FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
#69616
From autosport.com:

By Jonathan Noble Friday, October 3rd 2008, 10:04 GMT

Formula One teams are considering a major overhaul of the sport's constructors' championship prize money structure in a move to help the smaller teams survive, autosport.com can reveal.

As part of the ongoing evaluation by the new Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) about ways to improve grand prix racing, one concept that is being looked at is for the commercial revenue given to teams to be shared equally among them.

The present financial structure is a meritocracy - where payments are weighted on a team's final constructors' championship position. The higher a team finishes in the constructors' championship, the bigger share they get of the estimated $500 million (USD) revenue that is currently given to them by Formula One Management (FOM).

Although such a structure has been accepted for many years, the huge increase in F1's costs, allied to the difficult world financial climate, has prompted talk of ways to make things more even.

Formula One commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone has floated the idea of a new system being put in place - whereby the money is split equally. The matter is now being discussed inside FOTA - with the idea garnering some support.

Although the teams at the front may block the rule change because it would mean them getting less amoney, the rules of FOTA mean that only seven votes are needed among teams for a motion to carry.

Autosport.com understands four teams are already in favour of the idea - which would be enough to swing matters if there was a requirement for seven votes to prevent it going through.

One team principal source told autosport.com: "This would be a good way of securing the finances of all teams, without hindering those at the front. Teams that win are able to command more sponsorship money than those at the back anyway, so there will always be benefits to winning."

The hope is that by evening up the constructors' championship payments, it will make the sport more of a level-playing field - and more importantly help secure the future for back of the grid teams that are fighting for survival.

When asked by autosport.com for his feelings on the matter, team boss Frank Williams said: "The problem is that the people who win the most money, Ferrari and McLaren, the big boys, have enormous money and they can spend and spend, buy the best people and buy everything, whereas the small teams never get a chance.

"If you allow the big boys to carry on spending what they spend, it will never allow the second half of the field to compete. You will eventually just crush the second half."

Williams admitted he would have mixed feelings if the matter went to a vote inside FOTA, but conceded that keeping all teams on the grid was now a priority.

"What would we do if the teams were asked to vote on it?" he said. "The survival instinct would say yes. The common sense argument would say yes. But it is not competition in a way.

"So, I don't know. The survival instinct would need to have the upper hand in several establishments, including in Grove, otherwise you are banished to just struggle, struggle, and struggle to try and get back on equal terms."


I think Sir Frank Williams sums up the matter very well. It also has to be said that it's sad to Williams taking about McLaren and Ferrari being the big boys and they not. :(
#69619
I don't think anyone reasonable would oppose that change... The teams who do the best still win more money, but extra cash will help the privateers survive and give them the chance to progress rather than merely falling further and further behind until they ultimately collapse - something we have seen before to some of the all time great teams in the past.
#69624
Why not reduce the entrance fee? Teams still haveto be accepte to compete so it's not like the fee is to keep the riff raff out. Something fishy if you ask me.
#69626
Why not reduce the entrance fee? Teams still haveto be accepte to compete so it's not like the fee is to keep the riff raff out. Something fishy if you ask me.


My guess is that this is supposedly an alternative to the budget cap - something that would really level the playing field, and certain teams wouldn't like that one bit.
#69631
I wonder if you could blame the Credit Crunch on Bernie's ridiculous fees and charges? I reckon if Bernie makes less than £100million profit a month/week/year/day/second/thousandth-of-a-second he would probably reckon he is in a financial crisis.
#69660
This sounds like a good idea. I mean why would the top teams object? They already have more money than the others and even with an evenly distributed prize fund they will have more. Next year should help the smaller teams though with the new regs.
#69665
This sounds like a good idea. I mean why would the top teams object? They already have more money than the others and even with an evenly distributed prize fund they will have more. Next year should help the smaller teams though with the new regs.

At the start yes, but why do suddenly people think that the smaller teams will be able to challenge the likes of McLaren and Ferrari over the long term? Their extra budget will come in handy for exploiting loopholes in the regulations and on developing other aspects of the car's performance. To say that is also assuming that the smaller teams will get their car's design philosophy correct and that the bigger teams will not. If anything, there is more chance of the smaller teams choosing the wrong way to go with their car in order to get the most out of the new regulations because McLaren, to name but one, have clever designing programmes and simulators that smaller teams do not. If a smaller team gets things wrong, they won't be able to catch up almost indefinitely. Look at Williams, for instance. A bigger team will be able to find its feet again over time.
#69669
sounds respobisble

Are you drunk? :hehe:

    See our F1 related articles too!