Roamer is Bernie whats to start a breakaway series by 2019. Lets see another racing series where he can charge a lot of money with nothing to back it up. Well it's his money. But I don't count him out.
So would you have all the cars save Benz, Red Bull & Ferrari leave the series? Yes Manor didn't do much, but they were getting better & beating Sauber last year. Me I like full fields & I'll miss Manor. Lots of people lost their jobs & that's sad.
I think it's going to be difficult to have more than 10 teams with the money only going to the top 10. Bernie's way of keeping the riff-raff (like he was) out of the sport. Hopefully the new owners will change that when the new contract comes up.
Their goal is to make every F1 weekend a "Superbowl" weekend, don't they understand that what makes the superbowl what it is is the fact that it's held once a year at the end of the season? how can you do that all year long?
I wish them luck but not paying the 11th team means they're way behind the 8ball compared to the other teams right out of the box - if you want 22 equal teams they need to spend equally and be paid more equally. I'm not sure that would make for good racing - but it seems to work for NASCAR
You will never have equal teams unless it becomes a spec series where all cars are the same. Even then those with more money would still be on top. Even works that way in the SCCA. NASCARP yep the money is at the front of the field too. Their racing is far from interesting. :sleep: Except for their 2 road course races. :arf:
Not sure how you fix it, but it sure is broken.
1 - F1 doesn't need equality (spec series), it needs something closer to equity. Give everyone an equal share (after race purses) of the profits rather than boosting the chances of the leading teams by giving them the lion's share. Since that process is owned by investors, only just so much of the profit will ever be shared, but what is shared could be shared equitably. None of that has any effect on whether leading teams can attract more money from sponsors but that can't be controlled and they shouldn't try.
They also ought to eliminate the rule that new teams get zero after their first year. Haas, for example, finished 8th but gets nothing since it was their rookie year. Unless a new team goes in with the ability to foot the entire bill for 2 full years entirely out of pocket (after any sponsorship $ they can scrounge) including the initial entry fee and other startup costs for a new team or cost of buying an existing team, they can't even afford to start.
2 - Dave is right in saying the Superbowl is special because it only happens once a year. I think they know that. My guess is they're thinking about it in terms of venue. Each venue gets one shot per year and it's usually one per country...per year. So a race promoter gets, in theory, a much bigger event to promote, potentially eliminating the complaints that they can't make a profit after they pay the hosting fees.
I still hate the idea but I suspect this is the focus of the Superbowl week idea, not the television audience. But the series (and the profits the money-grubbing investors are in it for) depends on revenue from things like broadcast deals so they'll have to find a compromise...maybe a big week for the locals but more focused broadcasting of just the qualifying and race?
Hope I didn't imply that a spec series is the answer. It would be far from it. I wonder if in a year or two we long for the good old days when Bernie was king. It has got to get better. :fingerscrossed:
If I remember right all teams down to 10th get some base amount then you have the money based on position and the "special" payments. Just extend the base payment to include the number of teams competing would help. Haas is getting their $20 mil entry fee back a year early.
I too agree that it is like a super bowl which makes me question the idea of 3 US races. Yes we are a big country and most of Europe, with all their races, will fit in New England and Mid Atlantic states. But can they draw enough Americans at the high ticket prices to that many races? If they were priced like Indy was it wouldn't be a problem.
First I've heard. Did Bernie arrange that or is it a post-Bernie change? I'll be shocked if the former. Wonder if it had anything to do with Haas withdrawing their veto of Force India's advance payment of prize money.
Agree, the base payment for competing the full season should apply to all, but I personally think there's also far too much slope on the financial distribution curve based on position.
Carey (I think it was him...someone from Liberty) claimed they're thinking about taking away Ferrari's special $100M annual bonus and spreading that around. I bet faces at Maranello turned about as red as their cars when they heard that.
Yes the article said the early repayment was for lifting their veto.
I read the same thing on the Ferrari deal. But I have to think they have stayed in F1 during good times and bad where other manufactures have come in left and come in again. They should get some kind of loyalty treatment.
I get that Force India wouldn't want Williams to gain in any way given they fight with them for championship position but I can't imagine how they'd have any sort of valid argument to back up a serious objection.
Given Liberty seems intent to introduce a budget cap, some might enjoy a reminder of what happened last time this was attempted. That is, when the FIA (ala Max Mosley) attempted to force a budget cap on the teams.
