7 of the 11 F1 teams in Financial survival mode

[IainT]

Fairly detailed piece from Andrew Benson about the money troubles faced by the majority of the F1 teams:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21469518

I'm assuming, as it's not explicitly stated, that the financially stable teams are RBR, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes. It would be a shame to lose any more teams from the grid!

[Gwagon111]

I agree that we need large grids, in order to keep F1 interesting. However, a grid full of basket case teams would do more harm to the rep of the sport, than small grids of competitive teams IMHO.

[Eric Mc]

You would prefer to see 10 cars on a grid each race then?

It would signal the death of F1 if it was allowed to happen.

[IainT]

One concern would be the prevalence of 'pay to race' drivers keeping the truly top talents out of F1.

Equally having teams who cannot compete due to budget to the extent where they're slower than, for example, GP2 cars is no good either.

I think I'm in favour of significant cost-saving measures as long as it can be fairly enforced if the alternative is 10 cars on the grid but I'd rather see free and unlimited competition. Allowing some teams to run 3 cars might be good if we were to lose a few of the teams who cannot afford F1.

[Gwagon111]

Eric Mc said:

You would prefer to see 10 cars on a grid each race then?

It would signal the death of F1 if it was allowed to happen.

If they were all fighting tooth and nail for tenths of seconds, yes. I'd prefer that to a mele, involving half the grid with seconds a lap between them.

[SmoothCriminal]

One) time for Cvc to start giving the teams more money.

Two) why does Ferrari get the highest amount of revenue from f1?

[rallycross]

SmoothCriminal said:

One) time for Cvc to start giving the teams more money.

Two) why does Ferrari get the highest amount of revenue from f1?

Stuff CVC and set up a new series, give the circuits some revenue back, give the teams some more revenue, leave Ferrari and Todt/BCE to play on their own with their absurd financial requiements bleeding the sport dry.

[Eric Mc]

Gwagon111 said:

Eric Mc said:

You would prefer to see 10 cars on a grid each race then?

It would signal the death of F1 if it was allowed to happen.

If they were all fighting tooth and nail for tenths of seconds, yes. I'd prefer that to a mele, involving half the grid with seconds a lap between them.

Well I wouldn't. F1 - and motorsport in general - is about spectacle too.

Small grids usually means a series is dying and eventually leads to it ceasing. F1 came close twice in earlier eras to grinding to a halt. Drastic steps were taken to re-invent the whole formula on those occasions. Perhaps that time has come again.

[Gwagon111]

Eric Mc said:

Well I wouldn't. F1 - and motorsport in general - is about spectacle too.

Small grids usually means a series is dying and eventually leads to it ceasing. F1 came close twice in earlier eras to grinding to a halt. Drastic steps were taken to re-invent the whole formula on those occasions. Perhaps that time has come again.

I see your point. I agree that small grids kill a series, and I also agree that a drastic overhaul is required. I just don't think that the willing is there, from the political masters of the F1 universe. They are hell bent on killing the goose that laid the golden egg, as far as I can see.

[Eric Mc]

It's been like that for quite a while. The teams and circuit owners are trapped in the complexities of the CVC mire and the only way it can be saved is if they extricate themselves out of Bernie's handiwork.

[RDMcG]

Difficult problem. I want to see the regular sized grid, but I also want to see a more competitive field. Having the back markers regularly stay at the back of the field add some variation in the paint colours, and some publicity for them when they have an off, but it like having a few bulldogs in a greyhound race. ...

[Chrisgr31]

PW said:

rallycross said:

Stuff CVC and set up a new series, give the circuits some revenue back, give the teams some more revenue, leave Ferrari and Todt/BCE to play on their own with their absurd financial requiements bleeding the sport dry.

So easy to say, but there are so, so many problems with that proposition, you might as well suggest they race on the Moon.

You only have to look at how quickly FOTA became irrelevant to see why it wouldn't work. You'd need to replace Bernie with someone exactly like Bernie to keep everyone pulling even remotely in the same direction.

Unless your new F1 series is themed less on race cars and more on endless intricate legal wrangling and contract negotiation as the teams spectacularly fail to agree on anything.

The reality is the teams missed an opportunity to create a new series, and effectively that was missed because Bernie paid off Ferrari and Ferrari then lent on the teams who they supply engines too. No doubt there were also issues with other teams which needed financial support from Bernie to get through the season etc.

Bernie is a past master at dividing and conquering and until he moves on or the teams learn not to allow him to divide and rule the cake will remain split unequally.

[P-Jay]

I'm surprised by MW's comments, I can understand a team like HRT being in survival mode, well until they weren't of course.

Marussia and Caterham might have to be careful, but the rest of the teams seem to be able to pay their way. They would like more of course, but it wouldn't make them anymore secure, they'd just spend more to be more competive, similarly I think if they had a little less they'd have less to spend on simulators, drivers, wind tunnels etc, but they could still race.

[Schermerhorn]

Stabilise the rules for 5-7 years. The field gets closer. They end up spending less. More chance of success. The 2012 HRT was faster than the F2000 Ferrari IIRC correctly.

[davepoth]

Eric Mc said:

It's been like that for quite a while. The teams and circuit owners are trapped in the complexities of the CVC mire and the only way it can be saved is if they extricate themselves out of Bernie's handiwork.

Bernie has been great for the sport until fairly recently - but with CVC looking for a way out they are trying to maximise revenue and that's hurting F1. The current shift to pay tv is a big example of this - while it'll mean an awful lot of revenue, the reduction in sponsor revenue is going to be painful for anyone who doesn't have a source of cash from outside the sport.

[FourWheelDrift]

Isn't there a maximum and minimum number of teams that Bernie has to ensure for it to go ahead? Part of the Concorde agreement or some other contract?

[woof]

I was reading on Joe Saward blog that F1 TV deal is only worth the same as the Turkish Football league, something like $380 million - that really surprised me.

[Eric Mc]

Falling TV audiences.

Possible falling sponsorhip income.

Possible team bankruptcies.

It's all looking good.

[TheArchitect]

I wouldn't say mercedes are sustainable I dought if Merc disappeared they would be much better than the other teams. Adam Parr was correct the teams needed to drastically look at there costs but they refused and now they starting to feel the pain now the longer lucrative contracts are coming to an end. Williams from what I have seen are now reaping the benefits of the structures Parr put in before he left.

[belleair302]

M-B as you see it today will be gone within 24 months as they have little interest in the sport beyond 'supplying engines'. With BMW, Audi / VW and Lexus not interested only Infinity (Nissan) and renault are present. Ferrari and McLaren are in a different league re manufacturing levels, global awareness and F1 involvement.

With commercial sponsorship looking elsewhere 'read Le Mans, GT racing etc', unless the teams open up more and allow fans closer to the action the major backers will walk. They want consumers, not viewers and consumers today have more choice and want to experience not watch sports. behind the scenes is what attracts the people today, not just a dull race.