GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => F1 Teams => Topic started by: Irisado on January 06, 2017, 11:42:14 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38530855
History repeats itself :(.
The difference between finishing inside the top ten and outside it in the Constructors' Championship should not force teams out of business. It's a very poor and unhappy state of affairs.
-
Exactly, the money split simply needs a tweak.
Maybe Liberty will see that the more, the merrier and re-do the split to levels that will sustain the little guys.
-
F1 brings in plenty of money for both the venues and the teams if it were fairly distributed. I'd really like to see Liberty do better, but I have little hope for it.
-
Time for Ron and his Chinese investors to get their cheque books out.
-
Unfair financial rules stroke again, I really hope the team makes it to the grid. All the teams should receive some funds, still a case of the rich getting richer.
I know there has to be some scaling of prize money but to simply exclude a team is ridiculous. No wonder smaller teams simply can't develope their cars enough to move up the grid
-
For the benefit of those who haven't heard me say this before:
F1 doesn't need the FIA, FOM, FOTA (does that still exist?)
F1 needs one body: a united front of teams, like the American NFL (National Football League)
The NFL is owned by the teams themselves. Each team gets an equal share of the pie: a popular team like Dallas gets just as much money as a poorly run team in Cleveland. A team in a tiny town like Green Bay gets just as much money as the Giants do being based in 'New York'. They still have their own sponsorship deals, and keep the money they sell from tickets, but everything else they share.
The formula one teams don't need FOM. There's no need for FOM to take half the money. Give each team a share of the revenue. Give them a nominal prize for winning a race (or the WCC if you prefer), not so much that a run away winning team has all the money, but enough that winning is a 'grand prize'
-
The FOM sees it simply as management fees. FOM bought the TV rights (on behalf of the teams), they do all the negotiating with tracks/promoters and track advertising. They have built the infrastructure and designed the contracts to take care of all that, because the teams don't have the time or aptitude to do it themselves. For all that, they take a (rather large) management fee.
I think it could be done better for less, but until the teams find a way to get together, hammer out a deal and take things over themselves, it will never change.
-
Just to make it worse, the FOM don't see it as management fees the teams are paying; they initially saw it as management fees the FIA paid to not have to worry about commercial elements of the sport, and then as a necessary fee for the separation of powers. The teams only get anything because without them there'd be nothing to make money on.
The FIA owns F1 and leased it to FOM until 2110, so unless the European Commission abolishes that agreement, the teams simply cannot take F1 with them. All they can do is make a new series - which may earn less simply from not having the "F1" cachet. (But once they were so upset by Max Mosley that they nearly left anyway).
-
It was always going to be either Sauber or Manor. I am happy Sauber survived, but have to swallow the bitter pill of letting Manor go. This team embodies the shadows of would have been great Jules Bianchi. If this team abolishes, his memoirs will also perish. But over the years if we look back, even the once mighty BRM, or the all conquering Lotus could not survive, so Manor was always destined to follow the suite.
Thanks for all the memories if you could not survive, but all the new teams entered F1 lately, your ambition, courage and determination surely won lot of heart among the fans of motor racing.
-
I think Manor will survive in one form or another. It is the buffer team Bernie needs to keep the grid at 20 cars. If a team fails that he can't rescue, then Manor (or whatever it will next be called) will be that 10th. Putting together a deal or investors to keep it afloat for another season or two is child's play for Bernie.
-
I have a soft spot for Manor, too. They were the last team (as of now) to use Cosworth engines.
-
In fact, it is Just Racing Services Ltd (JRSL), the Banbury outfit's operating company, which has called in the administrators FRP Advisory LLP, not Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd, which holds the rights to participate in the world championship.
Could this be an exercise in clearing the decks and getting suppliers to take a big hit, then buying the assets of JRSL for much, much less than they are on the hook for????? :DntKnw:
Who else is going to bid much for the assets of an F1 team. Add to this the fact work must have taken place on the 2017 chassis by this stage so as long as they can secure an engine supply Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd might still make it to the grid in Oz.
-
In fact, it is Just Racing Services Ltd (JRSL), the Banbury outfit's operating company, which has called in the administrators FRP Advisory LLP, not Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd, which holds the rights to participate in the world championship.
Could this be an exercise in clearing the decks and getting suppliers to take a big hit, then buying the assets of JRSL for much, much less than they are on the hook for????? :DntKnw:
Who else is going to bid much for the assets of an F1 team. Add to this the fact work must have taken place on the 2017 chassis by this stage so as long as they can secure an engine supply Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd might still make it to the grid in Oz.
It may very well be an accounting trick to leave suppliers holding the bag, but who is going to provide reliable business to a team that won't reliably pay the bills?
Manor is the last remaining team that entered the sport under false pretenses. They never had a chance to succeed. I'm never eager to see a team go, but they provided a lesson for others: F1 might be glamourous and fun, but if you don't know what you're doing from day one, you won't succeed, either on track or in the ledger.
Certainly Manor's struggles were something that Haas took seriously. An outside investor would also notice that building a team from scratch was much more successful than taking over a floundering team.
-
In fact, it is Just Racing Services Ltd (JRSL), the Banbury outfit's operating company, which has called in the administrators FRP Advisory LLP, not Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd, which holds the rights to participate in the world championship.
Could this be an exercise in clearing the decks and getting suppliers to take a big hit, then buying the assets of JRSL for much, much less than they are on the hook for????? :DntKnw:
It might have been, had the team not already been on a debt management arrangement dating from their previous stint in administration. This makes it very difficult for suppliers to have enough confidence to accept any sort of deal, since they have no reason to believe they would be paid whatever amount was agreed. I have a horrible feeling that the new owner may simply have to accept paying 100% of the debt this time around, due to Stephen Fitzpatrick blowing the previous opportunity.
There are interested parties, but they need to get their ducks in order very, very quickly. They have to have a car pass its crash test before heading to Oz. Fortunately the season is late to start, but if they don't have a buyer by the end of next month, that's not going to work out.
-
It seems that loosing the place to Sauber cost them $10 mill and that has pushed them to the brink now its only $10 mill so if we have whip round Wizard GP has a ring to it!
-
It seems that loosing the place to Sauber cost them $10 mill and that has pushed them to the brink now its only $10 mill so if we have whip round Wizard GP has a ring to it!
Wizzo might have to adjust his Donation goal to meet this new budget. :tease: :tease:
-
Aaaand breathe.
FRP is putting its own money into paying team expenses and staff wages until the end of January (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/38603355), giving it until at least then to save the team. Administrators don't do this lightly, so it is a sign of confidence.
Also, the FIA is allowing Manor to use a lightly-modified 2016 car as its initial race car if necessary, without asking for another crash test. This not only makes it much easier for Manor to make it to the Australian Grand Prix, but it allows it to provide a full 2017 car as and when it wishes. (Given the 2016-modded car will likely be rather slow, that's probably going to be mid-season).
-
Well that's hope for a full grid this season, fingers crossed for a buyer.
-
(Given the 2016-modded car will likely be rather slow, that's probably going to be mid-season).
Hopefully the 107% rule will be enforced if required. I don't like to see cars left off the grid, but a difference in speed can be dangerous, especially since the 107% rule is very generous, and works out closer to 110% or more of the race pace
-
Manor may still make it to the grid in Oz, an offer for the whole shooting match has been put on the table - only catch - must be decided by this Friday or price goes down. :swoon:
Someone is playing hard ball then, but we'll only really find out who if the offer goes through - lets hope so.
http://master.motorsport.com/f1/news/manor-f1-team-has-buyout-offer-865886/?s=1
-
Is it Ron its his sort of tactic?
-
Might be Ron, who knows. :DntKnw:
Having had time to think about this whole situation of placing one part, the really cash draining side, into administration; was it done perhaps to signal to previously interested parties that now was the time to put up or leave the scene?
However with the two other parts of the F1 team still to be negotiated for it remains to be seen if Fitzpatrick is willing to meet the price a buyer may want.
I'm sure he will be aware a live F1 racing outfit is worth more that the break up value, but will he still play hardball with potential saviours? :DntKnw:
Depends how much he's prepared to gamble the amount he'll lose on the eventual outcome I guess
-
(Given the 2016-modded car will likely be rather slow, that's probably going to be mid-season).
Hopefully the 107% rule will be enforced if required. I don't like to see cars left off the grid, but a difference in speed can be dangerous, especially since the 107% rule is very generous, and works out closer to 110% or more of the race pace
I'm perfectly fine with that. Manor needs to make an honest attempt at qualifying and be paid for it. F1 does not need to bend over backwards to admit a car that would be a pure mobile chicane. Obviously if it was outside 107% for reasons that would get any other team exempted, that's another matter, but no need for charity from the qualifying stewards just because the team needs to survive.
Manor may still make it to the grid in Oz, an offer for the whole shooting match has been put on the table - only catch - must be decided by this Friday or price goes down.
If it's Ron (or Graeme), I think the quick deadline would be accepted as reasonable. Both did due diligence, from what I recall, so don't need the same level of scrutiny as other bidders would, and both know exactly how little time remains.
-
I'm more optimistic about the survival of Manor now. I think that there must be a potential serious buyer who has yet to be declared. Hopefully, this is going to happen. Formula 1 needs teams.
As for the 107% rule and safety, I don't buy that argument. There were plenty of races in decades gone by where there were much bigger gaps between the front and back of the grid, for example, around 10 seconds at some races when all the teams last used turbos in 1986, and this was not a safety issue. The 107% rule could safely be removed in the modern era, as it already has been once, without a problem.
-
Doesn't look good
http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/manor-f1-team-closing-its-doors
-
Very sad, not really a surprise. I know teams have to compete but getting into the sport costs so much and competing is hardly cheap. Fairer spread of the money would help, cut costs to enter the sport again would help keep money on the team to give them a chance to compete. Haas has done brilliantly for the first season hopefully they will carry on.
-
I can't really place all of the blame on the team. When it entered the sport as Virgin, they were promised affordable engines. Now they have to pay totally outrageous prices for insanely complex hybrid systems.
-
Haas has done brilliantly for the first season hopefully they will carry on.
Haas was set up for a different purpose, namely to move their name up the ladder internationally to sell more machine tools, so the funding will have been fully worked out for 3 years or more, but no doubt good payment from the F1 pot will help their development.
Mind you Manor's departure helps all the other back end teams as everyone down to 10th place gets a good pay-out the following year, now with only 10 teams on the grid all are assured a good pay-out.
As I understand it top ten teams rely on column 1 and 2 payments (col 1 is equal share of the designated pot for all top 10 and can be in excess of $45mil each - col 2 is another pot the same size as col 1 but is divided up on top ten performance, top spot gets most reducing until 10th gets about 25% of what winner gets.)
Teams outside the top ten get only a column 3 payment that is very small, usually about $10mil, just for turning up. That's why there is a great gulf between 10th place and anyone beyond it.
-
I can't really place all of the blame on the team. When it entered the sport as Virgin, they were promised affordable engines. Now they have to pay totally outrageous prices for insanely complex hybrid systems.
Certainly 'Lotus', Virgin and HRT were all given a raw deal. I'm surprised any of those teams made it this far. Running an F1 team can't be a hobby, it's a massive undertaking. I'm glad that Haas understood that. I'm also glad that enough people at Mercedes understand.
I'd love the sport to be open to all comers, but the current rules make that impossible.
-
There's a story emerging that Manor saviours are being frustrated by the Jules Bianchi affair and possible claims against the team arising from his death.
Due diligence by investors throws up the legal possibility of the team facing an open ended claim over the death, no one wants to sign up to a bottomless money pit from this situation without assurances.
Who is going to indemnify interested parties from future claims? :DntKnw: Certainly not the administrators or the previous owners, so the Manor team as presently constituted is probably unsalable.
Maybe the only way for new investors to escape the liability is to let the old entities go bust and buy up the assets from the ashes. But will the F1 entrance licence be able to traded in such a way? :DntKnw:
-
There's a story emerging that Manor saviours are being frustrated by the Jules Bianchi affair and possible claims against the team arising from his death.
Due diligence by investors throws up the legal possibility of the team facing an open ended claim over the death, no one wants to sign up to a bottomless money pit from this situation without assurances.
Who is going to indemnify interested parties from future claims? :DntKnw: Certainly not the administrators or the previous owners, so the Manor team as presently constituted is probably unsalable.
Maybe the only way for new investors to escape the liability is to let the old entities go bust and buy up the assets from the ashes. But will the F1 entrance licence be able to traded in such a way? :DntKnw:
Seems a bit oddly-worded. Claims are not "possible" - there's a definite one, that's been in the public domain since May. The UK doesn't have the "chained claim" effect that the USA has due to double jeopardy laws; it would be impossible for any suit from the Bianchis to follow the current one (though of course the current one can be appealed through 2 layers of appeal structure if the first attempt isn't done correctly or new evidence comes to light).
There would also be the issue of whether any legal blame attaches to the team or to individuals associated with the team at the time (in case of guilt) - that would be for a judge to determine, and not something I would wish to comment upon in a public place before the case happens. As such, it is impossible in UK law to indemnify someone against something that's already occurred.
The problem is not something that can be ducked out of by buying the assets, since the liability follows the same company as the F1 entry does.
Attempting to sell the F1 entry from one company to another immediately dissolves the F1 entry without refund or compensation.
The F1 entry is necessary for the team to be worth more than momento value. So either the team has the entry and the liability, or it has neither.
Note, however, that if Manor/Marussia was found guilty of anything, the judge is obliged to take into account changes between the event and the ruling. A change in owners, with the newcomers not doing whatever gave rise to actions that triggered the guilty verdict, would be deemed to partially mitigate damages. There would also be mitigation involved (from Manor/Marussia's perspective) in the event that the blame was shared between it and one or both of the other co-defendents (FOM and FIA). I'm probably not surprising anyone by suggesting the other co-defendents named in the case have a case to answer.
While Manor-as-Marussia could theoretically have seen a claim from the de Villottas if the Bianchi claim succeeds (since similar failure mechanisms - from the Manor/Marussia perspective - are involved), it probably wouldn't happen as the de Villottas would have to appeal a HSE ruling (that Manor/Marussia hadn't done anything worth prosecuting) before Manor could incur expenses from any legal process. Historically, that has not proven particularly successful.
I have a strange feeling that Manor isn't dead yet. But I don't see how it can be otherwise, and it may just be denial.
-
And now the final act: Manor's assets will be auctioned off.
http://autoweek.com/article/formula-one/auction-listing-how-get-your-own-manor-f1-show-cars-equipment
-
Very sad. I am very disheartened by the collapse of what is, essentially, Formula 1's last small team. The rules must be changed to get more teams into Formula 1. This sustainability problem cannot be allowed to continue.
-
Very sad. I am very disheartened by the collapse of what is, essentially, Formula 1's last small team. The rules must be changed to get more teams into Formula 1. This sustainability problem cannot be allowed to continue.
Sauber remains a small team.
Haas has demonstrated the correct way to enter F1. It ain't cheap, but there's a blue print to be followed beyond simply buying an existing outfit.
Hopefully Liberty can use that blueprint to entice other new investors. Surely watching the Manor/Lotus/HRT disaster really dissuaded other investors. You may not be able to join the sport on the cheap like Max promised, but at least you know how much it costs to join well.
-
Sauber is a midfield team, which has begun to be perceived as a small team because of how Formula 1 has developed, not because it is a small team in of itself.
The last small teams were those who joined under Mosley's failed budget cap. Before that, the last of the true small team was Minardi, which, from 1997 (if you exclude the failed Lola team) up until 2005 was the only true small team left competing in Formula 1. Before 1997, there were all sorts of small teams, most of which had disappeared by the early 1990s. Simtek (1994-95), Pacific (1994-95), and Forti (1995-96) were the last trio of small teams, and, in much the same way as Lotus (Caterham), Virgin (Marussia; Manor), and Hispania (HRT) discovered subsequently, the inherent biased structure of Formula 1's financial system made it impossible for them to survive.
-
Sauber is a midfield team, which has begun to be perceived as a small team because of how Formula 1 has developed, not because it is a small team in of itself.
The last small teams were those who joined under Mosley's failed budget cap. Before that, the last of the true small team was Minardi, which, from 1997 (if you exclude the failed Lola team) up until 2005 was the only true small team left competing in Formula 1. Before 1997, there were all sorts of small teams, most of which had disappeared by the early 1990s. Simtek (1994-95), Pacific (1994-95), and Forti (1995-96) were the last trio of small teams, and, in much the same way as Lotus (Caterham), Virgin (Marussia; Manor), and Hispania (HRT) discovered subsequently, the inherent biased structure of Formula 1's financial system made it impossible for them to survive.
I do see what you mean, and I stand corrected.
F1 is not a place for small teams, and it was a mistake to ever believe that there could be a place for small teams. Few other sports even contemplate allowing such un even competition.
I've read that Liberty wants to promote the sport like NFL football. If it means NFL style revenue sharing, I'm all for it. (I'm aware that EU rules would probably preclude the strict control the NFL exerts over its franchises, but something will be better than nothing)
-
It used to be a place for small teams and it should be a place for small teams. This, alongside sorting out the aerodynamics to improve overtaking, are, for me, the two most significant challenges facing the new owners.
-
Too bad they don't allow a team to enter one car.It would
make it affordable for a few,maybe.
-
There does, however, need to be something for teams between 30 people (approximate maximum for a F2/R3.5 team) and 350 people (a bit the size of the smallest team, which is currently a tie between Toro Rosso and Force India, at least until Force India finishes its current hiring spree).