FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[sagi58]

Why hasn't someone mentioned an "obvious" expenditure that can be easily mandated?

There should be a cap imposed on driver salaries!! IF they make more from other sources,
such as endorsements, all the more power to them!! A salary cap may also inspire teams
to go out looking for more sponsors.

Win (teams)- win (drivers)- win (sponsors)- WIN (fans), eh?

Why not cap Bernie's profit? The driver's are the ones risking their lives, screw a driver's salary cap.

You're ab-so-freaking-lute-ly right on that one!! Was just about to post that as a separate message!!
But, once again, you beat me to it!!

MORE of the profits SHOULD go back to the teams!!

BUT... saying the drivers put their lives at risk isn't a great argument, since firefighters do that on a daily basis,
as do police officers and all of our armed forces!! And, they don't seem to be asking for a gazillion dollars to do
their jobs one a DAILY basis instead of "just" 20 times a year!!

[CookinFlat6]

Why hasn't someone mentioned an "obvious" expenditure that can be easily mandated?

There should be a cap imposed on driver salaries!! IF they make more from other sources,
such as endorsements, all the more power to them!! A salary cap may also inspire teams
to go out looking for more sponsors.

Win (teams)- win (drivers)- win (sponsors)- WIN (fans), eh?

I dont think any team needs inspiration to look for more sponsors, I think its the sponsors who need more inspiration that the money isnt more efficiently spent in other ways

again, a salary cap is very easy to get around for any company with subsidiaries and contractors, so they would still end up having to out bid each other

[sagi58]

Sounds like Spanky would be okay with Ferrari, Red Bull and Mercedes having 7 cars on the grid each.

That's not what I understand his comments to mean!!

The way I see it, this is a "fantasy" sport!! It's not geared towards "joe-blow-on-the-street" investing $1000
for a quick 90-day turnover in profits!!

IF a team/organization can't stand the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen!! BUT, that doesn't mean
"unlimited" spending!! (To continue the analogy) all sorts of specialty cooking shows give their chefs very
specific items or very stringent costs with which to create gourmet meals with.

I believe it's do-able in F1, too!!

[Jabberwocky]

Maybe spec parts for things that are not really being developed.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

[CookinFlat6]

designing and producing a new chassis each year or when regs change is the obvious candidate for standardisation

[spankyham]

Always amazes me how many people feel that, as non-stakeholders, they can make the best decisions about how much corporations can/should spend on their investments LOL. Mercedes can look after their money, as can Ferrari, McLaren and the rest.

Amazes me more that people are so sure that it will always rationalize down to the biggest player alone. If you get the heck out of the market (minimum rules) the market will sort the rest out. No matter how big McDonalds get there will always be a #2 and #3 and there will always be new market entries. Yes, some will fall by the way, but even the biggest can be beaten by smaller guys - just get the heck out of their way and give them plenty of scope to be creative.

No matter how obvious all that is to me, I'm sure that in the short to medium term we will continue careering down the path to mediocrity. In the desperate belief/hope that if we make it cheaper for the teams (who can easily afford to spend heaps more) the standard wont continue to drop and the predictability won't continue to rise.

To those that panic about the thought that there won't be enough teams left, I would say that, if you really to get down to a minimalist set of rules (I gave a suggestion, but I'm sure there are others - just keep them minimalist) the opposite to your fears may arise. You may get a glut of teams wanting to enter - all with their own "brilliant" idea on how to revolutionize things (just like the fan car or the the 6 wheeler). What's more, there will be successes.

If you think the world is so sophisticated and has emptied the clever ideas bucket, spend a few hours watching some of those inventor programs and read some of the plethora of patents that get registered every day. And guess what, most of these are individuals or small companies - not the giant big spending corporations.

[CookinFlat6]

Then why are Lotus (who are exactly the team behind the big spenders) in a hole for a reported 100mill and likely not to make the grid next year

Why are Marusia/Sauber/Caterham rumored to be discussing merging

Do these 4 teams not watch Dragons den

[spankyham]

Then why are Lotus (who are exactly the team behind the big spenders) in a hole for a reported 100mill and likely not to make the grid next year

Why are Marusia/Sauber/Caterham rumored to be discussing merging

Do these 4 teams not watch Dragons den

There always has been, and always will be teams that merge or fail. When its open and free enough for companies to run their own business and the creatives have minimalist rules that foster their creativity there will be more that want to join.

[CookinFlat6]

So you subscribe to the theory that things have always been as they are now and have not gotten to a critical point? You dont think that right now the costs/income ratio is any different than its ever been?

[spankyham]

So you subscribe to the theory that things have always been as they are now and have not gotten to a critical point? You dont think that right now the costs/income ratio is any different than its ever been?

I subscribe to the theory that the guy who's putting the money up is the guy who should determine how to use it. NOT someone sitting on the outside. Chickens and pigs - it's that simple.

I subscribe to the theory that there will be good time and bad times. Some worse than now and some better. And that in good and bad times some succeed, some fail and some start up.

I'm sure we have a mountain more restrictions and caps now, and I'm confident this stupidity will continue. Just read here - plenty of ideas of how we can add more. I'm convinced it is way harder for teams to make large quick moves forward and I'm equally convinced the season and races are far more predictable.


Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

[CookinFlat6]

This came out earlier in the season, and since then we have seen Lotus define the line for struggling teams. And guess who says its always been like this and there is no issue? Yup Bernie

With the European economic crisis still rattling Formula One, it was not surprising that cash-strapped smaller teams were in trouble at the start of the season.

But when Swiss-based Sauber appeared on the brink of bankruptcy, the sport took notice. The team was eventually bailed out by investors closely linked to the Russian government and included an unusual expectation that an 18-year-old Russian driver might be on the grid for the team next year.

The financial woes Sauber described as "uncomfortable and embarrassing" highlights a long-standing concern that a majority of the 11 teams on the grid are weighed down with debt. Costs are skyrocketing and will continue to be a concern with new engines introduced in 2014.

"We are facing certain challenges, especially economic ones that exist in our world," Sauber principal Monisha Kaltenborn said. All teams "are feeling them to a certain extent. The mid-field feel it more than the bigger ones."

Until now, F1 has generally followed the trend that the teams with deeper pockets inevitably end up with the faster cars and the better drivers. Teams like Ferrari spend up to $250 million a year, according to Formula 1 business consultant Dieter Rencken, or four times as much as the smaller teams like Caterham. In return, they reap a higher proportion of the $1.2 billion in F1 revenue.

And so the gap between the big and small teams has only widened.

The most recent bid to slash costs in F1 came in 2009, after the global financial crisis prompted Honda, Toyota and Super Aguri to withdraw from the sport. Voluntary controls were approved, but those modest measures almost destroyed the sport. Ferrari went to court to stop them, and led a threat to form a breakaway series. That never happened but Ferrari, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Sauber pulled out of the Formula One Teams Association.

The debate over money began again in earnest in 2013 after some teams made sacrifices in the hunt for additional sponsorship. Caterham and Marussia — the weakest teams on the grid — dropped experienced drivers in favor of others who brought financial backing.

"It's definitely not great for the sport. There should be the best," drivers racing, said Timo Glock, who was cut by Marussia. "These days, you need a lot of money or a contact to some of the engine suppliers which can help the team out."

Both teams defended their staffing decisions and insisted the real problem was that F1 had no real plan to ensure it remains sustainable. Marussia's Graeme Lowdon even suggested a salary cap-style system to help combat the economic issues.

"People tune in to watch wheel-to-wheel racing, the best drivers in the world, the best minds at work on the cars," Lowdon said. "The only way you can maximize that is by having a well-designed cost control mechanism."

Currently, the share of the F1 revenue that smaller teams receive under bilateral agreements with F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone is no more than $15 million a year — in contrast to the more than $100 million that Ferrari gets. Marussia is in even worse shape, being the only one of 11 teams without a deal with Ecclestone.

Caterham principal Cyril Abiteboul wants costs cut and a more level playing field, but has reservations about a budget cap.

"Is a budget cap the right answer to cost reductions? I'm not entirely sure this is," he said. "It's creating a lot of issues. How do you enforce it?"

McLaren boss Martin Whitmarsh, who heads FOTA, has urged teams for years to embrace cost controls. He admits the voluntary controls haven't had the impact he would like and suggests the answer is handing authority over to the FIA, which governs the sport. That is vehemently opposed by the big teams.

For his part, Ecclestone says the complaints are nothing new in Formula One.

"There are always people who have lots of money and people who haven't," he said. "The world is like that. There are always people who are successful and people not quite as successful."

[operaman]

If the NHL (under Gary Bettman no less) can broker an agreement among the stakeholders that includes a salary cap, a salary floor, and revenue sharing, while at the same time increasing player salaries and franchise values, then I am sure it can be done in F1. The problem is the "haves" don't want anything to do with a plan that may allow the "have-nots to compete on an equal basis, and they will draw on all manner of emotional, historical or purely fictional context to maintain the status quo.

[What's Burning?]

And then the haves still manage not to win, go figure.

[operaman]

And then the haves still manage not to win, go figure.

Sounds like Ferrari?

[CookinFlat6]

At least the richest team managed to beat the practically bankrupt Lotus this year

even if they had to do it off track due to the mysterious absence of Kimi