planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:11 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 2:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-auto ... er-Steiner

My rant and again I apologize however this is just rubbish!
Haas get's 60 Million from F1 this year and buy pretty much everything from Ferrari have limit less reseources from Haas Manufacturing if they wanted access or if Gene would open his pockets...have good sponsor money and great budget they are maximizing the rules yet still want more. These kind of owners will ruin F1 make it a spec series. I really respect HAAS what they do and how they race so stop the crying and fight Ferrari and MB off the track as well with marketing/ sponsor money and owners that have budget. This relates to all the teams...let's just go racing!

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1603
It is the owners and the regulators that ruin F1.
Mercedes' job should just be to win fairly and they have done - over and over and over and.....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 787
Steiner really winds me up.

It's not down to Merc to hang around and let the others play catch up.

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29607
I understand his sentiment but regarding Brawn they were hardly an underdog, that car was designed and built at great expense by Honda just before they pulled the plug on F1, plus I believe there was maybe political motivation to ignore the perhaps illegality of the double diffuser of the car so as to end the domination of McLaren and Ferrari?

So what Haas hopes for is really a pipe dream in respect to his team winning the WCC considering the drivers he has at his disposal, like Brawn he would have to have a car advantage, but the general closing of the grid plus cars that can actually race against one another is definitely something to strive for.

I put these two things together because if the performance of the cars are greatly reduced given the present rules you would have ridiculous situations of the leaders pitting and then being stuck behind slower cars thus having their races ruined.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
babararacucudada wrote:
It is the owners and the regulators that ruin F1.
Mercedes' job should just be to win fairly and they have done - over and over and over and.....



excellent point very similar to when Ferrari was dominating with MS and they changed the rules completly to stop them ( took away private testing as example). Let the teams race, let them innovate let them test....

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5911
You guys seem to be grossly mischaracterizing his statements. He actually said he thinks Ferrari and Mercedes are on board with the cost cap and that they want to do what's best for the sport.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6481
Location: Nebraska, USA
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:08 pm
Posts: 1603
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
babararacucudada wrote:
It is the owners and the regulators that ruin F1.
Mercedes' job should just be to win fairly and they have done - over and over and over and.....



excellent point very similar to when Ferrari was dominating with MS and they changed the rules completly to stop them ( took away private testing as example). Let the teams race, let them innovate let them test....


What I was getting at was that the owners and regulators should be creating a situation in which you cannot buy your way to success. They should be restricting the teams so that many teams can afford to compete. They should be ensuring that the cars are good race cars, suitable for racing first and foremost, so there will be exciting racing and unpredictable results.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 210
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/1094976/Mercedes-Ferrari-Formula-One-Haas-cost-cap-warning-Guenther-Steiner

My rant and again I apologize however this is just rubbish!
Haas get's 60 Million from F1 this year and buy pretty much everything from Ferrari have limit less reseources from Haas Manufacturing if they wanted access or if Gene would open his pockets...have good sponsor money and great budget they are maximizing the rules yet still want more. These kind of owners will ruin F1 make it a spec series. I really respect HAAS what they do and how they race so stop the crying and fight Ferrari and MB off the track as well with marketing/ sponsor money and owners that have budget. This relates to all the teams...let's just go racing!


I’m sensing from this thread and the gearbox one that you’re afraid of this series becoming a spec series. That you want to let the teams be more innovative and get to racing with unlimited testing.

Are you Adrian Newey?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14396
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)


What does it tell?

Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6564
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)


What does it tell?

Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?

Let's make a poll! :]

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:41 pm
Posts: 31
This is the question you have to ask yourself. Would the racing be more interesting and competitive if Mercedes and Ferrari stayed in the garage?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6481
Location: Nebraska, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)


What does it tell?

Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?


oh goody, here we go again.
;)
There are Ferrari fans who would see a more equitable revenue distribution, including myself, within reason. However, the bonuses given to the historic teams are entirely justified in my opinion. This sport and it's massive revenue base was not built by the likes of Haas and the like. It was built by the commitment over decades to the sport by teams such as Ferrari, McLaren and Wlliams, among others.. There is a reason why Ferrari is the most recognized names in F1, if not in ALL of racing and all teams in F1 benefit by both their past and their presence today. FOM recognized the value of the historic teams as well as the few newer teams that lack the stands and brings in the TV revenue, and they paid them for it. My issue is with the naivete of those who seemingly think that if you give more money to mix and bottom level teams that they will suddenly be able to take on the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes. Just look at McLaren who for decades has been one of the Top financed teams and have what?....one championship since 2000 to show for it? Another $50m (random number) given to each team isn't going to change the pecking order. I see people claiming that small teams are not allowed to compete even to suggesting that they are somehow owed survivability money from the sport...bullroar. Was Ferrari guaranteed financial survival money when they started? McLaren, Williams, Lotus... Or more recently Red Bull, or even Haas? No... They knew coming in what they were facing. I have no problem with the teams wanting a more level distribution and working to get it through the system. I do have a problem with their revenue problems being placed on the shoulders of specific teams...yes, including Ferrari. Take Ferrari (and Merc, McLaren, and/or Red Bull) out of the sport and see how much less revenue to be shared and how many changes F1 would have to make.

I have no problem with a FAIR spending cap...IF you can show me how it can be fairly enforced. Show me how development costs can't be farmed-out of hidden through some other facet of business or such, be it Ferrari, Merc, or whoever. If people want a truly level floor, then go to a spec series, much like what we see in IndyCars. Then watch the likes of Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, and others walk away as it will no longer benefit them to participate. Sure, it can be done...However one should be careful what they ask for.I

Where is the frustration with FOM which, if it still follows bernie's lead, keeps a higher percentage of the revenue than any other major sport that I know of. There is a problem, a lot of problems with F1, that need to be addressed. The revenue distribution is but a part of them.

Now, I have no doubt that this thread is about to be seriously contentious and that is unfortunate. It also doesn't serve me well to go much further in this bi - yearly discussion. Damn, I wish I had saved all the previous discussions, it would save so much hunt-n-pecking.
:lol:

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Posts: 1995
Location: Miami, Florida
I agree with you on many points there, if not all your points Blake, but the percentage doled out just because it far too high, especially if you consider the ginormous influx of cash
Ferrari still receives from their (ssssshhhh!…) Tobacco sponsor. Mercedes has not been in F1 for squat diddly yet they get a nice piece already. And their previous stint in the sport
as far as I'm concerned are like college credits and those credits expired long ago.

The biggest issue with this line of thinking however is… What about other long tenured and DEDICATED teams like Sauber? They've been in the sport the 5th longest of any team
in history and yet they get peanuts in return for it, and have in the past had to plead for special dispensation of the measly prize earnings ahead of the scheduled date so they can
commence work on their next year's car, already at a late hour.
So if Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams get hit up for their tenure, Sauber should get a larger chunk of the pie than both Red Bull and Mercedes, period. If we are to argue that "Staples"
of the sport are deserving of their piece of the pie. And the whole "well, they should have negotiated stronger for themselves" argument is a tired one because a just system would
take all things into account and make sure everything is handled fairly and with acute attention to details and make sure everyone gets their deserved portion.

_________________
HAMILTON :: ALONSO :: VETTEL :: RAIKKONEN :: RICCIARDO :: VERSTAPPEN
BOTTAS :: MAGNUSSEN :: OCON :: SAINZ :: PEREZ :: VANDOORNE :: HULKENBERG
GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: ERICSON :: LECLERC :: STROLL :: SEROTKIN :: HARTLEY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29607
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)


What does it tell?

Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?


oh goody, here we go again.
;)
There are Ferrari fans who would see a more equitable revenue distribution, including myself, within reason. However, the bonuses given to the historic teams are entirely justified in my opinion. This sport and it's massive revenue base was not built by the likes of Haas and the like. It was built by the commitment over decades to the sport by teams such as Ferrari, McLaren and Wlliams, among others.. There is a reason why Ferrari is the most recognized names in F1, if not in ALL of racing and all teams in F1 benefit by both their past and their presence today. FOM recognized the value of the historic teams as well as the few newer teams that lack the stands and brings in the TV revenue, and they paid them for it. My issue is with the naivete of those who seemingly think that if you give more money to mix and bottom level teams that they will suddenly be able to take on the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes. Just look at McLaren who for decades has been one of the Top financed teams and have what?....one championship since 2000 to show for it? Another $50m (random number) given to each team isn't going to change the pecking order. I see people claiming that small teams are not allowed to compete even to suggesting that they are somehow owed survivability money from the sport...bullroar. Was Ferrari guaranteed financial survival money when they started? McLaren, Williams, Lotus... Or more recently Red Bull, or even Haas? No... They knew coming in what they were facing. I have no problem with the teams wanting a more level distribution and working to get it through the system. I do have a problem with their revenue problems being placed on the shoulders of specific teams...yes, including Ferrari. Take Ferrari (and Merc, McLaren, and/or Red Bull) out of the sport and see how much less revenue to be shared and how many changes F1 would have to make.

I have no problem with a FAIR spending cap...IF you can show me how it can be fairly enforced. Show me how development costs can't be farmed-out of hidden through some other facet of business or such, be it Ferrari, Merc, or whoever. If people want a truly level floor, then go to a spec series, much like what we see in IndyCars. Then watch the likes of Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, and others walk away as it will no longer benefit them to participate. Sure, it can be done...However one should be careful what they ask for.I

Where is the frustration with FOM which, if it still follows bernie's lead, keeps a higher percentage of the revenue than any other major sport that I know of. There is a problem, a lot of problems with F1, that need to be addressed. The revenue distribution is but a part of them.

Now, I have no doubt that this thread is about to be seriously contentious and that is unfortunate. It also doesn't serve me well to go much further in this bi - yearly discussion. Damn, I wish I had saved all the previous discussions, it would save so much hunt-n-pecking.
:lol:

A fairer distribution of prize money doesn't mean the smaller teams will beat the likes of Ferrari, it just makes for a more competitive F1. Teams being given special payments goes against what you might consider a fair sporting contest and I don't like the way you suggest these increased payments to teams beneath Ferrari might be seen as some kind of surviveability payment like a hand out given to unemployed people, it's quite telling of how dismissive of these teams you are in compared to Ferrari which the F1 world should revolve around?

These payments would be received as reward to were you finish in the WCC, nominally Ferrari would still be one of the highest paid because of their extra resources, so the payments are earned and not merely hand outs to help teams survive.

So basically F1 is nothing without Ferrari and so Ferrari should be more advantaged than all the other teams, only in F1 is their such archaic views.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 6481
Location: Nebraska, USA
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6966
Blake wrote:
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

Your post is clear Blake


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
Charles LeBrad wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/f1-autosport/1094976/Mercedes-Ferrari-Formula-One-Haas-cost-cap-warning-Guenther-Steiner

My rant and again I apologize however this is just rubbish!
Haas get's 60 Million from F1 this year and buy pretty much everything from Ferrari have limit less reseources from Haas Manufacturing if they wanted access or if Gene would open his pockets...have good sponsor money and great budget they are maximizing the rules yet still want more. These kind of owners will ruin F1 make it a spec series. I really respect HAAS what they do and how they race so stop the crying and fight Ferrari and MB off the track as well with marketing/ sponsor money and owners that have budget. This relates to all the teams...let's just go racing!


I’m sensing from this thread and the gearbox one that you’re afraid of this series becoming a spec series. That you want to let the teams be more innovative and get to racing with unlimited testing.

Are you Adrian Newey?


I wish I was :) thanks for the nice association! yes my concern is that we become a spec series.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
Blake wrote:
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

BIB: You continuously state this as fact yet I find it highly disputable. I would argue that Bernie Ecclestone is the primary reason F1 is the commercial monster that it is, the teams were merely along for the ride and just happened to be there at the time. In fact the whole reason Ecclestone became as powerful as he did was that the teams wanted nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the sport and let him take full responsibility for it, all they wanted to do was turn up and race.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
Blake wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
j man wrote:
Totally agree with Steiner here. The sport would be far more interesting if the revenue distribution allowed someone other than the top three teams to compete at the front. It is very telling that the most vociferous supporters of the current revenue arrangement seem to be Ferrari fans.

it's even more telling that you see it that way.
;)


What does it tell?

Out of interest is there anyone on this forum who supports the current revenue arrangement and is not a Ferrari fan?


oh goody, here we go again.
;)
There are Ferrari fans who would see a more equitable revenue distribution, including myself, within reason. However, the bonuses given to the historic teams are entirely justified in my opinion. This sport and it's massive revenue base was not built by the likes of Haas and the like. It was built by the commitment over decades to the sport by teams such as Ferrari, McLaren and Wlliams, among others.. There is a reason why Ferrari is the most recognized names in F1, if not in ALL of racing and all teams in F1 benefit by both their past and their presence today. FOM recognized the value of the historic teams as well as the few newer teams that lack the stands and brings in the TV revenue, and they paid them for it. My issue is with the naivete of those who seemingly think that if you give more money to mix and bottom level teams that they will suddenly be able to take on the likes of Ferrari and Mercedes. Just look at McLaren who for decades has been one of the Top financed teams and have what?....one championship since 2000 to show for it? Another $50m (random number) given to each team isn't going to change the pecking order. I see people claiming that small teams are not allowed to compete even to suggesting that they are somehow owed survivability money from the sport...bullroar. Was Ferrari guaranteed financial survival money when they started? McLaren, Williams, Lotus... Or more recently Red Bull, or even Haas? No... They knew coming in what they were facing. I have no problem with the teams wanting a more level distribution and working to get it through the system. I do have a problem with their revenue problems being placed on the shoulders of specific teams...yes, including Ferrari. Take Ferrari (and Merc, McLaren, and/or Red Bull) out of the sport and see how much less revenue to be shared and how many changes F1 would have to make.

I have no problem with a FAIR spending cap...IF you can show me how it can be fairly enforced. Show me how development costs can't be farmed-out of hidden through some other facet of business or such, be it Ferrari, Merc, or whoever. If people want a truly level floor, then go to a spec series, much like what we see in IndyCars. Then watch the likes of Ferrari, Mercedes, Red Bull, and others walk away as it will no longer benefit them to participate. Sure, it can be done...However one should be careful what they ask for.I

Where is the frustration with FOM which, if it still follows bernie's lead, keeps a higher percentage of the revenue than any other major sport that I know of. There is a problem, a lot of problems with F1, that need to be addressed. The revenue distribution is but a part of them.

Now, I have no doubt that this thread is about to be seriously contentious and that is unfortunate. It also doesn't serve me well to go much further in this bi - yearly discussion. Damn, I wish I had saved all the previous discussions, it would save so much hunt-n-pecking.
:lol:


Great post.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
j man wrote:
Blake wrote:
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

BIB: You continuously state this as fact yet I find it highly disputable. I would argue that Bernie Ecclestone is the primary reason F1 is the commercial monster that it is, the teams were merely along for the ride and just happened to be there at the time. In fact the whole reason Ecclestone became as powerful as he did was that the teams wanted nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the sport and let him take full responsibility for it, all they wanted to do was turn up and race.


I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
j man wrote:
Blake wrote:
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

BIB: You continuously state this as fact yet I find it highly disputable. I would argue that Bernie Ecclestone is the primary reason F1 is the commercial monster that it is, the teams were merely along for the ride and just happened to be there at the time. In fact the whole reason Ecclestone became as powerful as he did was that the teams wanted nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the sport and let him take full responsibility for it, all they wanted to do was turn up and race.


I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

I'm talking further back in time, I mean back in the 1980s when the sport was really growing commercially and Bernie first seized control of the broadcasting rights. The teams had the opportunity at that time to own the rights collectively, indeed Bernie himself was merely one of the team bosses back then, but the others didn't see the potential or the importance of controlling the broadcasting rights so they handed him control. Bernie then used that control to considerably grow the sport's commercial presence and his own bank balance. It's all in Max Mosley's autobiography.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 1966
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

So what you're saying is that while the F1 teams could have had the baseball model touted earlier, instead Bernie's buying them off one by one tactic (which tore FOTA apart, don't forget) was the way to go? That sounds like you think screwing most of the teams over and favouring Ferrari was actually a GOOD thing. Interesting take.

_________________
Organiser of the single most low-tech Robot Wars tournament in history, PM for details!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6966
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
j man wrote:
Blake wrote:
The last sentence is not what I said, but don't let that get in your way.

I am currently travelling and don't find my phone the easiest way to participate in these discussions, but I believe it You read my post you will find that I did allow for a more equitable distribution of revenue, while stating that in doing so it would not necessarily mean the smaller teams would be more competitive. However, I also believe the Historical payments are justified and find the arguments condemning them to be somewhat of a case of ignoring the fact that the likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams are the primary reason F1 has the massive success and revenues that it enjoys. You can resent what you claim to be my suggestion of survivability payments to the smaller teams,but the simple truth is many have complained that there needs to be a more equitable distribution of revenue so that smaller teams can survive in F1...It isn't something that I made up.

Again, despite how my post has been defined by some, I did say that a more equitable distribution of revenue may be justified, but it doesn't have to be all one way or the other as the poll in the other thread restricts answers to. There could well be a middle ground.

BIB: You continuously state this as fact yet I find it highly disputable. I would argue that Bernie Ecclestone is the primary reason F1 is the commercial monster that it is, the teams were merely along for the ride and just happened to be there at the time. In fact the whole reason Ecclestone became as powerful as he did was that the teams wanted nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the sport and let him take full responsibility for it, all they wanted to do was turn up and race.


I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

In fairness, most people saw the breakaway series (not just once actually) as a way to try and get more money off Bernie, not a serious threat with proper plans and structure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6966
Tufty wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

So what you're saying is that while the F1 teams could have had the baseball model touted earlier, instead Bernie's buying them off one by one tactic (which tore FOTA apart, don't forget) was the way to go? That sounds like you think screwing most of the teams over and favouring Ferrari was actually a GOOD thing. Interesting take.

I think you maybe read it wrong, it was the way to go for Bernie. Not for the teams, I do not think that Astoria is supporting that model.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
Tufty wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
I disagree, Bernie knew that keeping the teams seperate was the way to go...divide and conquer! He knew he had to keep 1 team happy Ferrari he knew Ferrari was the key. No Ferarri no F1. so he made them a sweetheart deal and then made deals with Mclaren and Williams the 3 teams that are most important at the time in f1. Remember MB was only an engine supplier. they alonh with Renault, BMW, Honda, Toyota came in and out of F1 when it suited themselves. Bernie kept these teams away from the commercial side and said hey heres 60 million Ferrari just show up at the GPs we give you more,
Now Luca D. and Martin W former Mclaren lead tried to get the teams together to form a breakaway series that was the way to get teams together and own everything associated with F1 they had a shot and the teams needed more time however concorde agreement was expiring and I think it was Williams that caved in first and that was what Bernoe needed.
The teams could have had more money they ever dreamed of however this is the way of F1. now we need these teams to have the collective balls to breakaway it will be the problem solving golden ticket.

So what you're saying is that while the F1 teams could have had the baseball model touted earlier, instead Bernie's buying them off one by one tactic (which tore FOTA apart, don't forget) was the way to go? That sounds like you think screwing most of the teams over and favouring Ferrari was actually a GOOD thing. Interesting take.



I didn't like this at all, just saying that Bernie knew to take control and own the sport he needed Ferarri and he paid them hansomly for this. Thats what I am saying, since there was no collective negotiations how was Ferrari to know Bernie wasn't giving a bigger deal to Mclaren? So you can't blame the teams that received these large retainers. It was Bernies ability to control these team owners that makes this a problem today.

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
Without the teams owning the commercial right to F1 no salary cap is workable. why is it that Liberty can generate any reven ethey can without any controls yet they need to have the teams reduce costs? Why not just tell Liberty either nincompooper off or give the teams 70% or the revenue?

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6966
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Without the teams owning the commercial right to F1 no salary cap is workable. why is it that Liberty can generate any reven ethey can without any controls yet they need to have the teams reduce costs? Why not just tell Liberty either nincompooper off or give the teams 70% or the revenue?

They just paid a truckload of money for F1, I'm sure they want to recuperate the costs before they give more revenue to the teams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Without the teams owning the commercial right to F1 no salary cap is workable. why is it that Liberty can generate any reven ethey can without any controls yet they need to have the teams reduce costs? Why not just tell Liberty either nincompooper off or give the teams 70% or the revenue?

Totally agree that the sport's ownership structure is a huge problem and Liberty effectively siphon large sums of money away with minimal return for the sport. However that is not something that can be easily fixed and for now I am working with the assumption that it is something we are sadly stuck with. The distribution of the remaining revenue, however, can be changed within the current ownership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2012 3:25 pm
Posts: 468
Location: USA
j man wrote:
AstoriaisBACK wrote:
Without the teams owning the commercial right to F1 no salary cap is workable. why is it that Liberty can generate any reven ethey can without any controls yet they need to have the teams reduce costs? Why not just tell Liberty either nincompooper off or give the teams 70% or the revenue?

Totally agree that the sport's ownership structure is a huge problem and Liberty effectively siphon large sums of money away with minimal return for the sport. However that is not something that can be easily fixed and for now I am working with the assumption that it is something we are sadly stuck with. The distribution of the remaining revenue, however, can be changed within the current ownership.[/quot
Excellent post! I disagree with one part and that is "the distribution of the remaing revenue" the agreement expires in 2020.
why not create another breakaway series? It can be done. FE took only two years to get off the ground, they have sponsors, circuits, tv revenue etc. The FIA would have to sanction whatever the new series is called as FIA gave the rights to commercially use F1 to Bernie ( Max and Bernie WOW 2 people who really did some things...Bernoe good Max all bad).
anyway longer discussion :)

Why not challenge Liberty right now? It could and should be done, if the teams really care about all the things mentioned for cost savings use a different approach what if yoy owned the series again like major sports teams do in North America? Why not? it is totally plausable and can happen. Let's say these billions genereated in revenue now go to the teams it could be massive...wny not

_________________
One.
The best song ever written....thanks Bono
I am the Number 1Tifosi


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group