Quote:
Originally Posted by peebee2
When you think of the endless nightmare Sauber have in persuading talent to work from Switzerland, the idea of moving to the US is nonsense.
There are many reasons why 8 of the 10 current teams are effectively based in England.
Maybe Andretti would set up a shop in the UK, although spending God knows how much on a new US factory maybe makes me doubt they think that.
Although I still think the odds are against them entering an eleventh team anyway.
|
Andretti is swimming upstream on a few different fronts. First new team vs. purchasing an existing one. The location issue as you say. They say they will be based in the US, but with a support location in the UK. I agree with you that this will create recruiting challenges. Existing staff in the UK (especially those with deep roots such as children in school, etc.) may have little interest in relocating. Conversely, it may bring in some new blood from the US that may not have much interest in moving to the UK. Not saying that balances things out, but I do think it is true. At the end of the day I would love to see them make it work just to see if it add something new.
And, what is so interesting about that "new" thing is that the teams and FOM keep calling out that a new team needs to bring something special to the table. What is not special about a new team located in a different part of the world. For good or bad, F1 has become this small island of incestous co-habitation all within a stone throws away from each other in central England. Why does the sport advocate for more of the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crmalcolm
There are some interesting views coming from inside F1.
Gunther Steiner - 'You've got 10 very good teams or good teams, they're all stable. Why should we change something if it works like this? At the moment, we are in a good place. [...] The dilution fund was set a few years ago, when the value of Formula 1 was different. I think one of the things will be, should we readjust it to current market rate, which is a lot more than that one?'
|
What is glorious about Steiner's comment is that he effectively is saying Haas shouldn't have been brought in earlier. There is no reason why his argument couldn't be applied to them as well. Just change the date.
The anti-dilution fee is mostly another topic. What is interesting is that the teams live and breath by the Concorde agreement. So the the parts they love are considered sacred while those they don't like are considered negotiable or even non-applicable. Maybe at the time they signed it, they should have baked in some adjustments to that fee based upon overall value of the teams vs. a fixed amount.
Granted, I think there is some vague wording about protecting value of teams or something, but that can be worked out if FOM desires to put in the effort and make the pie larger.
Richard