Liberty planning F1 budget cap | Page 7 | FerrariChat

Liberty planning F1 budget cap

Discussion in 'F1' started by william, Dec 18, 2016.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. daytona355

    daytona355 F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Mar 25, 2009
    12,655
    London
    Full Name:
    Sid Korshak
    When they allow teams to spend what they can afford, we have the exciting f1 of the 90’s and early 2000’s. When they artificially limit stuff, we get the **** we have had for the last five seasons..... I know what I’d prefer. The poorer teams knew coming in that they were the poor relations and would be fighting over the scraps from the table.... why do they think, or anyone else think, they should be handed any advantages. As I’ve said before, this isn’t communism, it’s racing, and the richest and fastest win, the poorest are slowest and don’t. Big whoop
     
  2. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    If the regulations I proposed would be enforced, the engines would all be very close to each other (all within 20 or so horsepower). Teams also won't be massively ahead of another by being vastly superior in say the engine department.

    Wheelbase, suspension, overall body design etc all still free. It won't be a spec series, not by a long shot...It's just getting rid of the madness part of it all. Will we see certain teams winning more than others? Of course. No different than any other series, there are always those better organized, or with a better driver, better engineers...But crucially, others will have a chance at competing. We all know right now it takes an extraordinary race for any other car than Ferrari, Red Bull or Mercedes to be on podium.

    With my proposed rules, teams should all be closer to each other. We could very much see a backmarker team like Sauber or Toro Rosso hire great talent and have a genuine shot at a podium or better.
     
  3. P.Singhof

    P.Singhof F1 Rookie

    Apr 19, 2006
    4,810
    Stuttgart, Germany
    Full Name:
    Peter Singhof
    Why would a team like Mercedes agree with that? They (and to a smaller extend Ferrari and Red Bull) do not want to race against equal small teams with the chance of being beaten by Sauber or Williams. They do not compete for the pleasure of racing, they compete for marketing and there for all that counts is winning... a giant company like Mercedes does not care whether it costs them 200 or 300 Million to achieve that, if they want to reach as many potential clients with adds (like in Superbowl) it might be even more expensive.
    They simply want to outspent the smaller teams to make sure they are on top... why? Because they can!!!
    Smaller teams are there to earn Money at the end, bigger to get media, none of them is racing for honour or excitement. And those setting up the series are doing it for money as well... Sad but true

    Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
     
    jgonzalesm6, william and Bas like this.
  4. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    And that's the compromise they need to find. Will F1 survive without Mercedes? Absolutely. Will F1 survive 5 more years of Mercedes domination? My opinion....no. Viewership dropping = fewer sponsors = poorer teams leaving. **** how long has it taken for Mclaren (of all teams) to get a few sponsors?

    Smaller teams are bleeding cash. F1 needs to risk upsetting a giant like Mercedes and call their bluff. If they leave...so be it. Ferrari won't leave. A cheaper sport? Red Bull won't.
     
  5. DeSoto

    DeSoto F1 Veteran

    Nov 26, 2003
    7,482
    Uuuuuhh, well, 1992? 1993? Exciting? Nope.
    1994 was more drama than excitement and 1995 a slapstick comedy starred by Damon Hill.
    1996? Boring.
    Ok, then Ferrari put some good fights, but 2001, 2002 and 2004 were boring if you were not a tifoso.
    2005, easy win for Renault. 2006, not so easy but lots of ********.
    2007 and 2008, OK.
    2009: jeeez, the double deck diffuser, how much excitement...

    Double deck diffuser or Williams´ active suspension ruined entire seasons. Be careful with what you wish for.
     
  6. 375+

    375+ F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 28, 2005
    11,885
    The big 3 will never agree, the FIA is the manufacturers's *****.

    +1 Absolutely

    Bas you need to take on Jean Todt head to head--he can use a stepladder.;)
     
    Bas likes this.
  7. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    One day ;).
     
  8. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    The teams with more money would throw their resources in areas where there is still some freedom left in the rules to get the edge.
    Money is the reason why there is disparity between teams, and how gaps exist.
    Rich teams can invest more resources in strategy, have better designed chassis, better simulators, etc ...

    If we look at the history of F1 from the begining, there has always been teams well on top, and other falling by the wayside.
    Look at Mercedes coming and taking 2 championships without a sweat in 54/55.
    Cooper's advantage in 59/60 disappeared once all the teams adopted rear engines and vanished in the late 60s.
    The first team to get Tobacco money (Lotus) was able to win championships, but collapsed just a few years later.
    McLaren and Williams were the "crème de la crème" for a few years before losing their momentum; they are mid-field teams now.

    Honestly, to put all the teams on equal footing and give them a fair chance of winning, you need a specs series, and that's not what F1 is about.
    F1 is becoming very technical and complicated, and that could be its downfall.
    It's also in the hands of different interests pulling it in opposite directions.
     
  9. 375+

    375+ F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Dec 28, 2005
    11,885
    +1 Agree
     
  10. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447


    Liberty released figures saying the F1 audience has ... increased, no ?

    Mercedes is actually the biggest investor in F1.

    Not only they spend in the region of $400m on their F1 team, but they also supply power units and technical know-how to 2 client teams.

    According to Motorsport, they partly sponsor several GPs in the Far East, and they also underwritte the German GP..

    The FIA will think twice before showing them the door, I think.

    Mercedes will leave one day anyway, they are industrialists first, not a race team.
     
  11. Nortonious

    Nortonious Formula 3

    Sep 20, 2018
    1,065
    TX
    Perhaps there is a secret plan at play: Purposefully cause Formula 1 to implode and make a new formula eerily similar to the current Formula E. Argh! My mechanic predicted the turbo-hybrid era would foretell the death of F1. At the time I laughed it off, but the future looks a bit troubling.
     
  12. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ

    +1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Ferrari can have F1. The sea change in the automotive world is apparent now for all to see. F1 can hang on to itself and be left behind. For all intent and purpose this is happening now. Liberty have timed their purchase poorly. Mercedes can easily move on. Ferrari can as well.

    Its a bit about time nothing more. E-driven machines are the literal focus of the industry and self driving as well. Enjoy the next few years of F1 as is and personally I will.

    Nico Rosberg it completely correct in Davos stating that F1 will need to move to E. They know it and will not state so publicly. The fight about budget is silly. The fight or debate is about F1 itself and the formula of the future, if there is F1 in the future. The rest is silly.
     
    william likes this.
  13. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    Image Unavailable, Please Login

    2018 not on this graph but it was up. Only logical reason I can think of was because there was some form of competition.

    Biggest investor in F1....I need more on that? They spend money on their team and marketing. Yes could lose German GP. Think we'll live? Dutch GP coming. One for the other etc.
     
  14. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    41,300
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas

    Yes they'll spend more money in other areas, but there's far less performance to be found in those areas. A exercise in futility.

    Nothing wrong with reducing costs ''naturally''. An unpolicable budget cap is not the answer. We'll still have back markers and front runners. Yes those with money are likely to be ahead...I'm not disputing that and that's only logical. What I am arguing is that the sport has become rapidly more expensive than ever before, by the regulations teams/FIA/F1 introduced under false pretenses (cheaper cost of running a team) that made the racing more boring, gap between the fast and slow cars larger than ever and only allowed one team to truly compete for the title.

    Bring the cost down a little by limiting where money can be spend (really not all that much they can do with a basic wing for example) is better for everyone in the long run. A lot of teams in F1 compete knowing they're unlikely to ever win but it is their business. And right now, the business doesn't look good as they're all hemorrhaging money just to stay alive for another season. Bring costs down and these teams will all be much closer together and the racing will improve. Better for the sport. It's better for everyone involved in the long run.
     
    375+ likes this.
  15. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    All I know is that Liberty claimed the audience has picked up in 2018, which they see as a positive sign.

    I don't remember which article I read, where it was said that Mercedes' contribution to F1 was close to $600m, although the team budget was onlly (!!) around $400m, some say $500m..
    They supply power units and technical assistance to Williams and Force India well below cost apparently, and have previously written of. some of Williams' debtsf.
    Mercedes financed the German GP and paid for track upgrades , it was also said.
    Mercedes is also a substantial sponsor in several Far East GPs to improve their footprint in that part of the globe.
    The increase of GPs in that area gives some credibility to that claim.
    The article concluded that Mercedes was the largest contributor to F1 at the moment, so had some leverage with the FIA..
    I can well believe that
     
  16. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    Liberty bought a can of worms; as a business, F1 isn't a safe proposition.
    Bernie worked very hard to keep everything Under control for many years, but he was a cunning operator.

    I agree with Nico's analysis of F1 future, but people don't like it when you state the obvious.
     
  17. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ

    They bought an interesting business in transition. I dont think many realized the transition was underway, certainly not me lol. Bernie probably sensed that when Formula E was taking off. What future plans Liberty publish publicly do not overtly reference Formula-E. Liberty to me have provided minor cosmetic changes and face exactly the same issues with no clear plans to fix any of them.

    Promoter's wanting reduced fee's/budget issues/Small vs Large Team/ Expansion to new markets etc etc. Will there be a London Grand Prix etc etc. All seem a bit small in comparison to the change all around F1, via the automakers promoting a different form of automotive life and power. Liberty has stated they will not negotiate in public over issues but I see the teams doing that to use their leverage at times.
     
  18. Journiacois

    Journiacois Formula Junior

    Dec 28, 2013
    260
    Dordogne, France
    Full Name:
    Gerald
    You have to understand that Liberty Media does not care about the sport, they care about profits. I'm a long term Atlanta Braves Baseball team fan. They got great when Ted Turner owned the club and was willing to pay to bring in the best players. Now they are simply another corporate asset that Liberty acquired when it bought Time/Warner/CNN. Here is a link to an analysis of the results of Liberty owning the club in the last few years published in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution:
    https://www.ajc.com/blog/mike-check/braves-profits-still-not-flowing-payroll-that-could-matter-eventually/lGUzcrEfqS8hGWhMg9pYBL/

    Basically it documents that despite building a new stadium (with huge tax givebacks and investment by the suburban town where it moved to from downtown ATL), there has been no change in the investment into the team. They have the same level of payroll they had before the move despite huge increases in profits. It's about the "real estate" not the team or the wins.

    In part the writer says, "Braves revenue soared by 47 percent in 2017 despite fielding a losing team. Liberty Media hasn’t yet released its final 2018 figures, but its third-quarter operating profit in 2018 was $24 million more than it was in the third quarter of 2017....The Braves got their anticipated revenue surge. Fans did not get their promised increase in payroll. Last summer Braves executives told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the team was more focused on paying down debt for construction loans.". How many billions,($13billion?) did LIberty pay to purchase the F1 franchise. That's a lot of money to make up.

    One other thing, a post above pointed out that F1 viewership went from 800 million to 400 million. That also tracks with the sport going from free to air tv to paid subscription cable. That kills the ability to build and bring in a broader fan base. Liberty does not own a single race venue. Whether fans go to the races or not is essentially irrelevant when you make your money from selling program content and adverts.

    F1 is simply program content for LIberty to maximize revenues at the corporate parent. If they limit costs and payouts, that just flows more to their bottom line.
     
    william and DF1 like this.
  19. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ

    Profits of course shrouded in “improving the show”. I do not have much faith in Liberty longer term
     
    william likes this.
  20. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    F1 has been hijacked by commercial interests sometime ago.
    I understand most successful sports had to endure the same process.

    Liberty wants to improve their profit from both ends of the sport; squeezing the teams and extracting more from the circuit owners and the fans.
    So far, the audience has decreased, according to surveys, maybe it's time for the players (teams and circuits) to walk away from F1.
     
  21. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ

    So the top 3 'agree' LOL - take your 'guess' as to what that 'means' LOL :) -- https://www.planetf1.com/news/formula-1s-top-three-agree-on-budget-cap/

    Red Bull motorsport advisor Dr Helmut Marko says the team, Mercedes and Ferrari are all in agreement over the proposed introduction of a budget cap.

    However, he also confirmed that reports of an agreement being reached with the sport’s owners Liberty Media are inaccurate.

    It had been suggested that a recent F1 strategy group meeting had concluded with teams agreeing on a sliding scale of budget caps – a less expensive grid being one of Liberty’s major aims for Formula One.

    While Ferrari and Mercedes have previously been very vocal against a budget cap, Marko suggested they are now starting to be won over.

    Speaking to Auto Bild, Marko said: “We are still a long way from an agreement.

    “Basically, we agree with Ferrari and Mercedes in terms of numbers, but the other teams are still very critical.

    “We also need to discuss which departments of the racing team fall under the budget limit. Nothing is clear.

    “Controlling it is very difficult to accomplish.

    “How do you know which computer is working for the car company and which is working for Formula 1?”

    Opposition to change is nothing new to Liberty Media, with Red Bull team principal Christian Horner one of their most avid critics over the 2019 rule tweaks designed to promote overtaking.

    A new aero package will come into effect for the new season and will include a less sophisticated front-wing design, simplified front brake ducts with no winglets and a wider, deeper rear wing.
     
  22. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447
    I am just wondering what provoked that U-turn suddenly.

    Maybe they have obtained something in exchange for surrendering their Financial advantage.

    It seems obvious to me, that Liberty wants a budget cap to have less profit to redistribute to teams at the end of the year.
     
    Nortonious likes this.
  23. Nortonious

    Nortonious Formula 3

    Sep 20, 2018
    1,065
    TX
    Is Ferrari serious about WEC Hypercar? With the murky future of F1 and Formula E, could LMP1 be the last refuge of hi-tech ICE (hybrid)?

    Perhaps Ferrari setting aside some money?
     
  24. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    25,447

    As much as I like sports car racing, I have to admit that the WEC is pale in comparison to F1, in terms of prestige and intensity.

    The WEC used to be equal to F1 in the 60s, but over the years, the FIA has messed it up, to finally hand it over to the ACO, that ruined it, to my mind.

    I don't think Le Mans would be a suitable substitute for F1 for Ferrari.
     

Share This Page