bhallg2k wrote:You've obviously put a lot of thought into that, but reality has a tendency to resist cookie-cutter solutions such as the ones you've proposed. One-size-fits-all anything rarely ever works.
True, cookie cutter solutions dont have much of a impact, however id propose a real and propper freeing up of the technichal regulations. Like freeing up alot of engine related regs and electronics regs, this should make development faster. Give in one hand but take away in another.
bhallg2k wrote:There's nothing to nudge. It simply won't happen.
Trying to get Bernie Ecclestone to take less money is like trying to get Bernie Ecclestone to take less money. You'd have more luck getting water from a rock.
FOM's fees are so skewed that they have absolutely nothing to do with race attendance or TV viewing figures. That blows my mind.
Bernie taking less money is like blood from a stone, but im sure that if you put it where he got €25m from every promotor, and then a share in the promotors profits, say 40% of the profits from a F1 event, he would want F1 to go to venues that are sell outs with thirty 5,000 seater grandstands arround it would mean that tracks would have arround 150,000 people at each event minimum.
F1 has to be affordable, and also a sport where the promotors and rights holder need to act in the good of the sport in order to maximise revinues.
If the teams were giveb a gaurenteed ammount of money, say €25m a year from FOM with prize money split like this from another thread aboput prize money F1 would be in a far better shape financially and if teams were better off financially there would be less bickering and a better spectacle and a better sport due to it.
It would mean there would be more of a rerward to be fast as there is alot you can do with €8m and even more you can do with €35m in one occurance.
Its all about getting their heads and battering them all together to act in unity for the best intrest for the sport and not whats best for them.