planetf1.com

Racing should be a meritocracy, any payments should be calculated on results.

I wish someone gave me 30 million just for attending. Or 60 for just being in the club.

I do not support any team or driver, I am a fan of racing. Maybe that is why I am much more focused on other motorsports than Formula One. I may watch Melbourne, but I will definitely watch Sebring. All of it.

Blake wrote:Ah yes... The Ferrari devils are on trial in the forum yet again. And apparently Blake as well. Personally, excediron, I prefer not to be singled out as the basis of this thread. I suspect Ferrari/Ferrari fans would prefer to be grouped with all the teams that receive benefits as opposed to being singled out. Also if the poll is to exist, I'd appreciate an inbetween option...It isn't as simple as a strictly yes or no answer.

There are other aspects of revenue that should be in the discussion, but not nearly as fun. My respond to the topic is in the other thread.

Lol relax man

I'm definitely against it, and I'm a Ferrari fan. I can see an argument for smaller bonuses to the truly historic teams - by which I mean Ferrari, McLaren, and Williams - but I don't think it's fair. For one thing, the amount of history and the number of fans they have already give them increased revenue in the form of merchandise, but mostly I believe that the pot should be distributed equally so that all teams will be able to keep their heads above water and continue to be able to race. Any revenue distribution model that ends up with smaller teams going under because they can't afford to race is a problem, and the larger older teams need the help less in any case.

I'd prefer to see an even payment given out to every team no matter what, and then a bonus calculated based on season results and season results alone on top of that.

I follow drivers more than I follow teams, but I do currently lean heavily toward Ferrari, and I don't support the current distribution. I have two problems with it:

First, the constructor's championship bonus fund seems redundant, as it and the Column 2 payouts both reward performance. However, the CCB seems less relevant. My understanding* is that it awards money to the three teams with the most wins over the last for seasons. Why limit it three teams? Having one less win over the last four years than the team with the third most could cost you $20M+.

*I'm going off of what this Forbes article says, but the numbers don't seem to add up for this 2018 prize distribution. In 2018, there's no way Ferrari was tied for most wins with Mercedes. Maybe they count wins back further than four years?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015 ... b84cb52679
https://www.racefans.net/2018/08/01/for ... -revealed/

Second, looking at the distribution of the Column 2 money, they couldn't have spent more than two minutes coming up with those percentages. 10th place gets 4%, 9th gets 1.25x greater than 10th, 8th gets 1.2x great than 9th, 7th 1.17x, 6th 1.28x, 5th 1.11x, 4th 1.1x, 3rd 1.18x, 2nd 1.23x, and 1st 1.19x. If we assume placing one place higher is exponentially more difficult, then the prize money distribution curve should more closely resemble race points distribution curve (not that that distribution curve looks like it's had much thought put into it either). Column 1 already makes sure teams get paid for participation, so I don't think the Column 2 distribution curve really needs to be flattened out much, but I'd say getting about 1.125x more than the position behind seems about right. That would give 10th 5.56% (currently 4%) and 1st 16.05% (currently 19%).

I don't have any problem with the historical payments. Their past investments into F1 have essentially made them honorary shareholders. Their money went into racing programs rather than stocks, and they have been instrumental in making F1 into the success that it is.

While I think the distribution could be more fair, I don't think it's as big of a deal as some teams make it out to be. Williams' has a historical bonus and finished 3rd in 2014, yet they've managed to slip to the back of the pack, 1.3s slower than their next closest competitor in qualifying. No matter where a team places, they always spend far more than the prize money and bonuses from F1 allow. So for a team to complain about money distribution while they can't stay competitive with teams that gets less is ridiculous.

The revenue distribution is obviously bad because current F1 is not that competitive and it's creating these horrible B team situations which I can't stand.

More money has to go to the bottom rank teams - if there are to remain 10 or more teams!

If you want 3 or 4 teams to be all that exist in F1 - continue the present distribution!

kowen1208 wrote:I follow drivers more than I follow teams, but I do currently lean heavily toward Ferrari, and I don't support the current distribution. I have two problems with it:

First, the constructor's championship bonus fund seems redundant, as it and the Column 2 payouts both reward performance. However, the CCB seems less relevant. My understanding* is that it awards money to the three teams with the most wins over the last for seasons. Why limit it three teams? Having one less win over the last four years than the team with the third most could cost you $20M+.

*I'm going off of what this Forbes article says, but the numbers don't seem to add up for this 2018 prize distribution. In 2018, there's no way Ferrari was tied for most wins with Mercedes. Maybe they count wins back further than four years?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2015 ... b84cb52679
https://www.racefans.net/2018/08/01/for ... -revealed/

Second, looking at the distribution of the Column 2 money, they couldn't have spent more than two minutes coming up with those percentages. 10th place gets 4%, 9th gets 1.25x greater than 10th, 8th gets 1.2x great than 9th, 7th 1.17x, 6th 1.28x, 5th 1.11x, 4th 1.1x, 3rd 1.18x, 2nd 1.23x, and 1st 1.19x. If we assume placing one place higher is exponentially more difficult, then the prize money distribution curve should more closely resemble race points distribution curve (not that that distribution curve looks like it's had much thought put into it either). Column 1 already makes sure teams get paid for participation, so I don't think the Column 2 distribution curve really needs to be flattened out much, but I'd say getting about 1.125x more than the position behind seems about right. That would give 10th 5.56% (currently 4%) and 1st 16.05% (currently 19%).

I don't have any problem with the historical payments. Their past investments into F1 have essentially made them honorary shareholders. Their money went into racing programs rather than stocks, and they have been instrumental in making F1 into the success that it is.

While I think the distribution could be more fair, I don't think it's as big of a deal as some teams make it out to be. Williams' has a historical bonus and finished 3rd in 2014, yet they've managed to slip to the back of the pack, 1.3s slower than their next closest competitor in qualifying. No matter where a team places, they always spend far more than the prize money and bonuses from F1 allow. So for a team to complain about money distribution while they can't stay competitive with teams that gets less is ridiculous.

I enjoyed reading your post.
I feel that teams just entering the show for various reasons are good for F1. Today there is nothing binding the TEAMS together and there in lies the rub. MB can leave when it does not fit the boards reasons, same with all manufactures. The indie teams have other reasons (HAAS to develp and sell his primary business which is High perfomence Machine building) and that is a really good way to use F1. The problem I have is that they are using F1 for individual reasons not collective reasons as again there is nothing binding them all together. This I have said a few times is the genious of Bernie and his ability to keep the teams away from collective bargaining, just an amazing business model. The issue we have is this created a spending war to gain millisecond of performnce ( which I and other F1 fans enjoy). If the teams were to collectively negotiate there is no need for Bernie, and now no need for Liberty. This scares the hell ourt of Liberty they spent billions of dollars on vapor, just a promise that I may show up to race. Why not harness the power of these teams? They have some really smart people running these teams, why not get them all together and say hey if we really want equal distribution of income why in reality Liberty offereing of a portion of 50% of total income from F1? This makes no sense to me, why would RedBull or Ferarri agree to equla distribution to the teams? when Torro Rosso or Haas or MB can leave tomorrow there is no reason to give any team equal grounds. If this stays indipendant and every team must sign a new concorde agreement individually then it makes no economical sense to have these big teams share equally. Unions figured this out in the 1920's. The only way to make this fair is for F1 teams to own the commercial right s to F1 create the business plan and cut out liberty and the billions they take from F1 and for what? What does Liberty give to F1? Its a smoke screen people liberty is saying the big teams are greedy yet they walk away with 50% of revenue every year for nothing.

funkymonkey wrote:Keep in mind even with all the money they receive, Ferrari and Mercedes do not make profit from F1 venture in fact they make losses regularly. Only RedBull and some midfield teams do turn profit these days. The top teams are in F1 for completely different reason.

Wait, what??!?!???
Ferrari receive an annual chunk of Marlboro money EVERY season that pays for the vast majority of the season. The cash cow that is Ferrari doesn’t lose a thing, not even close!

Mercedes are in F1 to promote their rather lucrative consumer division and regardless of the team earning money itself, this is part of their advertising budget, and as such, they merely look at this situation as a return on investment. That’s also why they pay Lewis all that cash too. They could sign whatever driver they feel like the last 6 years, but they also recognize the additional exposure Hamilton brings to the scenario, AND he really is so damn good.

funkymonkey wrote:Keep in mind even with all the money they receive, Ferrari and Mercedes do not make profit from F1 venture in fact they make losses regularly. Only RedBull and some midfield teams do turn profit these days. The top teams are in F1 for completely different reason.

Wait, what??!?!???
Ferrari receive an annual chunk of Marlboro money EVERY season that pays for the vast majority of the season. The cash cow that is Ferrari doesn’t lose a thing, not even close!

Mercedes are in F1 to promote their rather lucrative consumer division and regardless of the team earning money itself, this is part of their advertising budget, and as such, they merely look at this situation as a return on investment. That’s also why they pay Lewis all that cash too. They could sign whatever driver they feel like the last 6 years, but they also recognize the additional exposure Hamilton brings to the scenario, AND he really is so damn good.

F1 MERCENARY wrote:

funkymonkey wrote:Keep in mind even with all the money they receive, Ferrari and Mercedes do not make profit from F1 venture in fact they make losses regularly. Only RedBull and some midfield teams do turn profit these days. The top teams are in F1 for completely different reason.

Wait, what??!?!???
Ferrari receive an annual chunk of Marlboro money EVERY season that pays for the vast majority of the season. The cash cow that is Ferrari doesn’t lose a thing, not even close!

Mercedes are in F1 to promote their rather lucrative consumer division and regardless of the team earning money itself, this is part of their advertising budget, and as such, they merely look at this situation as a return on investment. That’s also why they pay Lewis all that cash too. They could sign whatever driver they feel like the last 6 years, but they also recognize the additional exposure Hamilton brings to the scenario, AND he really is so damn good.

There is a old saying - Figures Lie, Liars Figure. When it comes to a company apportioning revenues and costs to something like F1 within the overall structure of the corporation - the figures can be made to say anything the company wants to for any situation they are responding to - good, bad or indifferent.

MB & Ferrari are no losing money with their participation in F1.

Although not strictly just talking about revenue distribution the following article makes some interesting points:

https://www.grandprix247.com/2019/03/24 ... -the-show/

One line near the end puts the F1 budgets into stark relief:

Making a mockery of these unnecessary expenses, Johansson cited this example among many: “To put things in perspective, a top F1 team’s brake budget is nearly equivalent to a winning IndyCar full season budget. No one can see or relate to the insanely complicated brake ducting systems each team now must develop, all for nothing in the end.”

I think that's insane and I question what that actually does for the racing. It just goes to show that budgets can be cut without having a real serious impact on performance. I agree with him that the hybrids have probably done more harm than good but that cat's out of the bag now and difficult to imagine it ever being put back in.

I support what I call a soft Budget cap.
$200 million but for every $1 spent over that teams pay a 10% tax into a tax pool dividend amoung the teams at the end of the season. Could even put it on an incremental scale.
>$200m 10% tax
>$250m 12% tax
>$300m 15% tax
Etc.

Double post.

Glasnost wrote:I support what I call a soft Budget cap.
$200 million but for every $1 spent over that teams pay a 10% tax into a tax pool dividend amoung the teams at the end of the season. Could even put it on an incremental scale.
>$200m 10% tax
>$250m 12% tax
>$300m 15% tax
Etc.

not enough of a hit.

Let's say a team, even two teams spend 249 million.

Those teams will be taxed on the 49 million, at ten percent, 4.9 million. 4.9 million divided by the not haves, 7 teams, gives each team 700 000. 1.4 million if two teams go over. Not going to get the not haves enough to compete and the big three go on buying wins and all the prize money that comes with it, more than making up for the extra 4.9 they gave up.

Now if you start that stax at 50 percent for the 200-250m rage, 75 for the 250-300m and 100 percent at the 300m+ and you'll see the big three trim the budgets and the not haves get rewarded significantly if they do.

249m = 24.5m divided by 7=3.5 million per team. Now that will get their attention.

Altair wrote:

Glasnost wrote:I support what I call a soft Budget cap.
$200 million but for every $1 spent over that teams pay a 10% tax into a tax pool dividend amoung the teams at the end of the season. Could even put it on an incremental scale.
>$200m 10% tax
>$250m 12% tax
>$300m 15% tax
Etc.

not enough of a hit.

Let's say a team, even two teams spend 249 million.

Those teams will be taxed on the 49 million, at ten percent, 4.9 million. 4.9 million divided by the not haves, 7 teams, gives each team 700 000. 1.4 million if two teams go over. Not going to get the not haves enough to compete and the big three go on buying wins and all the prize money that comes with it, more than making up for the extra 4.9 they gave up.

Now if you start that stax at 50 percent for the 200-250m rage, 75 for the 250-300m and 100 percent at the 300m+ and you'll see the big three trim the budgets and the not haves get rewarded significantly if they do.

249m = 24.5m divided by 7=3.5 million per team. Now that will get their attention.

Well yeah.. it was more just an example.

The issue with any sort of budget cap though is auditing teams... such large companies with subsidiaries hiding spending would be really easy I imagine.

Glasnost wrote:

Altair wrote:

Glasnost wrote:I support what I call a soft Budget cap.
$200 million but for every $1 spent over that teams pay a 10% tax into a tax pool dividend amoung the teams at the end of the season. Could even put it on an incremental scale.
>$200m 10% tax
>$250m 12% tax
>$300m 15% tax
Etc.

not enough of a hit.

Let's say a team, even two teams spend 249 million.

Those teams will be taxed on the 49 million, at ten percent, 4.9 million. 4.9 million divided by the not haves, 7 teams, gives each team 700 000. 1.4 million if two teams go over. Not going to get the not haves enough to compete and the big three go on buying wins and all the prize money that comes with it, more than making up for the extra 4.9 they gave up.

Now if you start that stax at 50 percent for the 200-250m rage, 75 for the 250-300m and 100 percent at the 300m+ and you'll see the big three trim the budgets and the not haves get rewarded significantly if they do.

249m = 24.5m divided by 7=3.5 million per team. Now that will get their attention.

Well yeah.. it was more just an example.

The issue with any sort of budget cap though is auditing teams... such large companies with subsidiaries hiding spending would be really easy I imagine.

100 million dollar fine or no prize money if found cheating.

I dare any team to try.