Marussia to miss Austin GP
Discussion
to try and argue that the costs of these new powertrains is not a major factor in this financial meltdown is laughable.
the only thing it does is demonstrate the financial failure of the current green agenda.
(you only have to look at every mandated green initiative to see the same levels of financial incompetence).
Now, I am not saying this is the only issue/reason F1 is skint, but it sure as hell is not helping.
way I see it, something has to give soon, the staggering amounts of money in the sport being syphoned off to the point the teams and ccts are all going bankrupt is nothing sort of a time bomb, and the sport of F1 is the victim.
the only thing it does is demonstrate the financial failure of the current green agenda.
(you only have to look at every mandated green initiative to see the same levels of financial incompetence).
Now, I am not saying this is the only issue/reason F1 is skint, but it sure as hell is not helping.
way I see it, something has to give soon, the staggering amounts of money in the sport being syphoned off to the point the teams and ccts are all going bankrupt is nothing sort of a time bomb, and the sport of F1 is the victim.
Chrisgr31 said:
ash73 said:
I can't see anyone being interested, if a team like Williams can't turn a profit lying third in the constructors, wtf?
Except arguably Williams sponsorship income will have been adversely affect by their results over the last couple of years and they have had to spend to get to 3rd. If they still make losses next year then of course one would be right to question the model.As I see it, the two viable team strategies in F1 are manufacturers w
e or rich man's plaything.Scuffers said:
to try and argue that the costs of these new powertrains is not a major factor in this financial meltdown is laughable.
the only thing it does is demonstrate the financial failure of the current green agenda.
(you only have to look at every mandated green initiative to see the same levels of financial incompetence).
Now, I am not saying this is the only issue/reason F1 is skint, but it sure as hell is not helping.
way I see it, something has to give soon, the staggering amounts of money in the sport being syphoned off to the point the teams and ccts are all going bankrupt is nothing sort of a time bomb, and the sport of F1 is the victim.
Totally agree. F1 will look very different in a couple of years. It will have too.the only thing it does is demonstrate the financial failure of the current green agenda.
(you only have to look at every mandated green initiative to see the same levels of financial incompetence).
Now, I am not saying this is the only issue/reason F1 is skint, but it sure as hell is not helping.
way I see it, something has to give soon, the staggering amounts of money in the sport being syphoned off to the point the teams and ccts are all going bankrupt is nothing sort of a time bomb, and the sport of F1 is the victim.
Scuffers said:
way I see it, something has to give soon, the staggering amounts of money in the sport being syphoned off to the point the teams and ccts are all going bankrupt is nothing sort of a time bomb, and the sport of F1 is the victim.
100% agree.Any sport that wants to guarantee its future and longevity MUST have a scheme of some sort in place to allow newcomers and tiddlers the space and funding to survive the tough early years. The current set-up is commercial Darwinism at its harshest - with the strong surviving and the weak going to the wall.
The trouble is that as the expenses climb inexorably - and sponsorship declines, this inability to survive the financial pressure will creep further up the grid.
Its difficult to imagine Renault remaining in F1 for the long term, given their lack of high performance cars, poor F1 engine performance and general decline in their share of the car market, plus I would be surprised if more than 1 in 20 of their new car customers were even aware of their F1 engines let alone bought a Renault because of it.
There are just too many vested and entrenched interests in F1 to see it change and I suspect there will be gradual decline over the next few years with lots of gimicks like double points etc as the FIA chases an ageing and declining audience.
There are just too many vested and entrenched interests in F1 to see it change and I suspect there will be gradual decline over the next few years with lots of gimicks like double points etc as the FIA chases an ageing and declining audience.
Eric Mc said:
100% agree.
Any sport that wants to guarantee its future and longevity MUST have a scheme of some sort in place to allow newcomers and tiddlers the space and funding to survive the tough early years. The current set-up is commercial Darwinism at its harshest - with the strong surviving and the weak going to the wall.
The trouble is that as the expenses climb inexorably - and sponsorship declines, this inability to survive the financial pressure will creep further up the grid.
For a sport where teams are dependent on sponsorship to survive, the growing shift towards pay-to-view can't be helping either. Audience numbers are falling as it becomes ever more expensive to simply watch F1 on TV, with the consequent reduction in exposure for the sponsors.Any sport that wants to guarantee its future and longevity MUST have a scheme of some sort in place to allow newcomers and tiddlers the space and funding to survive the tough early years. The current set-up is commercial Darwinism at its harshest - with the strong surviving and the weak going to the wall.
The trouble is that as the expenses climb inexorably - and sponsorship declines, this inability to survive the financial pressure will creep further up the grid.
Not to mention the ludicrous situation where circuits can't even break even hosting a GP thanks to the huge fees ( and I understand that during a GP the trackside advertising revenue goes to FOM too, not the circuit ) which increase anually - then get told by Bernie they need to spend squillons on improvements......
It is simply unsustainable
OK, here's a thought...
if you start again, using everyday tech that's already well known, just how much would it take to build a couple of cars and run them for a year?
take out all the excessive hospitality costs, (the Red Bull Power station, etc), loose the hanger's on, and just get back to what's required to run the cars etc.
The very idea a totally st back of the grid team have out-spent a ~£50m (is that right?) budget is laughable.
the ccts then are paying what? £20M a pop to host the races?
and we wonder why the grids are shrinking and all?
GP2 is already stupid money (for what it is) but gives a good pointer to what it takes to get competitive real racing.
If we could rid the sport of the finance c**ts and other such hangers-on, we might just get out sport back.
if you start again, using everyday tech that's already well known, just how much would it take to build a couple of cars and run them for a year?
take out all the excessive hospitality costs, (the Red Bull Power station, etc), loose the hanger's on, and just get back to what's required to run the cars etc.
The very idea a totally s
t back of the grid team have out-spent a ~£50m (is that right?) budget is laughable.the ccts then are paying what? £20M a pop to host the races?
and we wonder why the grids are shrinking and all?
GP2 is already stupid money (for what it is) but gives a good pointer to what it takes to get competitive real racing.
If we could rid the sport of the finance c**ts and other such hangers-on, we might just get out sport back.
MartG said:
For a sport where teams are dependent on sponsorship to survive, the growing shift towards pay-to-view can't be helping either. Audience numbers are falling as it becomes ever more expensive to simply watch F1 on TV, with the consequent reduction in exposure for the sponsors.
Not to mention the ludicrous situation where circuits can't even break even hosting a GP thanks to the huge fees ( and I understand that during a GP the trackside advertising revenue goes to FOM too, not the circuit ) which increase anually - then get told by Bernie they need to spend squillons on improvements......
It is simply unsustainable
It doesnt take long to do the sums to realise that Sky could be making a huge sum from Pay per View and can therefore bid huge amounts for the TV coverage.Not to mention the ludicrous situation where circuits can't even break even hosting a GP thanks to the huge fees ( and I understand that during a GP the trackside advertising revenue goes to FOM too, not the circuit ) which increase anually - then get told by Bernie they need to spend squillons on improvements......
It is simply unsustainable
However that model only works if large proportions from TV go to the participants, because as you say traditional sponsors will not like the reduced viewing figures.
Mind you does raise the question as to how you get new fans if they can't view it to get interested.
ajprice said:
If Marussia F1 survive to 2015, how much money would they get from the 2 championship points scored by Bianchi this year?
This is a few years old but go's through how it's worked out.http://www.hindustantimes.com/motor-sports/topstor...
ajprice said:
If Marussia F1 survive to 2015, how much money would they get from the 2 championship points scored by Bianchi this year?
If the analysis and figures in this article are correct then it will be in the region of $50M. They will finish top 10 two years running to qualify for the column 1 payment, plus the prize money for ninth or tenth in the WCC this year.http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1955397-formula...
Chrisgr31 said:
I know but Pay TV is much more common these days. Seems that Sky now costs £46 a month to get F1, so thats £544 a year. For Russia they had 665,000 viewers!
Well, yes and noI get F1 and don't pay that, it was free with HD.
If they want me to pay for it, not going to happen.
Chrisgr31 said:
I know but Pay TV is much more common these days. Seems that Sky now costs £46 a month to get F1, so thats £544 a year. For Russia they had 665,000 viewers!
I wonder how many extra subscribers Sky has gained since getting F1. It won't be anywhere near 665k, I bet. The BBC regularly outscores Sky for viewer numbers 5:1 when they both show the same race live, and even when the BBC only has delayed highlights that ratio is still 3:1, with fewer overall viewers (ie Sky don't really gain much when they have no live competition). Only a small proportion of current F1 viewers would be prepared to pay for it if it was the only way to watch. If the BBC dropped their coverage entirely and Sky became the only choice for UK viewers I'm sure there would be a few more Sky subscribers from the diehard F1 fans, but most casual fans would just drop away from the sport and overall viewer numbers would drop further. This has already happened in France where it is PPV or nothing. Nobody in the business of F1 wants this to happen, as without the viewers the business model does not add up and the sport becomes worthless.
Meanwhile, Sky appear to be systematically buying up F1 broadcasting rights all over Europe, and free-to-air is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff