New Post
Hot Topic
New Poll
Moved Topic
Sticky Topic
No New Post
Old Hot Topic
Old Poll
Announcement
Closed Topic
Signature:
Soccer is not the beautiful game,Hockey is!!!
F1 aims for 110m Euro budget cap
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 814
Joined
This budget suggestion is such a bag of crap.Nobody should be able to tell these teams how little or much money they can spend.
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 4199
Joined
It sounds to me like nobody really knows what that proposal would cost per team total. Even Flavs off the cuff answer seems like a guess as to what he would spend in 09.
It seems as if good technology would come out of KERS for a while without a cap and then at some point the F1 boys will take it to extremes and the things wont have any road car relevance since they will be made out of nanotubes and unobtainium and cost 1 mil each...
The NFL cap makes more sense because all the teams get it. Pool the money and distribute it. I just dont buy into that idea would be unfair to the big teams...they will still dominate with their personnel.
Ferrari and Mclaren for example have larger budgets due to their record of success over a longer period of time. Why should they be hamstrung because the smaller teams, who also haven't put in the years, need a boost to be competitive? Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
Completely agree. The fact that marketing costs are also not included means the rich teams can market more effectively and attract more sponsors, not to mention pay the top drivers. This sounds like one of those initiatives to handle things that are already being done in the sport and won't really change much of it, if at all.
How are they supposed to police it? FIA accountants in every team? Designated supplies with fixed costs? Fixed income for every position in the teams except the drivers?
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 2632
Joined
That will make problems for new teams trying to enter the F1 grid.
And I wonder what is the annual budget for the other categories?
Ultimate Insider
Total Posts: 657
Joined
Ferrari and Mclaren for example have larger budgets due to their record of success over a longer period of time. Why should they be hamstrung because the smaller teams, who also haven't put in the years, need a boost to be competitive? Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
I agree. I personally am against such nonsense.
For me it's not how much you spend, but what you spend it on. If it's spent on innovation that relevant to the automotive industry and/or the aerospace&defence;industry and/or motorsport industry then good its fine by me. But burning 120 million to gain 10-12 hp over the opposition is not.
Speed Freak
Total Posts: 417
Joined
If this is going to work, there would have to be a budget cap on everything, then the teams cannot reidrect their high spending on another department.
The problem is, a spending cap will only hurt the smaller teams no matter what the way it's implemented. The manufacturer teams will be easily able to hide their spending. "What? Oh that? That's some new brake designs for our next road going supercar...." Okay, a bit of an oversimplification and ludicrous example, but unless the FIA can somehow completely police everyone and watch them like hawks, it's never going to work.
That said, I'm totally against spending caps. Lets open up the rules a bit more. That way maybe someone can come up with a novel (and possibly) cheaper way to go faster.
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 2027
Joined
Why take from the better to improve the not-as -good? I would certainly never give up a good sales lead or account to improve the standing of one of my competitors. Screw 'em if they can't hang.
F1 is the top level of racing competition not some tee-ball league.
IMO...this is more a social activist and political agenda rather than a sporting solution. I'd love to tear into a terrific political rant but...I won't here.
Level it all out, make 'en all equal and maybe little Johnny can go home with a trophy and some self-esteem. Bah humbug... I hate it!!!
That isn't exactly a fair analogy. If you had enough money to buy the best sales leads, and your competitors couldn't afford anything even close... and you had 100 guys working for you, making calls on the leads, while your competitors could only afford 5.... maybe.
The point is that no matter how smart and how clever guys are on a team like Menardi/Arrows/Jordan/Force India/Aguri/Toro Rosso/Spyker... they just don't have the money to be compeititive. Those guys could come up with superior ideas and design, but never implement it cause of money.
I'm not in favor of a spending limit either... but the fact remains that the races are HORRIBLE to watch and they need to do something. Did you guys catch WSBK at Monza last week? They showed just how good a show you can put on at that track.Signature:
Marco Simoncelli in 250’s
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 3541
Joined
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080515085805.shtml
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results? F1 is the ultimate "results oriented" motorsports endeavor is it not?
Franks "reasoning" of the debate is exactly why I can't get behind the idea. He wants the front to be held back so his team can catch up.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps.
"Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080515085805.shtml
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results? F1 is the ultimate "results oriented" motorsports endeavor is it not?
Franks "reasoning" of the debate is exactly why I can't get behind the idea. He wants the front to be held back so his team can catch up.
Signature:
“The early bird gets the worm but....
the second mouse gets the cheese”
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 4280
Joined
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps.
"Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080515085805.shtml
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 3541
Joined
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps.
"Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080515085805.shtml
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
Signature:
“The early bird gets the worm but....
the second mouse gets the cheese”
Abnormal User
Total Posts: 4280
Joined
Everything I dislike about the idea of a spending cap to level the competition can be summed up by the opinion of Frank Williams.
<snip>...Williams supports the introduction of budget caps.
"Otherwise our team is going to stay where it is: at the back of the field," the Briton said.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080515085805.shtml
Why should the "haves" care one ounce if the "have nots" can compete at the front of the grid? Why should the "better" have resources they earned through results taken away because the "not as good" can't earn the same through results?
Resources are not always earned through results. They've earned a lot , but they are also simply willing to spend more on racing than other manufactures. Several teams could outspend Ferrari 10 fold if they chose to do so. Their bosses just don't allow it. So you can either have Ferrari running around a track by themselves (which would seem to suit some Ferrari fans just fine) or you can have them racing other manufactures on a somewhat level playing field.
I can see both sides of the argument, but in the end if the racing comes down to who can outspend each other what's the point? It's not a great solution but something has to be done or the grid will continue to shrink.
Besides, everyone is for the budget cap with the exception of Ferrari which tells me it's probably a good idea. It's also going to happen.
One of the solutions to a shrinking grid was the idea of customer cars. Yet, Frank Williams was totally opposed to the idea because it undermined his team's standing within F1. He didn't like the idea of a team arriving on the scene and being able to compete on less money and time served to the sport. Kind of interesting that he has not a problem with undermining the resources of the teams ahead of him in budget resources earned through results when it can benefit his outfit.
BTW...I define "earned" as having a record of success that sponsors can relatively rely on to bring them exposure and TV time for their investment. Ferrari and Mclaren would be my examples of teams who have earned sponsor dollars and confidence from those sponsors through years of success and achievement.
That kind of hypocrisy is not exclusive to Frank. It's standard procedure for every team principal. Granted some more than others.
