223) | #147 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 660
|
Quote:
Even if Lewis (for example) did their pre-season testing and told them all the areas that needed improving, they still wouldn't have the resources to put those changes in place and test them. We've seen with Minardi what can happen with a class (albeit young) driver and a small budget. Plus the youngsters these days with access to money can actually drive. The days of Diniz are long gone. |
|||
__________________
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true." -Robert Wilensky |
5 Jan 2017, 07:48 (Ref:3700261) | #148 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 8,298
|
Diniz was not a bad driver in some cases, he got plenty of points and was often closer to the odd team mate than he ought to have been!
There were plenty more pay drivers worse than him! Belmondo, Deletraz, Lavaggi, Amati, Inoue! |
||
|
5 Jan 2017, 11:28 (Ref:3700287) | #149 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,007
|
Quote:
Should a smaller team suddenly find themselves with an extra $20million to spend would they get better/quicker results buying more engineers and developing marginal gains across the whole car or buying one of the first group of drivers? As they say in exams: Discuss Last edited by old man; 5 Jan 2017 at 11:33. |
|||
|
5 Jan 2017, 11:56 (Ref:3700290) | #150 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 8,298
|
I think you will find that even some of the bigger talents on the alleged ladder bought considerable wealth with them to be in F1.
There are rumours that Max and Sainz for instance, though projected as taken on the RB ladder both paid huge amounts to get into the programme. Think about it logically. It is clear to see now that Max was ready for F1, but it was a big risk at the time, backed up by nothing but rumour and hype. That is a big risk for any team to take, and would only be allowed through money, not anything else. Every young buck says they are the next best thing, but it's harder and harder to prove it now and back it up. Don't believe the hype that is spun to you is what I would say. |
||
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anyone who can finance this beauty for me? | Marcus666 | Formula One | 16 | 29 Sep 2012 18:03 |
Car Finance | Carrie | Road Car Forum | 12 | 22 Mar 2002 12:35 |
F1 Finance & Bernie's Empire | Schume | Formula One | 1 | 17 Jul 2000 16:42 |