proteus wrote:Facts Only wrote:kasio wrote:
in my world you fix what is broken. i am suggesting that these sluggish results of last few years are not because we lost or did not have title sponsor. its because we did not build good car and engine. That is what we need to fix.
Who's this 'we' you refer to? Is that you Ron?
A title sponsor is needed, you need a sponsor who is invested in the name of the team to provide the money and backing to win. Small "bargeboard" sponsors will just go to whichever team has the best catering and free bar at the races.
There was a good quote a few years ago in an article about BMW's works team failure: Money isnt a guarantee of success but it is a pre-requisite.
Well i am still confused how can u all play the same tune about the lack of money, but yet the Mclaren had one of the biggest budgets in the caravan. The problem is the sport itself. If the rules and regulations would allow for teams to make ground and engine manufacturers actually to improve engines as they like, than we would see a different story. Redbull is mosty self funded, so is Renault, STR as well and HAAS. We have Manor which is almost blank, and again for sale. Sauber was bought out, which means it will become self-founded by Tetrapak company, we have Force India which had many years Sahara signature over the sidepods that made no aditional money (except the 100mio start investment). The only teams with title sponsorships are Mercedes and Williams. Ferrari is in the league of its own with an if u ask me an illegal deal for years with Phillip Morris. In case of middle sized and small sponsors Mclaren is as strong as it has been in the past, and they have Honda which pumps in the resources. Right now there is no need for any title sponsor, firstly they need to make their organization to work. When they achieve that, sponsorship wont be a problem.
PS; Look at the Brawn GP in 09. Someone would expect that they would get a massive title sponsorship deal with strong fundings due to their strong start and season. Yes they got many, but yet smaller short term deals.
Well, there are different ways of looking at it. For starters, F1 has and generates a lot of money, around two billion, half of that going to the teams in different proportions. How the money is devided is partly down to the teams themselves and with the current costs of engines ready for an overhaul.
To have a living f1 it would be healthy that you could run a team within the 107% rule with just the starting fee, that way any sponsorship would mean speed, profit, points, etc etc.
F1 teams are businesses and suppose to make money. In the case of Manor, it was rescued by an investor to bank on its point and prize money won by Biancies points in Monaco 2014. With Nasr's points in Brazil that investment turned south.
For McLaren, next to Honda, it's biggest sponsor is McLaren itself, to sell more cars. I guess a main reason to have a title sponsor is not just the extra 20-40 mln a year but also a marketing partner, like Honda and repsol have in MotoGP. Imagine the value if a company like PepsiCo would sponsor McLaren and on every can or packet of crisps was a picture of a McLaren-Honda.
Ferrari - Philip Morris is a completely other story. Ferrari sold its marketing rights to PM, which gives Ferrari the continuity of a steady income. It's strange that this kind of outsourcing isn't more common in F1.
