Ecclestone

[Vaud]

janesmith1950 said:

As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.

There are two elements to consider; the participation itself and the results of that participation. Is it wrong in principle to reward participants both for their results and for their contribution to the wider success of the sport?

By that rationale, istn't it difficult to say Ferrari are wrong in taking advantage of what they bring to the sport? If I were responsible for the success of an organisation, I'd want a representative slice of the pie, wouldn't you?

For me the issue is that the scale of reward at either end of the grid is so extreme that it risks a vicious circle.

After all we don't exactly have a queue of new manufacturers looking to enter, do we? Barriers to entry should be material but not insurmountable - I think you should be able to build a front running team for $75-100M a year and an entrant team for $30M on a sustainable basis...

If we get too many entrants then we can switch to a double header with maybe a rookie team championship as a build up race. Who knows... it just isn't a problem that F1 is facing...

[Quickmoose]

janesmith1950 said:

Quickmoose said:

I'd love it LM faced down Ferrari. jumped up team.
It's beyond reason why an already rich team need to be paid the most just because they've been around a while and are red.
Many many other teams JUST as deserving. They should fall in line or get out.

As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.

There are two elements to consider; the participation itself and the results of that participation. Is it wrong in principle to reward participants both for their results and for their contribution to the wider success of the sport?

By that rationale, istn't it difficult to say Ferrari are wrong in taking advantage of what they bring to the sport? If I were responsible for the success of an organisation, I'd want a representative slice of the pie, wouldn't you?

I'm not sure that should matter.
Would it be ok for Usain Bolt to start the 200m but 10m further forward than the others?
He brings a lot to his sport.
I think it's preposterous.
I realise it's all business, but if Ferrari can't compete on track for it's own publicity, to win, to promote it's brand of road cars, to beat the competition, whilst utilising the sponsorship and advertising opportunities presented but ALSO to be paid more than anyone else just to show up... I wouldn't miss them. Their brand would suffer more from not being able to hang up images of the greats on their factory walls, than F1 would suffer from the lack of a red car.

[rdjohn]

janesmith1950 said:

As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.

I thought this when Lotus disappeared, at the time, it seemed inconceivable.

[Quickmoose]

rdjohn said:

janesmith1950 said:

As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.

I thought this when Lotus disappeared, at the time, it seemed inconceivable.

I need I thought similar, Brabham too amongst others... the sport goes through cycles
Williams dominate, then bring up the back of the midfield
McLaren dominate, then bring up the rear of the midfield
Ferrari dominate, then fall away
Red Bull create something new, dominate and then gall away
Renault dominate then fall away

in the modern era, they could all claim to be a draw, the be huge powers on the grid. Ferrari have and continue to generate their own brand of personal perception... but underneath they're no different today than ever before, and no different from the competition, a power, money hungry machine pushing boundaries through technology.
Every team gets paid the same amount to show up
Get the same from the TV licensing deals
They can generate their own sponsorship cash
Get paid by results

Paying the smaller team who has all the same costs as the bigger ones, but competes with one hand tied behind their back and gets paid less to do so, is plain ridiculous.

[Vaud]

I'd even go as far as to tax them...

Tax the top 2 teams a %. Put that into a fund. The fund pays for new entrants to cover their first year transport and testing costs. Just reduce some of the barriers to entry.

[Derek Smith]

rdjohn said:

janesmith1950 said:

As participants Ferrari are by far the biggest draw in F1. If any other team folded and disappeared off the face of the earth, it wouldn't really have earth shattering implications. If Ferrari left F1 to do something else, the value of F1 would reduce immediately. Whether it would recover is anyone's guess.

I thought this when Lotus disappeared, at the time, it seemed inconceivable.

Indeed. It seemed impossible that the sport would continue as before without so much as a ripple. The history of F1 is littered with famous teams that disappear without fuss.

Ferrari have threatened to withdraw from the sport a number of times but it was rather empty rhetoric. They need F1 as much as F1 needs them. Most other teams, with the possible exception of Williams, could leave the sport and be richer.

As another poster said, it's not so much that success, or at least historical success, is rewarded, but that other teams should not be heavily penalised. The money they get didn't so much come from CVC as from other teams. There was a pot that was available to divvy up. Ferrari got the lion's share.

I've supported teams more than drivers most of my F1 days and I've moved from team to team without any problems. McLaren has been 'my' team since the middle 80s but I'm off to pastures new this season; probably Williams. I think all except Italians would stay committed although I think it would be the death of the Monza GP.

[anonymous-user]

You're all viewing Ferrari as a race team rather than a brand.

As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.

[Vaud]

janesmith1950 said:

You're all viewing Ferrari as a race team rather than a brand.

As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.

It's more like paying a athlete for existing, regardless of their performance, while allowing that athlete to behave like a spoiled brat in the media criticising the sport that is paying him...

Surely the focus should be on rewarding performance and winners. It can't be right that Ferrari can nearly as much for coming 2nd as 1st.

[thegreenhell]

janesmith1950 said:

You're all viewing Ferrari as a race team rather than a brand.

As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.

There is already a mechanism for a team to be paid more than others, and that comes from being successful, not just being. There is also a 'historical' payment that only four teams, including Ferrari, get. If Usain Bolt wasn't so successful, but instead just competed for a very long time with only occasional success then he wouldn't be able to command the bigger fee that he undoubtedly gets.

The previous analogy of the 100m headstart was incorrect. What it should have been is that Bolt gets 5% of the entire cost of hosting the Olympic games just for showing up. Would that sound fair? That's what Ferrari gets from F1, before any 'historical' bonuses or prize money is added.

[MartG]

Give a basic £2.5M per car per race starting money regardless of where they are on the grid - that way even the backmarkers would have a reliable budget of £100M per year. Any prize money for finishing near the front would be on top of that.

[Quickmoose]

janesmith1950 said:

You're all viewing Ferrari as a race team rather than a brand.

As for the 100m analogy, not really. Giving Ferrari more money for merely taking part isn't like giving Bolt a head start. It's like paying him more than other atheletes to turn up and run. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what happens.

It is though.
Money doesn't help Bolt win
Money does help Ferrari win

[SeeFive]

Quickmoose said:

It is though.
Money doesn't help Bolt win
Money does help Ferrari win

Fezza have not had a lot of cash since September 2015 then

[anonymous-user]

Can we put this analogy to bed? Bolt commands bigger appearance fees than his peers because he brings in a much wider audience than there would be without him. Ferrari the same in F1. Their mere presence raises the profile of the competition and as such they feel entitled to a cut of the exra they generate.

If you cannot/do not want to acknowledge that, no problem. Simply carry on being frustrated and angry.

I'm on the McLaren side of the fence btw, and definately not a Ferrari fan.

[Quickmoose]

janesmith1950 said:

Can we put this analogy to bed? Bolt commands bigger appearance fees than his peers because he brings in a much wider audience than there would be without him. Ferrari the same in F1. Their mere presence raises the profile of the competition and as such they feel entitled to a cut of the exra they generate.

If you cannot/do not want to acknowledge that, no problem. Simply carry on being frustrated and angry.

I'm on the McLaren side of the fence btw, and definately not a Ferrari fan.

Happy for it to be ignored. Or deemed wrong by all.
But whilst what you say is true, that both bring audience numbers to their sport...
The cash Bolt gets will not affect his performance in any way NEAR the same extent that the cash that an F1 team gets.
Hopefully that gets acknowledgement also

[aeropilot]

janesmith1950 said:

Can we put this analogy to bed? Bolt commands bigger appearance fees than his peers because he brings in a much wider audience than there would be without him. Ferrari the same in F1. Their mere presence raises the profile of the competition and as such they feel entitled to a cut of the exra they generate.

While historically that was the case, and they still want the world to believe that to be so to get this appearance money.....in reality, I do wonder if in the modern world it would be the case?
I wouldn't be surprised to find that after a year or so, they would be consigned to history as every other old team has been.
The only serious casualty would be the Italian GP, as without Ferrari no one would go, so that would also end.
Other than that, despite Ferrari giving it the big 'F1 is nothing without Ferrari' mantra, I actually think Ferrari need F1 more than F1 needs Ferrari. I'm sure they will still get what they want, and will still be in it, but I would love for Liberty to call their bluff.

[DB7 for ever]

Points make prizes at the end of the day albeit I hear what your saying but its fair to say all the big teams once started at the bottom too and it took them years and success to get to the top of the table and then try and stay there too which is hard.

It would be unfair to award too much money to the lesser teams but a little is fine to help them along the way to success. Its down to them and their sponsers and drivers to do the rest.

Just look at Brawn GP for example and what they managed in just one season. Amazing.

Cheers

fomb said:

I wonder if this will lead to the smaller teams getting a fair share of the prize fund?

[oyster]

The rants about Ferrari are silly.

F1 is a business, an entertainment business. In the same way most professional sports are.

Tiger Woods used to get far more in appearance money than the winner of a tournament, because the organisers used that investment to produce more spectator/sponsor income. Same happens in lots of sports. Happens in movies too. Even within F1 teams (other than Ferrari) drivers can be paid huge variances of salary simply on their marketing value than their driving ability.

[Quickmoose]

oyster said:

The rants about Ferrari are silly.

F1 is a business, an entertainment business. In the same way most professional sports are.

Tiger Woods used to get far more in appearance money than the winner of a tournament, because the organisers used that investment to produce more spectator/sponsor income. Same happens in lots of sports. Happens in movies too. Even within F1 teams (other than Ferrari) drivers can be paid huge variances of salary simply on their marketing value than their driving ability.

Yes but you're missing the (silly) point again.
When it's a sports person predominantly using just their body and perhaps an inanimate object to win, then money really doesn't change the fact that you're either a winner or a loser, notice Djokovic and Murray lose earlier than expected despite millions, vs the other British bloke progressing much further than expected despite having to buy his own shirts from the local supermarket...
Sports that rely on a person and a machine... benefit hugely from bigger money as they can then develop the machine more than the other guys.... and it's fundamentally clear that a good machine will make winners and prize money and increased sponsorship etc etc, whilst the nut behind the wheel will garner attention and be promoted to those richer teams, whilst getting their original team a column inch or a 2 grid places further forward...

[Munter]

oyster said:

The rants about Ferrari are silly.

F1 is a business, an entertainment business. In the same way most professional sports are.

Tiger Woods used to get far more in appearance money than the winner of a tournament, because the organisers used that investment to produce more spectator/sponsor income. Same happens in lots of sports. Happens in movies too. Even within F1 teams (other than Ferrari) drivers can be paid huge variances of salary simply on their marketing value than their driving ability.

In any other case, does giving one participant make them significantly more competitive at the sport.

Was Tiger Woods able to buy/otherwise obtain significantly better clubs and coaches, than his immediate competitors?

There are very few sports where the income translates as significantly to the performance.

You give Sauber an extra 100 million a year, they'll be fighting for wins. Otherwise I expect they'll be fighting not to be last. You give the same to a golfer in the top 50. They'll probably be exactly the same place they would, if you had given them nothing. Bigger house/nicer car though.

[anonymous-user]

Quickmoose said:

Happy for it to be ignored. Or deemed wrong by all.
But whilst what you say is true, that both bring audience numbers to their sport...
The cash Bolt gets will not affect his performance in any way NEAR the same extent that the cash that an F1 team gets.
Hopefully that gets acknowledgement also

I could, but I won't!

Ferrari are sufficiently well funded that I don't think the additional income makes a jot of difference to their chances of designing and running a winning car. In the top 3 or four teams it's down to knowledge, skill and personnel rather than money. Put it another way- do you believe Mercedes won because they have more money at their disposal than Ferrari?