[Rumours] Concorde Money, best of the new teams and the potential for sandbagging

[duke_toaster]

Disclaimer - I'm not suggesting anyone actually is sandbagging.

http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2010/...ter-than-10th/

Rough gist : Richard Branson has claimed that the wants the £7 million or so for finishing 10th. However, according to Joe Saward, it might be in a team's interest to avoid 10th place and come 11th, staying a "Column 3 team".

It has always seemed to me that this system - if anything - makes the sport less balanced, by giving crazy amounts of prize money to the top teams. This isn't an issue in somewhere where expenditure isn't critical (like, say, tennis), but in motor racing surely all it serves to do is to make the gap between the front of the grid and the back of the grid bigger. It must be time to give all teams an equal share of the pot, surely. Winning will provide its own financial rewards.

[GolddustMini]

I think that whilst I agree with you that its unfair how the rich get richer etc

HOWEVER

if every team got entry money it would effectively become 'starting money' and a team could use the transportation benefits to bring the cars to the races, start the race then retire, and effectively use the start money to make money out of F1 rather than results, i presume that is the reason that the rules are like they are to force teams to attempt to improve and get some results rather than pootling around at the back, it acts as motivation

[Adam43]

The better the team does the more prize money you should get. I don't see what is wrong with that.

[duke_toaster]

I've outlined the issue. One of the most stable sports leagues in the world, the NFL is so close and commercially stable because all 32 teams get the same share of the shared revenue.

[Adam43]

I see the 'issue', I got it before I read your post. I still don't see what is wrong. Reward success, but make it so that spending cash is diminishing returns.

And maybe the NFL can stay stable and get over their revenue fighting! And perhaps F1 can develop a rule where the worse teams get to pick the best drivers?

[chillibowl]

like a draft?
that would be awesome

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

The better the team does the more prize money you should get. I don't see what is wrong with that.

One of the things F1 has right.
I am not sure that the points should even go as deep as they do!

I still feel there are teams on the grid that have no intention of even developing into front runners. Run by accountants and only interested in maximising returns to their owners. This is an attitude that any revenue sharing agreement must discourage!

One championship point already gets you the next years travelling budget, and I think they all get this now anyway.
In effect they are all getting start money, the idea of which is to cover a competitors expenses for making a race.

[BootsOntheSide]

American sports always strike me as a big irony. They mostly have salary caps, less successful teams get first pick of the new centrally-controlled players, everyone gets points for turning up in NASCAR - basically everything is designed to prevent those with an advantage keeping it forever. And yet in their wider society, those ideas are scorned.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

American sports always strike me as a big irony. They mostly have salary caps, less successful teams get first pick of the new centrally-controlled players, everyone gets points for turning up in NASCAR - basically everything is designed to prevent those with an advantage keeping it forever. And yet in their wider society, those ideas are scorned.

I guess it goes back to "he who has the gold makes the rules" and those with the advantage in American society control the political process.

Or am I missing something?

[Wrex]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

Rough gist : Richard Branson has claimed that the wants the £7 million or so for finishing 10th. However, according to Joe Saward, it might be in a team's interest to avoid 10th place and come 11th, staying a "Column 3 team"

I read this report as well duke, and I have to say, my first impression is that either Joe is misinformed, or his calculator is broken.

I very much doubt the money men of F1 would allow such a simple loop hole to exist.

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by wnut

I still feel there are teams on the grid that have no intention of even developing into front runners. Run by accountants and only interested in maximising returns to their owners. This is an attitude that any revenue sharing agreement must discourage!

Has anyone ever recouped investment in F1 (or Yacht racing)? Sounds like a huge money pit to me. Advertising is there of course, but is it really worth it?

[zac510]

He does suggest but only briefly that this would only be worth it if one of the teams drops out before the season's end. In that case there would only be one Class C team left.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Has anyone ever recouped investment in F1 (or Yacht racing)? Sounds like a huge money pit to me. Advertising is there of course, but is it really worth it?

Have a look at the infrastructure the teams have developed The McLaren Technology Centre, The Williams Technology Park etc.

Then have a look at the houses and estates some of the major players own. Fair enough too, it is a major sport, but do not for a moment believe people like Frank Williams don't make a mint. Ross Brawn made $80 million rolling over Brawn to Mercedes!

F1 can be a nice little earner if you do it right!
Great place for mugs to lose their money too.

[Dutton]

F1 is a small-scale example of the larger structure of society.

There is the tiny elite at the top who own/control/influence everything (F1=Bernie-come-CVC/world=international bankers [arguably goes higher, but let us settle on bankers for now]). Beneath this level there are the regulatory systems (F1=FIA/world=government), which are theoretically the ultimate power, but, in reality, are under the influence/control of the higher level (at absolute best an equal level partner, but that is stretching it).

For the tiny elite, well, money, wealth, possessions, and so on, are meaningless things: it is all effortlessly attainable, so it is all about just getting/maintaining control/influence because you can (it serves your interests). For the regulatory systems, well, they have to justify their own existence, so, well, they churn on creating rules, having reviews, making councils, and so on (they want to keep on proving themselves needed, plus also wanting more control/influence in their rather more limited spheres).

Then there are those beneath each of these. They own the means of production, as it were (F1 = successful (i.e. "top") teams, suppliers, partners, and such; world = corporations in generals, or otherwise globally significant forms/methods of business). These are money making structures. The overall financial numbers are insane. They spend bonkers money on things, but yet they make plenty of profit. How much of this profit goes back to the organisation, and how much into the pockets of the important people, well, that varies. The business itself, though, makes money (even in the systems of F1 which are so massively skewed that the higher up the chain you, the more disproportionally you are rewarded [100% like the "real" global system)]).

The list goes on. It keeps going down, and down, and down. It drops so many levels it is insane. It could make one think infinity might actually be a real thing, as opposed to a mathematical abstraction used to symbolism the unaccountable.

Finally, after something akin to an eternity, you get to us. This group accounts for 99% of all humans. This is we.

Yes, the financial/monetary/commercial system of F1 is absolutely nuts. The same is true of the global system.

Both are utterly bonkers.

Things will change in both cases, given enough time. It is going to need things to get messy first, though.

[Adam43]

Citizen Dutton.

[Teretonga]

If we actully saw the Concorde agreement we would probably find that the top team got about 20% of the available money, the 10th team about 4-5% of the available money, but that is only a fraction of the budget required to make a team work across a year.

So the argument that the revenue should be more evenly shared isn't that valid because the revenue makes up only a small proportion of the top teams budget.

They get several times that amount in advertising/sponsorship revenue. It makes up a greater proportion of the lesser teams budgets because their advertising revenue but that should be reasonably fair because ultimately there should be more reward for the more successful teams from within the sports revenues as opposed to extrnal revenues from sponsorship.

A more equal spread may sound plausible but it is also fair that the successful teams get a greater share of the spoils ina competitive environment. Comparing F1 with team sporets where there is a lot less technology and player skill, strength and athleticism plays a greater part is a little skewed. F1 is different and more akin to major yachting such as an Americas Cup regatta.

The franchise system (whichis essentially what we actually have) is a nonsense. Anyone should be allowed to enter providing they produce a car that complies and reasonably quick (not a mobile chicane).

[Another Bob]

Jess Oh Dutton seems like you've brushing up on your Marxist doctrine.

I think that the money from he Concorde agreement should be divided equally between race entrants and this income thought off more like dividing the gate money. Hey in the early days that's exactly what use to happen pre Concorde agreement.

As everyone has said to the big teams it is only a drop in the bucket, but it could make a hell of a difference to a small team.

I also agree that this franchise arrangement is wrong, and if you meet the rules you can enter, this would be where pre-qualifying would come back in.

[dsg]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The franchise system (whichis essentially what we actually have) is a nonsense. Anyone should be allowed to enter providing they produce a car that complies and reasonably quick (not a mobile chicane).

But doesn't the franchise system guarantee teams compete for the entire season and don't, for example, only show up for particular races or while they are still in championship contention.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Another Bob

I think that the money from he Concorde agreement should be divided equally between race entrants and this income thought off more like dividing the gate money. Hey in the early days that's exactly what use to happen pre Concorde agreement.in.

Except, or course, some teams were more equal than others.

But then people were more likely to come and watch if Ferrari started.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Another Bob

Jess Oh Dutton seems like you've brushing up on your Marxist doctrine.

I think that the money from he Concorde agreement should be divided equally between race entrants and this income thought off more like dividing the gate money. Hey in the early days that's exactly what use to happen pre Concorde agreement.

As everyone has said to the big teams it is only a drop in the bucket, but it could make a hell of a difference to a small team.

I also agree that this franchise arrangement is wrong, and if you meet the rules you can enter, this would be where pre-qualifying would come back in.

Since you scorn Dutton's very cogent theory of economics how about formulating an alternative view so that we can see where Dutton is wrong and how good your theory is.

[Another Bob]

On the contrary wnut, scorn I did not, complimentary of Duttons excellent thesis I was.

[djb]

Originally Posted by Another Bob

On the contrary wnut, scorn I did not, complimentary of Duttons excellent thesis I was.

use the Force India.

oh, and while on the fluffly retort bandwagon,

Originally Posted by chillibowl

like a draft?
that would be awesome

I believe it was in use back when before Monza had the chicanes, just ask John Surtees.

[duke_toaster]

An F1 entry draft would be fruitless as the top teams rarely sign rookie drivers anyway. Before Lewis Hamilton, when was the last time a top 4 WCC team signed a rookie?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by duke_toaster

An F1 entry draft would be fruitless as the top teams rarely sign rookie drivers anyway. Before Lewis Hamilton, when was the last time a top 4 WCC team signed a rookie?

I always thought a draft was akin to a slave market.
Just can't believe that a system can infringe an individual's rights to
such a degree.

The major difference between basketball and team sports are that the players are the major cost and development item, whereas in F1 the driver is only a tiny part of the resources it takes to win a championship.
Maybe in a totally spec formula, but even then the back up team is a very important part of the operation.
In Basketball as long as the coach and players are physically capable, happy and focused everything else is just window dressing

[browney]

ALL the teams generate the revenue by providing racing for us to watch, so I think they should all get an even share of the profit (with the exception of some prize money). How are the smaller teams less entitled to the TV revenue/gate takings?

The rich teams still stay more wealthy by performing well, because they will draw more sponsors and that is the extra revenue that they certainly deserve over the teams that don't perform as well.

Most importantly, I think the racing would be better if the teams were all more competive, which could be helped by giving the teams a more even slice of the money.