Definitely not for an outdated superstar performer though.nevill3 wrote:I do not think that the payment of the $80 million is without just cause, if you were to go to a music concert you would expect the superstar bands and musicians to receive more money than a new band so they would command a higher fee,
And still F1 is existing for close to 70 years, with many a big names (Aston Martin, Alpha Romeo, Lotus, Porche, Maserati, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Renault (in and out) to just name a few) coming and leaving and in the same period, withstanding many an economic meltdowns around the world. That says, no matter who comes and leaves, the business will continue. Yes, momentarily there will be dissatisfaction, but the show will overcome that.Fifty wrote:This came about around the 2002 boycott of I'm not mistaken.
I believe it's actually more than $80 million US, and Mclaren and Williams also receive a check...albeit a smaller one.
The problem with Ferrari is that they make total of no more than 9k cars a year to maintain exclusivity and justify the cost.
To go and maintain the cost of racing they need that financial infusion every year.
If they were to loose that money, they would need to find a source of additional income and fiat will not provide it.
I think Ferrari will do what they threatened in 02 with the world Grand Prix, but instead focus on the Ferrari challenge or jump into LM or work with others to create another Gp series.
Mclaren was "bribed" with their smaller check every year, but more so with the contract to supply the mandatory electronic hardware that all the teams must use. This is a guaranteed injection every year that is predictable.
Williams is the ringer that just gets a small bit of cash.
My feeling is that if the new owners piss off Bernie, he will exercise his right to leave before then 3 years, he will collect the rest of his payment (apparently liberty has only paid $700m) and he will be out to die or start something else.
Once he is gone, liberty will axe the special payouts, causing Ferrari to try one season then leave.
Merc will want to leave because they already have multiple championships in the bag and it's not worth coming in first with no competition. So they will bail and support dtm and LM.
Red Bull will then follow suit or leave sooner if Liberty enacts their driver draft system. Red Bull is like the Old Mr Ferrari. They don't like anyone telling them what to do. They have no real reason to be in the game. They can and have shown they will pick up and leave at a moments notice. (Merc said they will bail if RB bailed; this was last year)
That's the three (actually 4) of the top teams all teetering on leaving if things change.
Renault and Honda will be the only manufacturers. Porsche/Audi/VW showed some interest but fall in the same boat as merc and won't play with out a marketable competition.
BMW, I don't think wants that kind of marketing, I think they want the more road race production.
Ford Chevy etc don't want in.
Unfortunately for Sauber, Williams, FI, their world would collapse.
At least manor and haas have the manufacturers or other series to be folded into.
I've always wondered about F1's "value"...
It's a perceived value because their is little to no tangible product. No tracks, nothing is owned by f1.
If the teams don't like the rules. There is nothing.
As Britain’s Independent newspaper revealed in October the financial statements show that Mercedes spent a record $314.4 million on running its F1 team and a further $220.8 million on making the engines. However, that is only part of the story.
The same financial statements also revealed that the F1 team is nearly at break even, with 85% of the operating costs covered by revenue streams. They come in the form of payments from sponsors and prize money which increased in 2013 due to a new commercial deal with F1’s rights-holder the F1 Group. The expenses of the engine manufacturing division are offset by revenue from selling the V6 hybrids to three customer teams. - Source
Porsche left F1 because of costs.Fifty wrote:F1 didn't cost nearly what it does now for the first 50 years.
It wasn't that the costs have now become higher to run in F1.. Teams used to spend way more than what they are spending today....At the end of the season (1962), Porsche withdrew from F1 due to the high costs - Source
That is just emotions. You can never be certain of that.Fifty wrote:If Ferrari and the Tifosi quit, then a good quarter of the f1 fans will probably walk.
If Red Bull leaves as well, subtract another 5-8%.
It's all about identifying the newer markets and exploring newer ways of taking the sport to a new set of audiences, through newer mediums. Bernie has been adamant on milking money from easier ways, than to slog hard and work out different revenue streams.Fifty wrote:You have just reduced the earning potential of the sport by at minimum 20% if my numbers are inflated and 30-35% at worst.
You will always find people who either support the newer developments OR not. Except for the noise, I like the technology that the F1 has employed. It's the way forward.Fifty wrote:As for F1 being the pinnacle of Motorsport, during the last 5+ years, F1 has shot themselves in the foot with that and has earned itself the reputation as the race series with a cookie cutter subdued technology and utilizing the best funded drivers that are usually mediocre at best.
Honda had left for similar reasons. They are back, albeit as an engine manufacturer. Who knows what they will do in future. Renault had backed out, but are back again. Audi almost came back with Red Bull, but the emission gate pulled them back. So, never say never. Mercedes was absent for a very long time, but they came back and also winning the championships. That's just the nature and lure of F1 as a motorsport platform.Fifty wrote:(BMW just released they scoffed at the invitation to rejoin F1 due to inflated costs to returns, and lack of technology etc etc etc... WEC and FE for them)