No agenda nor game face here, just rational arguments.
Williams is just in F1 to race for as long as is financially feasible, which if not for extraordinary assistance from the FIA, they currently wouldn't be able to do.
You're completely wrong if you think Renault's management board is happy to go a few seasons without winning. The same Renault that had 80+% of stock value wiped off the sharemarket in the previous financial year? I'm sure at the last board meeting everyone sat around and said 'hmm, we're laying off staff and bleeding cash everywhere but another losing season in F1 where every initiative to cut costs falls flat on it's ass looks like a great idea!' Renault's fortunate to have had a performance upturn late last year and a few good wins or if it wouldn't favour heavily reduced cost - running your thoughts with the hundred or so staff out of work at Enstone earlier this year might get you a different opinion about how 'OK' it is to be running in a cost-unlimited category indefinitely. They might suggest that Renault came very close to not being on the grid at all this year.
Ferrari's only different as they can afford ($) to be. I've nothing against their situation, I'd just wish for all teams to be as fortunate.
I've read that pitpass link before. It hinges on some key assumptions:
1 - that the proposed solution is definitively after a budget cap
2 - that it would be lifted in future
3 - that sponsors can currently cleanly afford entry into F1
4 - that with reduced operating costs sponsors would still want to contribute towards F1 by fixed proportion of a team's operating budget
5 - that the equity in association with an F1 team is tied to space on the car at a set price
6 - that it would cost >$16m to run a 'sponsorship acquisition department'
These are hysterically poor assumptions...
1 - (Again) it's not necessarily - and not probably - a cap that's sought, but a set of serious cost reductions.
2 - The aim isn't to make it cheaper only so it can be made more expensive in future. It's to keep it cheaper.
3 - Numerous sponsors have left. Renault - who you seem to believe is happy throwing cash away because their brand is worth
less than BMW's (wouldn't that mean they've less to contribute?) - have lost their current title sponsor. BMW lost CS. Many others have reduced their contribution in light of the economic crisis - F1 still gives them the same exposure, but the cost of entry is
consequently worth less.
4 - If this were true then Williams etc should want cost reduction so they always be at a loss relative to their operating budget. Ridiculous. If F1 has a high brand equity with a high entry cost as the article cites, demand is high and teams should still be able negotiate high sponsor commitments, meaning that the average proportion of sponsor contributions to a team operating budget would be proportionately higher, even if the actual contribution were diminished somewhat - the latter point being what makes it equitable for teams and sponsors alike.
5 - it's not. It's tied to an association with an international roadshow transcending a number of international markets. Paddock presence is worth far more than the sticker on the car, or the biggest sponsor in the sport (Philip Morris) wouldn't be in it.
6 - Ha ha ha ha... what, as if teams have hordes on phones cold-calling potential sponsors? I've love to see the job ads on Autosport... teams don't have $16m of aerodynamicists on payroll, they're more qualified and they make the car fast!
Don't just quote articles you're not prepared to critique yourself; think about it.
Why do
you think a cap isn't good for F1, or, more to the point, for BMW? Their actions this week shows they won't compete under the current rules at
any price - why do you think it wouldn't have been equitable to do so at
a lower price?
How much money do
you really think it should take to go racing in F1 under the current rules - or what would have to change about the rules themselves? I don't want to argue with you as to right and wrong - I just want to hear your original thoughts on it. Go on... what's
your number and
why.
I'd love to have the BMW board of directors answer that question, as it'd be a good lesson for people involved in F1 everywhere - from the FIA to the fans - to take heed of.
xpensive wrote:I agree with you as usual timbo.
As usual, but do you have anything original to say?
