Fogliacattivo to Arrivabene?
Discussion
pewe said:
Prescient words.
They are blaming lack of success to "management failures" - no sh*t Sherlock - strikes me it's a poison chalice for whomever takes up the post.
I did however say when he was originally appointed that Arrivabene would morph into Andatomale - should have had money on it, though to be fair a 4 year tenure at Ferrari isn't bad.
Now let's see if RB pops his head over the parapet again...
Ferrari, whilst maybe good profit margins, are still a low volume manufacturer compared to Mercedes. I know, they have the 'might' of the Fiat group behind them but even then, will still fall way short of the Mercedes empire.They are blaming lack of success to "management failures" - no sh*t Sherlock - strikes me it's a poison chalice for whomever takes up the post.
I did however say when he was originally appointed that Arrivabene would morph into Andatomale - should have had money on it, though to be fair a 4 year tenure at Ferrari isn't bad.
Now let's see if RB pops his head over the parapet again...
In this business, money talks, bull*hit walks...
I know there's been lots of effort to try and level the playing field, but in my opinion, the regulations also favour (reliability for example) favour those with money to get the R&D correct to maintain these requirements.
Whilst expertise and correct appointment of suitable individuals will always help, the likes of Ferrari / RB will always struggle against the huge corporate machines such as Mercedes.
Nors said:
Ferrari, whilst maybe good profit margins, are still a low volume manufacturer compared to Mercedes. I know, they have the 'might' of the Fiat group behind them but even then, will still fall way short of the Mercedes empire.
In this business, money talks, bull*hit walks...
I know there's been lots of effort to try and level the playing field, but in my opinion, the regulations also favour (reliability for example) favour those with money to get the R&D correct to maintain these requirements.
Whilst expertise and correct appointment of suitable individuals will always help, the likes of Ferrari / RB will always struggle against the huge corporate machines such as Mercedes.
huge corporate machine means nothing without the right people, try telling Toyota or ford or Honda.In this business, money talks, bull*hit walks...
I know there's been lots of effort to try and level the playing field, but in my opinion, the regulations also favour (reliability for example) favour those with money to get the R&D correct to maintain these requirements.
Whilst expertise and correct appointment of suitable individuals will always help, the likes of Ferrari / RB will always struggle against the huge corporate machines such as Mercedes.
Nors said:
Ferrari, whilst maybe good profit margins, are still a low volume manufacturer compared to Mercedes. I know, they have the 'might' of the Fiat group behind them but even then, will still fall way short of the Mercedes empire.
In this business, money talks, bull*hit walks...
I know there's been lots of effort to try and level the playing field, but in my opinion, the regulations also favour (reliability for example) favour those with money to get the R&D correct to maintain these requirements.
Whilst expertise and correct appointment of suitable individuals will always help, the likes of Ferrari / RB will always struggle against the huge corporate machines such as Mercedes.
I’m not sure you can alliterate the Ferrari F1 team scenario equally with the Mercedes F1 operation. In this business, money talks, bull*hit walks...
I know there's been lots of effort to try and level the playing field, but in my opinion, the regulations also favour (reliability for example) favour those with money to get the R&D correct to maintain these requirements.
Whilst expertise and correct appointment of suitable individuals will always help, the likes of Ferrari / RB will always struggle against the huge corporate machines such as Mercedes.
Please correct if wrong, but still believe Ferrari don’t break out individual figures for its F1 effort as it’s a division of the manufacturer not a separate entity owned by a corporation (like Mercedes). Things might be less opaque since the float but still think this to hold.
And as for Mercedes, the F1 unit is a completely separately company which has part ownership by IPIC (formerly Aaber). Even though Uebber, Seeger and Kallenius (executives) are jointly on the boards of the F1 operation as well as on Daimler AG, its not within their gift to funnel funds and resource of the senior corporation as and when they see fit to racing duties - no. Under basic corporate guidelines, the partly owned F1 outfit has to wash its face like any other company entity.
On top of that, Woolf is fairly proud of mentioning the fact that the F1 company produces growing turnovers ($275m+) of which Daimler inputs perhaps 10% of that.
To underline: F1 remains highly integrated within Ferrari’s operational costs; Mercedes F1/Brixworth etc is a separate entity at the perimeter of the Daimler AG empire that is more a marketing line item than the recipient of massive board spend. And manages itself accordingly.
tigerkoi said:
To underline: F1 remains highly integrated within Ferrari’s operational costs; Mercedes F1/Brixworth etc is a separate entity at the perimeter of the Daimler AG empire that is more a marketing line item than the recipient of massive board spend. And manages itself accordingly.
In essence Mercedes F1 is a British company that markets German cars.Brexit might put a stop to that
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff