Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[peebee2]

There were specific reasons why Ford sold JLR.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by peebee2

There were specific reasons why Ford sold JLR.

Well, that's obvious, otherwise they would have continued!

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by peebee2

There were specific reasons why Ford sold JLR.

As I understand it,that was done to avoid having to seek a government bailout in the way that GM did when the banking crisis unfolded.Which leads to the slightly peculiar situation in which GM will be promoting a large luxury car brand to a world in which only a few markets can buy the product-even if they wanted to.Which,given the significantly more expensive fuel cost in many places,not too many will wish to do.Compared to Ford who have ceased making the Mondeo,and soon the Focus and Fiesta won't be available in Europe.I don't understand their marketing strategy,but then I don't have to.



I like the idea of once again having 26 car grids and don't mind which car companies choose to apply their name to the bodywork.What concerns me more is the apparent switch to a franchise system for the enrichment of the team owners and the guaranteed exclusion of new arrivals.as long as an entry fee is paid,and maybe a sum equivalent to the cost cap is lodged in an escrow account ,let them in!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Well, that's obvious, otherwise they would have continued!

Point was very specific reasons that I have never heard quoted anywhere, other than the board member they privately came from.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Point was very specific reasons that I have never heard quoted anywhere, other than the board member they privately came from.

So what were such specific reasons?

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

So what were such specific reasons?

Have you never heard the story of the new head man at the blue oval asking for a list of the top earners,and on seeing it asking"Who is this Edmund Irvine?"The most highly remunerated man in the empire.



At the same sort of time as deciding to offload the European companies they had swept up in times of plenty,since they needed cash to see them through troubled times.

[greentrumpet]

I'm sure there's some logic that escapes me but I never understood why they bought Ghia and Vignale, two respected coachbuilders and turned them both into posh badges on vanilla cars. Always seemed like a waste.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

Have you never heard the story of the new head man at the blue oval asking for a list of the top earners,and on seeing it asking"Who is this Edmund Irvine?"The most highly remunerated man in the empire.



At the same sort of time as deciding to offload the European companies they had swept up in times of plenty,since they needed cash to see them through troubled times.

Yes, I've heard that - but I heard very specific reasons for JLR being sold. Something JLR management did about how they built cars that was contra to a very specific instruction. I realise I probably shouldn't have mentioned if I don't want to share the full detail now though.

[greentrumpet]

IIRC that sort of policy was what hastened the demise of SAAB. They'd always made interesting and high quality cars GM took them over and got ever more involved eventually giving them Vauxhall/Opel platforms to base new models on. SAAB were instructed not to "re-engineer" these platforms but did anyway (what would really be the point of a Vauxhall with a SAAB badge on it?) and this was expensive. This displeased GM and at the time of the next model change they were again told not to mess with it but again did stuff that upset the bosses. I'm sad that we'll no longer see any real SAABs but I wouldn't mourn the demise of Vauxhall/Opel (now part of Stellantis?).

[chillibowl]

i guess this is some sort of official announcement that Audi has now officially bought into Sauber? rather brief and to the point i suppose lol.

https://www.sauber-group.com/motorsp...oup-statement/

The Sauber Group is pleased to announce that, as per the plans outlined in October last year, Audi acquired a minority stake in the Sauber Group in January 2023. This is an important milestone on the way to Audi’s entry in Formula One, scheduled for 2026, for which the Sauber Group will be the German brand’s strategic partner.

[GTRMagic]

Can we ask GoodYear to make a reappearance on the grid?
A more American brand you might have fun finding…

[S griffin]

The FIA have opened the process for new teams now

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fi...grid/10427252/

[bjohnsonsmith]

An interesting piece from Motorsport, ahead of ahead of next week's talks.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/z...-fee/10432731/

[chillibowl]

Liberty is often criticized for being 'too American' in its approach but if it really was using an American rate card, then the entry fee would be much much higher imo.

the most recent NHL expansion team, the Seattle Kraken, had to pay $650m as a fee to the other league owners/teams in order to secure a new professional hockey team in Seattle.

last NFL expansion team, Houston Texans in 2002, 20 years ago had a franchise fee of $700m. today i suspect the amount would be well over 2billion at least plus you would have to build a multi billion dollar stadium (thats like a decade or two of operating capital for an F1 team which is probably close to the life span of these new stadiums).

not sure where the NBA is at but have heard it suggested that a current expansion team would cost 2.5Billion as a direct payment to the existing owners.

imo, at this level of global sport, we really need to be questioning the validity of any potential new entrant who complains about/cant easily come up with a $200m entry fee.

[steve_r]

Yes, things have changed a lot since you could stick a DFV into a used chassis in your garden shed, go racing and be competitive. Not all changes for the better.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Liberty is often criticized for being 'too American' in its approach but if it really was using an American rate card, then the entry fee would be much much higher imo.

the most recent NHL expansion team, the Seattle Kraken, had to pay $650m as a fee to the other league owners/teams in order to secure a new professional hockey team in Seattle.

last NFL expansion team, Houston Texans in 2002, 20 years ago had a franchise fee of $700m. today i suspect the amount would be well over 2billion at least plus you would have to build a multi billion dollar stadium (thats like a decade or two of operating capital for an F1 team which is probably close to the life span of these new stadiums).

not sure where the NBA is at but have heard it suggested that a current expansion team would cost 2.5Billion as a direct payment to the existing owners.

imo, at this level of global sport, we really need to be questioning the validity of any potential new entrant who complains about/cant easily come up with a $200m entry fee.

Interesting details. My only thought is that I perceive NHL, NFL and NBA as relatively well established and with plenty of history/track record with respect to their business model. F1 on the other hand is not new, but the pivot to the new model is still pretty fresh. Even the new power unit cost caps, while in effect now, really is not going to come to full fruition until 2026. But if it continues to be healthy and goes to plan I can imagine the franchise "buy in" amount will go up. But at the end of the day, F1 is not the NHL/NFL/NBA in that there are many other controls those series put into place to facilitate spreading of talent and creation of more level playing fields amongst teams.

But I agree that based upon your numbers, it might be cheap now.

Richard

[chillibowl]

to add to the differences would be the revenue models of the leagues i mentioned.

an NBA team, for example, has 42 home games in which to generate arena revenue plus the league's far more equitable division/share of the TV and advertising revenues that they collect as a whole and then redistribute.

similar for NHL and NFL hence why they can justify a must higher rate of dilution fees when a new team comes in.

so will add, while i believe that the entry fee should be higher for F1, for it to actually be set higher probably requires FOM to offer better terms and revenue sharing among all the teams in general....which is something Liberty has been doing.

[chillibowl]

one last expansion fee detail...

Charlotte FC paid $325m in an expansion fee to the MLS owners to join in 2019.

again, apples, oranges, and arena revenues to the side, that the entry fee for a regional soccer team in heart of motorsports country cost substantially more than a new F1 team based in that region feels like a massive disconnect.

as steve_r said, 'Not all changes for the better.' and while i dont disagree with that, the world is where the world is....sports teams generate a lot of wealth these days so they naturally cost more.

[P38 in workshop]

If a series that is supposed to be a World Championship denies entry to those able and willing to participate,can it really be described in those terms? Perhaps our American contingent could hazard a guess at the position if somebody or other sought to bring an anti-trust case to court.The only criterion that used to apply was paying the entry and lodging a deposit that was gradually refunded as the season progressed.It seems barriers are being imagined and put in place rather too readily.

[chillibowl]

MLB and NFL classify themselves as world championships, enjoy monopoly protections, and charge expansion/relocation/dilution/franchise fees as a barrier to entry.

doesnt seem to be an issue.

but forget the money...does this new team even have a facility or chassis IP yet?

i could be wrong, but the last group of expansion teams had both facilities and IP secured (or with Campos/Hispania a deal with Dallara) before their bids were accepted.

the payment of the bond came after the fact and came with no access to the prize fund for a few years and the financial requirements last time around were much harder then they are now right?

so if we are going by historical standards, has the Andretti bid even met the previous standard of readiness? they may be willing but are they really able?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but forget the money...does this new team even have a facility or chassis IP yet?

Are we talking Andretti or a generic hypothetical entrant. Lets take a hypothetical entry... I will pick General Motors. When you say "facility". Are you talking a location currently setup for F1 design, manufacturing, race support, etc.? No they would not. What about current motorsports operations? I don't know for sure, but I assume they may have some inhouse, but probably mostly partner with other organizations. For example their IMSA GTP project (via Cadillac brand) is run through Chip Ganassi Racing and Action Express racing teams.

If talking Andretti. They do have facilities. The participate in multiple series. Are they as big as established teams? Do they have a super McLaren style center? No, but they don't need to be doing that day one.

Do they have chassis IP? Why would they? Unless you are already producing racing chassis for some other series and you have carved off some of that team to start doing F1 R&D now, there is probably little or no reason to build up an F1 design team until you have an entry.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so if we are going by historical standards, has the Andretti bid even met the previous standard of readiness? they may be willing but are they really able?

Historically, outside of Haas, most all new entries have crashed and burnt. So lessons can be learned from those efforts, and we all can challenge the idea of a US team being based in US, but in general, I think Andretti should be allowed in. He may fail, but it seems like each time a bar is put up, it seems to be raised higher. Or the internal peanut gallery publicly says "no" (imagine what they are saying in private).

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

MLB and NFL classify themselves as world championships, enjoy monopoly protections, and charge expansion/relocation/dilution/franchise fees as a barrier to entry.

doesnt seem to be an issue.

but forget the money...does this new team even have a facility or chassis IP yet?

i could be wrong, but the last group of expansion teams had both facilities and IP secured (or with Campos/Hispania a deal with Dallara) before their bids were accepted.

the payment of the bond came after the fact and came with no access to the prize fund for a few years and the financial requirements last time around were much harder then they are now right?

so if we are going by historical standards, has the Andretti bid even met the previous standard of readiness? they may be willing but are they really able?

The difference with the new teams that came into F1 in 2010, compared to now, is the FIA had to select three new teams in 2009 out of 15 applications, that's why those teams had both facilities and IP secured. Andretti Autosport isn't facing a selection battle with other teams and is hoping to race in F1 in 2026, when the new regulations come in.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

...there is probably little or no reason to build up an F1 design team until you have an entry....

and thats the rub!

no need to build a team, start designing a car, build a bespoke facility (which i believe they said they would still need to build) until they get their entry approved right? this stuff is expensive so more than understandable they would want to wait for approval before spending....makes sense.

that said, the disconnect for me remains...why hasn't their financing plan already taken into account this 200m payment? why are they complaining so much about it? why are they calling out the other teams about it?

200m is a lot but in F1 terms its really not and if they dont have it then maybe the Andretti is not as good of a bid as Haas or those others thats crashed and cashed out were? unfortunately we dont have the numbers and can only offer supposition based on what the motorsports media puts out there for us to comment on. for me thats stories about Andretti inferring they dont have enough money to play the game with.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Historically, outside of Haas, most all new entries have crashed and burnt. So lessons can be learned from those efforts, and we all can challenge the idea of a US team being based in US, but in general, I think Andretti should be allowed in. He may fail, but it seems like each time a bar is put up, it seems to be raised higher. Or the internal peanut gallery publicly says "no" (imagine what they are saying in private).

Richard

while the entrance fee has gone up budgets have been brought down and prize and tv money is moving towards a more equitable distribution...arguably Liberty have made it easier for teams, particularly teams at the back of the grid, to stay viable.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The difference with the new teams that came into F1 in 2010, compared to now, is the FIA had to select three new teams in 2009 out of 15 applications, that's why those teams had both facilities and IP secured. Andretti Autosport isn't facing a selection battle with other teams and is hoping to race in F1 in 2026, when the new regulations come in.

fair point. if we had a sense of what other bids were to look like then perhaps i would see the Andretti bid in a more favourable light.

i hate to keep on harping on about this, but so far their main argument for entry is that F1 costs too much money and/or everyone is too greedy then i cant help but think they are not of the right mindset to participate in F1.