- 28 Nov 08, 16:34#82873
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
From autosport.com:
Formula One may have lost the Canadian and Chinese Grands Prix from its long-term future. The Shanghai officials have stated that the fees they are being charged by F1 mean they are losing way too much money to make it a viable long-term venture. Those at Montreal, who have been working on a rescue package ever since their race was dropped from the calendar a few weeks ago, say much the same thing.
North America and China are two massively important markets for the car manufacturers. We are going for the first time next year to Abu Dhabi, a stone's throw away from Bahrain, a fixture on the calendar since 2004. Both venues are of tiny interest to the car manufacturers.
It seems the more that F1's commercial rights holder chases increased revenues, the less value the sport represents to its participants - and the current economic climate seems to be hastening this process.
Bernie Ecclestone is absolutely obliged, as the representative of the sport's owners CVC, to maximise revenue. The debts incurred by CVC in other areas of its business make this vital. In correspondence with the Canadians, Ecclestone refers to the payment defaults of the previous Montreal promoters and says, "it would be fair to say my board and other key constituents to whom I am accountable are far from happy with the position."
Where is this process leading? The sport is becoming less relevant to the participants and less affordable to the hosts - and at the route of it all is debt that the sport did not incur. An impasse seems to be looming.
In parallel with this, the governing body is trying to control the teams' costs by making F1 ever-more technically restrictive. With this model, F1 participation could be viable because the spend is reduced, so income becomes less important, leaving CVC to prop up its debts by removing money from F1.
In an alternative scenario the car makers set up on their own, revolutionising the way the sport is funded and structured, organising a series with three or more North American races, where they really want to be, probably with street races figuring heavily, charging organisers far less than they pay now. European venues currently facing the end of their F1 days - Magny-Cours, Silverstone, Hockenheim, Imola - may be reinvigorated for much the same reasons.
But the manufacturers have been on the brink of this before and didn't go through with it. The weakness was always Ferrari, without whom the manufacturer championship would be seriously devalued, especially if the Scuderia was in a competing series. Ecclestone did a deal with Ferrari and suddenly the threatened breakaway series dissolved. But now Ferrari is apparently on-side with all the other teams, with Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemelo chairman of teams' association FOTA.
An awful lot hangs on just how committed Luca is to the unity of the teams' association, whether if push came to shove he could pass up favouring Ferrari for the common good. Most of the other teams desperately want to believe he would, because if the major players remain united, they hold a formidably powerful hand.
The obvious lines of weakness - the places where Bernie and Max Mosley will be looking to split the team unity apart - are the independent teams Williams, Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Force India. Their financial plight, whereby the budgets they can raise from the outside world are smaller than their costs, make them liable to go with anyone that can secure them a future. Could that have been one of the factors in McLaren-Mercedes creating a partnership with Force India - to keep them on side?
Which sounds more appealing: a series with a mix of US street races, traditional European venues, plus probably Japan, China and Australia with technically diverse cars? Or a version of GP2 labelled F1 with precious few European rounds, none in North America but plenty in the Middle East?
There is probably only a small window of opportunity for the car makers to get such a series up and running. If F1 continues not going to venues they really want to be at and going instead to places of little use to them, dictated by the commercial interests of an entity that shares none of their values, then the various boards will surely signal a pull-out from F1. If, on the other hand, the sporting departments can convince their boards of the teams' united vision to go ahead, then CVC - together with the FIA's vision of single-make F1 racing - could be left high and dry.
Remember, though, when CVC bought F1 it used money from investors such as RBS. The British government bailed out that bank to the tune of £5 billion, so as a British tax payer you partly own F1 now. In the scenario outlined above, you wouldn't. Could you live with that? I could.
Formula One may have lost the Canadian and Chinese Grands Prix from its long-term future. The Shanghai officials have stated that the fees they are being charged by F1 mean they are losing way too much money to make it a viable long-term venture. Those at Montreal, who have been working on a rescue package ever since their race was dropped from the calendar a few weeks ago, say much the same thing.
North America and China are two massively important markets for the car manufacturers. We are going for the first time next year to Abu Dhabi, a stone's throw away from Bahrain, a fixture on the calendar since 2004. Both venues are of tiny interest to the car manufacturers.
It seems the more that F1's commercial rights holder chases increased revenues, the less value the sport represents to its participants - and the current economic climate seems to be hastening this process.
Bernie Ecclestone is absolutely obliged, as the representative of the sport's owners CVC, to maximise revenue. The debts incurred by CVC in other areas of its business make this vital. In correspondence with the Canadians, Ecclestone refers to the payment defaults of the previous Montreal promoters and says, "it would be fair to say my board and other key constituents to whom I am accountable are far from happy with the position."
Where is this process leading? The sport is becoming less relevant to the participants and less affordable to the hosts - and at the route of it all is debt that the sport did not incur. An impasse seems to be looming.
In parallel with this, the governing body is trying to control the teams' costs by making F1 ever-more technically restrictive. With this model, F1 participation could be viable because the spend is reduced, so income becomes less important, leaving CVC to prop up its debts by removing money from F1.
In an alternative scenario the car makers set up on their own, revolutionising the way the sport is funded and structured, organising a series with three or more North American races, where they really want to be, probably with street races figuring heavily, charging organisers far less than they pay now. European venues currently facing the end of their F1 days - Magny-Cours, Silverstone, Hockenheim, Imola - may be reinvigorated for much the same reasons.
But the manufacturers have been on the brink of this before and didn't go through with it. The weakness was always Ferrari, without whom the manufacturer championship would be seriously devalued, especially if the Scuderia was in a competing series. Ecclestone did a deal with Ferrari and suddenly the threatened breakaway series dissolved. But now Ferrari is apparently on-side with all the other teams, with Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemelo chairman of teams' association FOTA.
An awful lot hangs on just how committed Luca is to the unity of the teams' association, whether if push came to shove he could pass up favouring Ferrari for the common good. Most of the other teams desperately want to believe he would, because if the major players remain united, they hold a formidably powerful hand.
The obvious lines of weakness - the places where Bernie and Max Mosley will be looking to split the team unity apart - are the independent teams Williams, Red Bull/Toro Rosso and Force India. Their financial plight, whereby the budgets they can raise from the outside world are smaller than their costs, make them liable to go with anyone that can secure them a future. Could that have been one of the factors in McLaren-Mercedes creating a partnership with Force India - to keep them on side?
Which sounds more appealing: a series with a mix of US street races, traditional European venues, plus probably Japan, China and Australia with technically diverse cars? Or a version of GP2 labelled F1 with precious few European rounds, none in North America but plenty in the Middle East?
There is probably only a small window of opportunity for the car makers to get such a series up and running. If F1 continues not going to venues they really want to be at and going instead to places of little use to them, dictated by the commercial interests of an entity that shares none of their values, then the various boards will surely signal a pull-out from F1. If, on the other hand, the sporting departments can convince their boards of the teams' united vision to go ahead, then CVC - together with the FIA's vision of single-make F1 racing - could be left high and dry.
Remember, though, when CVC bought F1 it used money from investors such as RBS. The British government bailed out that bank to the tune of £5 billion, so as a British tax payer you partly own F1 now. In the scenario outlined above, you wouldn't. Could you live with that? I could.
Ayrton Senna: WDC 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991
McLaren: WCC 1974, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2007
McLaren: WDC 1974, 1976, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999, 2008
