FoxHound wrote:
I think this conversation would also greatly benefit from a healthy dose of the reality that no matter what anyone thinks the sports needs or thinks should happen, there's probably no way to implement a strict budget cap for an international sport contested by several large multinational corporations.
.........
It seems to me that when you try to force someone to play by rules they don't like they'll usually try to find a way around them.
.........
We can talk all day until we're blue in the face about what should or should not happen.
I think it's probably smarter to talk about what can and cannot happen.
As you seem to have addressed this towards me.
Can you show, where I said a budget cap would be a workable solution?
Furthermore, the title of the thread was/is "about the RAA", bot about budget caps or other alternative ideas.
As the RRA seem to have run it's course, and some numbers emerge via the companies house fillings of some teams, we can
look back, and see, how much of an impact it had in the "real world", interdependent of what some team members stated in the press during different times in the past.
That's the only reason, I ever looked at this thread, and the only thing I'm interested to discuss, not who is to blame and who may or may not broke it, or what will may happen from here onward.
But their seems to be vivid interest in this questions, so please go ahead.
.......
I agree, and this IMHO will always be the case. Doesn't really matter if we talk technical rules, sporting or any administrative regulations. As long as there is an intention, there will be a way.
As long as (some) teams want to spend more money, they will find a way to do so. And there is a lot of evidence, that teams are still prepared to spend more money, and nobody forces them via a gun to their head to do so.
It's by choice, because they still chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, and as long as this is the case, it's difficult to do something about it. IMHO
There are teams, you make money in F1. Williams for example, so it must be possible somehow.
Now, that this does not mean "winning" is a different matter, and IMHO should be considered separately.
There are different possible business models to compete/participate in F1, and as Williams show, you can participate within your means and still turn a profit.
Now, that purely participating is not enough for some, even at the low end of the grid, and that they chose to chase that pot of gold, with more and more money is a different matter.
You can always spend more money if you like, and you can always be unhappy with what you have.
But that's mainly by choice not by necessary.
If some think, that F1 is like Amazon, or any similar start up business, and that they can and should rack up xxx millions in debt, but all will come good in the end, is fair game, but does not sounds like a very sound strategy to me. (emphasis is on to me).
While, we can speak about costs, and trying to bring costs down is always on the agenda, for any serious business, we should also try to see, how much of the costs are self inflicted, and if they are all necessary.
......
I agree with the first part, but not necessary with the second.
But please go ahead, I'm sure their are others who will likely participate in this kind of discussion,
to me it's sounds like a waste of time, but that's o.k.
