Andretti F1 - 2025

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Richard C

the teams agreed to an entry fee but are not willing to stand by their agreement if someone met the conditions

An anti-dilution fee is not an entry fee though.

[Adam43]

Yes, but you know what Richard means and we've already covered this. That is the reason for it, but effectively it is an entrance fee for the new entrant. They have to raise it to enter.

It also has the historic reason of making sure that you are credible by having to raise that amount of money.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by porsche962fan

this is even better

1989 Prequalify at Canada

13 drivers were in it, that's 65% of the current entire grid !! think about that !!

and look at that access people had to the cars, not like the sterile **** of today why the heck F1 stil has viewers is beyond me

Thanks for posting - making my skin crawl a little bit to be honest (saw myself a few times in the vid). Those super-early morning starts, shipping all the gear, cars, personnel around the world with no surety of even being able to attempt to qualify meaning that meaningful sponsors were very hard to find, no assistance with shipping costs from the FOCA package, 2 sets of tyres on a totally green track to get in etc. etc.

In all honesty, with the costs involved and sponsor expectations these days, the PreQual days of 30 years ago seem very unlikely.

FYI all those people crowding around the cars are "media" or at least people with media passes - mainly photographers. Clearly there are team people there too (including some team promo people by the look of it) but the vast majority had "media" passes. It was too much for sure, we often had to elbow them aside to even get to our cars in the pit lane - there is no way any responsible body would be able to satisfy WHS needs these days with that many people in the way.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I suspect the next iteration of that agreement will used a more complex computation that is likely to have a high minimum and an indexable value that allows it to grow even higher if team values grow. To effectively price it out of just about anyone's reach, but if someone has deep enough pockets the teams would get some type of massive windfall.

It's already been flagged that the anti-dilution fee is likely to raise to around $650M in the new Concorde Agreement - in fact Michael Andretti said that paying the higher figure was something Andretti could do and he also said that if he was one of the existing teams, he'd have the same reaction as them. Bear in mind also that it wouldn't be a massive windfall for existing teams, but simply maintains their current level of earnings from FOM for 3 years.

Originally Posted by Richard C

But I think the initial point is valid which was... the teams agreed to an entry fee but are not willing to stand by their agreement if someone met the conditions. So they are creating other roadblocks. I guess another perspective is that the Concorde agreement was either purposefully (or accidently) written with enough vagueness that an excuse for exclusion can always be found.

Of course it wasn't the teams that didn't accept Andretti's entry, it was FOM and according to FOM, the Andretti application didn't meet the conditions, especially the key commercial criteria that FOM had flagged right from the time that applications were opened for teams to apply to enter. (Whether or not the FOM view is agreed with)

Originally Posted by Richard C

But we are beating a dead horse on this entire thing until something changes. Such as FOM changes their mind (99.9% sure that is not going to happen ) or some type of legal challenge is put forth.

...or Andretti puts in an application for 2028, which may well be accepted (subject I expect to the new Concorde Agreement, particularly in regard to anti-dilution fee). If the entry isn't accepted, then that might well lead to a legal challenge, given what was said in the FOM statement.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

It's already been flagged that the anti-dilution fee is likely to raise to around $650M in the new Concorde Agreement - in fact Michael Andretti said that paying the higher figure was something Andretti could do and he also said that if he was one of the existing teams, he'd have the same reaction as them. Bear in mind also that it wouldn't be a massive windfall for existing teams, but simply maintains their current level of earnings from FOM for 3 years.

Your missing the point. We all know they will raise it. My point is that it is unlikely to be a fixed value. They probably feel burnt by setting a fixed value that didn't factor in economic conditions.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Of course it wasn't the teams that didn't accept Andretti's entry, it was FOM and according to FOM, the Andretti application didn't meet the conditions, especially the key commercial criteria that FOM had flagged right from the time that applications were opened for teams to apply to enter. (Whether or not the FOM view is agreed with)

Sorry, we have covered this ground many times. While FOM says they didn't consult the team, I have to be careful of rolling my eyes as they might fall out of my head. Teams are customers of FOM, so while FOM has goals of their own, part of the larger goals they use to drive their business is to include goals of the big teams that they feel provides the largest value to the championship. Without those teams (particularly the big teams) FOM has nothing. Does anyone "really" think FOM just does their own thing without factoring in the desires of the big teams?

Richard

[BTCC frog]

Of course the decision is about the other teams not wanting to share the prize money, and is entirely commercial.

But I don’t agree with this idea that fans seem to have that a team must be competitive to ‘add value’. A slow team would add plenty of value to the sport, just as much as a midfield team because we have plenty of those already. Minardi are the most loved team in F1 history. As recently as 2010, we had three new teams join with no hope of scoring a point or making it to Q3. But they created a private race in themselves as it was interesting to see if Glock could get ahead of Trulli, or if a Lotus could sneak into Q2. And every time a wet qualifying session or race happened, it was so much more exciting when you knew one of these teams could have a great result. I am thinking about Malaysia 2012 when Narain Karthikeyan briefly ran as high as sixth, or Belgium 2013 when Giedo van der Garde was third in Q1. And what a nice moment it was when Jules Bianchi brought the Marussia home in ninth for their first point in Monaco 2014. These small teams added so much value to the sport and they were only ten years ago. In 1989, the pre qualifying battles would also have added great value and the occasional special moment like Stefan Johansson scoring a podium for Onyx. So I would certainly Andretti to the grid and would love to see them in the midfield, but would be just as excited about a useless team joining to cruise around at the back, or preferably a number of such teams who could compete with each other, but where only the top 26 below 107% could qualifying for the race.

Also, everyone starts somewhere, and some supposedly bad teams can rise to the top. Lotus had a very scrappy first two years. Williams took ten years to win a race.

And not to mention the fact that the new generation of fans who Liberty are so excited about would absolutely love someone to make fun of on social media (for now they have to make do with Haas who are not bad at all by the standards of most last placed teams).

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

...or Andretti puts in an application for 2028, which may well be accepted (subject I expect to the new Concorde Agreement, particularly in regard to anti-dilution fee). If the entry isn't accepted, then that might well lead to a legal challenge, given what was said in the FOM statement.

Another dead horse topic.

My understanding is that the current Concorde agreement runs through the end of 2025. And I don't think the current agreement has been extended "as is" to the best of my knowledge. I don't think the full details of that agreement is public, but I doubt it covers what happens in 2026 and beyond the interactions between FOM and the teams. Yes, they are either done (or nearly done) with the FIA side of things (sporting, technical, financial regulations) for 2026 and beyond, but not the FOM commercial side.

So for FOM to call out a potential 2028 submission is just so much word salad. It sounds good, but it is effectively meaningless. It is meaningless as I think there is no agreement in place to facilitate a new entries in 2028. This is sort of like saying someone should just buy a ticket on a rocket to Pluto when they know nobody is selling tickets to Pluto yet. IMHO to take any part of the FOM statement about 2028 and "looking favorably upon" (or however they said it) as being quite naive. Again, it sounds nice, but is meaningless.

I think that only until the next Concorde agreement is done (which frankly could include Andretti or anyone else in the discussions) will we know how or by what process any new entry will take place during the time period covered by the next agreement.

I could be wrong on this, but if I am, can someone point at documentation or news articles that calls out how exactly it would work for a 2028 submission now or anytime in the near future?

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Your missing the point. We all know they will raise it. My point is that it is unlikely to be a fixed value. They probably feel burnt by setting a fixed value that didn't factor in economic conditions.

Not missing the point at all - the key point that I was making is that the anti-solutions fee isn't a "massive windfall" for the teams - it simply maintains their split from FOM for 3 years if a new team is added.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Not missing the point at all - the key point that I was making is that the anti-solutions fee isn't a "massive windfall" for the teams - it simply maintains their split from FOM for 3 years if a new team is added.

So I call out my point (anti-dilution is likely to not be a fixed value in the future) and you call out a totally different one (A potential future large anti-dilution will not be a windfall). So yes, we are talking past each other. Not sure if you are trying to be obtuse on purpose or not.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

My understanding is that the current Concorde agreement runs through the end of 2025.

So for FOM to call out a potential 2028 submission is just so much word salad.

I could be wrong on this, but if I am, can someone point at documentation or news articles that calls out how exactly it would work for a 2028 submission now or anytime in the near future?

You're forgetting that the FIA accepted an Andretti application for 2025 or 2026. There was no reference from either FIA or FOM that it was "2025 or nothing as we don't have a Concorde Agreement for after that".

Michael Andretti said himself that they were aiming at 2026 rather than 2025 and by doing so, naturally he understands that might include revised anti-dilution fees at the least.

Reference to 2028 may in fact be so much word salad, but as I've said before, if I was Andretti, I'd call FOM out on it by re-submitting with a 2028 start & a GM engine program from the outset. That application would either be accepted with conditions or knocked back but it might just remove Andretti from the limbo area it is currently in.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

So I call out my point (anti-dilution is likely to not be a fixed value in the future) and you call out a totally different one (A potential future large anti-dilution will not be a windfall). So yes, we are talking past each other. Not sure if you are trying to be obtuse on purpose or not.

Not being obtuse in any way - everyone expects the anti-dilution fee to go up (including Andretti) and at this stage we don't know for sure what value that will be, whether it'll be fixed or as you suggest indexed, but I simply disagreed with your point that it represents a "massive windfall" for the existing teams.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

You're forgetting that the FIA accepted an Andretti application for 2025 or 2026. There was no reference from either FIA or FOM that it was "2025 or nothing as we don't have a Concorde Agreement for after that".

So this is a valid question as to the end date for the current Concorde agreement and any potential for 2026 vs. 2025. And I will gladly have someone provide details as to exactly when the current Concorde agreement ends and the implications of potential 2026 entry. I would have to re-read the FOM statement, but I don't think they said anything one way or another regarding the Concorde agreement boundaries.

As to 2025 vs 2026 entry in general, I think it is generally clear that 2025 is the last year or the current technical spec (for engine and chassis). It might also align with last year of the Concorde agreement. As to 2026 it also could be a sweet spot for a new entrant. But agree that there is some lack of clarity here on the implications of 2025 vs. 2026 as to the Concorde agreement. Again, I would love for someone to provide details (point to documents, news articles, etc.) that speaks to how an entry could be submitted or accepted for a date that is beyond the current Concorde agreement.

I can speculate to this. For example in the past when teams have been signing up to the various Concorde agreements, they don't all sign at once. And those who sign may not all be signing the same exact agreement. If I remember correctly we have seen holdouts negotiate for likely concessions AFTER other teams have signed. But again, I would love for someone to provide specific details. I have looked online and I think as big as F1 is, a lot of the inner workings of prior and current Concorde agreements are not particularly open. Yes, we do see revenue data at the end of seasons, but not much into how the agreement came about and other potential details that may not always show up (such as financials which may be legally required to be released)

Originally Posted by Tourer

Michael Andretti said himself that they were aiming at 2026 rather than 2025 and by doing so, naturally he understands that might include revised anti-dilution fees at the least.

It's hard to say what exactly Andretti was expecting regarding any revised anti-dilution fee increase for 2026. He might have expected it as you say. Of course what exactly that value would be (which nobody knows) would be a factor. Either way... FOM said no to either option. Which leads the next topic of how the 2028 dates came up? 2028 is the date that GM said they would have an engine ready. So it is just more of "We would love GM to come in" and then how would the rest of the feedback (such as Andretti doesn't bring any value to F1) change between now and some date in the future? Meaning... the same reasons to decline Andretti could be reused again in the future.

Originally Posted by Tourer

Reference to 2028 may in fact be so much word salad, but as I've said before, if I was Andretti, I'd call FOM out on it by re-submitting with a 2028 start & a GM engine program from the outset. That application would either be accepted with conditions or knocked back but it might just remove Andretti from the limbo area it is currently in.

You can't have it both ways. You can agree that there is no "2028" as there is no framework, process or whatever you want to call it for a 2028 submission and then at the same time say they should submit for 2028 entry? As I said before you can't buy tickets to Pluto if nobody is selling tickets to Pluto. Plus the high likelihood that GM will NOT work to build an engine for 2028 without having an entry for their preferred US partner.

I think there is a massive gulf in our beliefs as to the reality of not just how all of this might work but what is really going on here. I might broadly say your position is to take a very literal interpretation of the FOM statement (FOM says they should do X, so they should do X) and I am not. Where I think I am right is that FOM (and most if not all of the current teams) absolutely does not want an extra team in the series. And that following the established path (or suggestions from FOM to do things in the future) is most likely stalling, delaying or a downright lukewarm (at best) or chilly (more appropriate given the brutal negativity in the FOM response) "maybe" stance that any belief that FOM would support Andretti (or anyone) in the future as an eleventh team is probably fantasy. (Sorry for that long winded and potentially hard to read sentence)

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Not being obtuse in any way - everyone expects the anti-dilution fee to go up (including Andretti) and at this stage we don't know for sure what value that will be, whether it'll be fixed or as you suggest indexed, but I simply disagreed with your point that it represents a "massive windfall" for the existing teams.

That is fine. It is all a hypothetical as to what or how large of the future fee will be. I personally think teams will want it to be a windfall. So high that it is effectively impossible to achieve. So high that if someone does pay it, that they will go to the bank with a big smile on their faces. That it WILL be an above and beyond bonus and not just "enough". But it's just an opinion.

Richard

[GTRMagic]

I know I keep coming back to it, but the Andretti Indy car program never seems to have the same gravitas as Penske or Ganassi. Some of that is likely funding, drivers, engineering and team decision making.

Funnily enough, all impact in F1 success too.

Allan Moffat once said of drivers of a particular Italian hero car, that buying a Ferrari doesn’t make you a Ferrari driver. I kinda see the same here…

Perhaps the thread title should change now.. unless Mr Haas has different plans, there isn’t going to be an Andretti F1 team on the grid in 2025…

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

So this is a valid question as to the end date for the current Concorde agreement and any potential for 2026 vs. 2025.

The current Concorde Agreement expires at the end of 2025. Googled up a tonne of articles about it but here is one example to assist.

Originally Posted by Richard C

You can't have it both ways. You can agree that there is no "2028" as there is no framework, process or whatever you want to call it for a 2028 submission and then at the same time say they should submit for 2028 entry?

Can say exactly the same for 2026, yet that was considered as a possible start year for Andretti by both FIA & it appears FOM, certainly by Andretti itself. The FOM strongly opened the door to 2028 itself in its statement, hence my view that I'd have a crack at that if I was Andretti - might fall at the first hurdle but currently the team is in limbo, which is a very difficult place to be from a planning / budgeting point of view and any strategy to try and move on from that is worth trying IMHO.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

I know I keep coming back to it, but the Andretti Indy car program never seems to have the same gravitas as Penske or Ganassi. Some of that is likely funding, drivers, engineering and team decision making.

Funnily enough, all impact in F1 success too.

Allan Moffat once said of drivers of a particular Italian hero car, that buying a Ferrari doesn’t make you a Ferrari driver. I kinda see the same here…

Perhaps the thread title should change now.. unless Mr Haas has different plans, there isn’t going to be an Andretti F1 team on the grid in 2025…

I disagree, they were at least as credible as Ganassi and Penske. They won plenty of races and titles and attracted plenty of top class drivers. Plus the name of Andretti is familiar to so many American fans

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The current Concorde Agreement expires at the end of 2025. Googled up a tonne of articles about it but here is one example to assist.

Yes as I said earlier, it seems it runs through 2025. Per my question... how does that explain the potential for 2026? More explicitly to avoid ongoing confusion...

How does an agreement that runs through 2025 allow for entry in 2026?

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

How does an agreement that runs through 2025 allow for entry in 2026?

can they not amend the agreement as they have done before?

whether they want to or not is of course a different question but i feel as though the Concorde is more of a living document which can be changed if there is a will or rather if there is a financial motivation to do so?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

can they not amend the agreement as they have done before?

whether they want to or not is of course a different question but i feel as though the Concorde is more of a living document which can be changed if there is a will or rather if there is a financial motivation to do so?

I expect they can. But have they? I think the main item that was recently discussed as a likely change was to adjust the capex spending limits (pushed by Williams) and that didn't go through.

Also, I don't think the current agreement has been extended beyond 2026. You can find new stories in mid-2023 in which there is talk about the next agreement with some teams saying they are ready to talk, but also FOM saying they are in no rush. I can't find any mention in the press as to if/when that negotiations might take place. Maybe they are happening now? And all mention of the next iteration calls out a rework of the anti-dilution fees. So I would be shocked if they extended the current agreement "as is".

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I expect they can. But have they?

no they have not sadly. and the source of some of my frustration.

i get there is a lot of self interest at play here and the game is the game but bleeding a possible new entrant seems short sighted...rather, one would think there is more money to be made down the road by helping to build up another American entry.

otherwise, why bother hosting 3 races there?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Yes as I said earlier, it seems it runs through 2025. Per my question... how does that explain the potential for 2026? More explicitly to avoid ongoing confusion...

How does an agreement that runs through 2025 allow for entry in 2026?

Richard

I expect that allowing an entry for 2026 or later would be done on the basis that the approved entry would be subject to the terms of the new Concorde Agreement. So in this case, Andretti's entry would be approved but the size of the anti-dilution fee for example wouldn't be known until the new agreement was signed off.

The reason that I keep saying that if I was Andretti I'd apply for 2028 entry is that in this respect, it is no different to 2026 but Andretti's commercial value and I guess credentials will be very different in 2028, with the GM engine program and also the indication by FOM in its statement that an application for 2028 would be viewed much more favourably.

Race teams and the people that run them do tend to be fairly aggressive, not content to sit back and wait, more inclined to ask for forgiveness rather than permission & control freaks so such a move would generally fit.

Typically, negotiations on each new iteration of the Concorde Agreement go down to the wire (the current one was finalised 3 months before it came into effect) so you'd have to expect that the next one wouldn't be finalised until late 2025, so if Andretti waits, it'll likely be 2026 before it can apply again, so could be late 2026 or early 2027 before it (likely) gets approval, meaning that it might not have enough time to be ready to run in 2028, making it a 2029 kickoff.

If however, Andretti re-applies now for 2028, it may get approved (subject to the terms of the new Concorde Agreement) and that would give it the capacity to plan, to develop commercial partners, employ staff, develop a car etc. etc. in the knowledge that it can be on the grid in 2028. If it doesn't get approved now as FOM of FIA (or both) want to wait for the new Concorde Agreement, nothing has been lost.

If nothing else, a successful application for 2028 would give the team a lot more control over its destiny, so if I were Andretti, that's what I personally would be doing.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no they have not sadly. and the source of some of my frustration.

i get there is a lot of self interest at play here and the game is the game but bleeding a possible new entrant seems short sighted...rather, one would think there is more money to be made down the road by helping to build up another American entry.

otherwise, why bother hosting 3 races there?

The whole dilution fee is just self interest.
In a proper competitive and open competition there would be no dilution fee..

Teams would accept that their annual payout was the result of their performance during the season and that there was no entitlement beyond that prize fund.
That is the way motorsport elsewhere on the planet runs and has usually run, and has traditionally run.

By what edict do F1 teams think that they have somehow made F1 popular in a way that entitles them to have an entitlement to amounts of money beyond their placing in any given season?

The current Concorde agreement apportions money according to the number of teams participating in the season.
The FIA Maximum is 26 cars which is effectively 13 teams given tht a team is limited to 2 cars and has worked that way for the last decade.
there have been no third cars etc

At present it runs from about 13% for the winner down to about 6.5% for the one at the bottom.

If you apportioned the prize fund in a similar way for 11 teams it would run
12.5%
11%
10.5%
10%
9,5%
9%
8,5%
8%
7,5%
7%
6.5%

This is 100% of the prize fund and covers 11 teams. The last teams still gets 6.5% even if he finishes 11th.The 10th team now would get 7% or .5% more than it now gets.
If it was a billion dollars being shared out the 10th team would get 70 million, the 11th team would get 65 million. Andretti at one earlier point said he would run the first years under the current regulations and accept NO eligibility for any of the fund no matter where he finished.

Under the above distribution, which is very close to the present Concorde agreement in overall distribution, if Andretti finished last of the 11 teams for three years in a row he would get about 65 million.
Multiply that by 3 and you get 196 ,illion so the 200 million dilution fee he is effectively paying himself for his prize money. It hasnt cost anyone else anything.

If he was more effective than other teams and finished higher than 11th he would deserve the extra 5 million (which is what it would be if there was a onre billion dollar fund at the end of 2025.

Whatever way you divide money up between ten teams the average can only be 10%, the total cant be more than a 100%
This is why talking about differences of 10 million between the teams is a nonsense unless the upper teams are getting the vast majority ogf the money and the lower teams just a few scraps.
This is NOT the way it is done now because we know the last Concorde agreement flattened out the curve in a far more equitable manner.

A distribution amount that differentiated 10 million between teach team would require a 2-billion-dollar fund and we know it is nothing like, barely half of that or just over if the year is a good year.

So the dilution fund is simply greed. it is not a valid basis for entry and even the present 200-million-dollar amount is more than adequate if FOM uses it wisely.
An 11th team would make very little difference to the distribution curve and at the most the other 10 teams would be giving up, on average, no more than 650,000 if the 11th team was to get a 6.5% share of a billion dollars. A little more if the fund amounts to more than a billion in any given year.
And that assumes NO antidilution fund.
If a 200 million dollar fee is included then the 11th team is effectively paying for the 11th team for the first three years....

This means that the other ten teams are getting a free ride for the first three years even if they are les competitive than the new 11th team.

How can that be acceptable in an open competition based on success earned by merit?
It can't.
That is why the antidilution fee is garbage.
The other teams are not protecting heritage or anything they have given to the sport over the last decade. They have not contributed to the present rise in popularity.
They have simply participated, and others have done the work that has elevated the present financial success.
But that success is fragile and can vanish in less than a year.


Whatever the new Concorde has in it if it follows the present trend it will be even more protective, less open, and more contrived , than the present agreement.
All the arguments are contrived.
There is no merit in competing on a sloping field, especially if you are the ones playing downhill.
And that is what is happening in F1.
And if it continues it will kill the sport, fracture their golden egg they are trying to protect.

Eggs are fragile. They break easily.
Just how long before the present one breaks will interesting but break it will.
All eggs are broken eventually.
They either give birth to something else or are consumed for other reasons.

Scrambled eggs anyone?

[bathurst77]

Being an old commy, Im uncomfortable with one entrant owning two teams and new teams not getting a look in. Maybe there should be a 2 car limit, FIA FOM should use discretionary powers to stop RB/Vcarb alliance. I dunno Im no lawyer.

Im in favour of opening the door to more, bring back prequal. Maybe have a 2nd tier, lower entry fees, lower prize money and you have to prequal. Race day grid is the usual tier 1 cars, plus 2 or 4 ars from tier 2. ("privateers cup" Champions vs Challengers! David and goliiath)

Can only stay in tier 2 for 3 years then move up or move on... after a few years in tier 2, they have "learned the ropes" and proven themselves, so they have to step up or step out. Maybe allow the tier 2 winner each year enter as tier 1 the next and the lowest tier 1 is relegated, soccer style. Revolving door of new teams regularly sparking interest.

Hell bring back customer cars for tier 2.
New team, buys a chassis from x engine from y, a couple of good pay drivers, much lower cost than playing the main game. Could even end up with RB chassis with Ferrari engine or the like. After 3 years maybe they can stay on as T2 but have to start building their own chassis.

Sure theres a chance your weekend is over sat morning, but if Prequal was guaranteed full tv coverage and the team gets a run in all friday sessions plus their own prequal, thats 3 sessions on world tv for a much lower buy in.

I like to spit ball....

[Alan52]

Teretonga’s post gets to the heart of the matter.
The existing 10 have done nothing to cause this Golden Age of F1.They just happened to be holding a winning lottery ticket at the time.
If we can get 12 teams that can afford to compete then we should have 12 teams.
In the age of the cost cap if an existing team is struggling then they should pull out rather than block other teams that can afford to compete.I’m looking at you James Vowles.
I never thought I’d say that I want the balloon to burst but now I do.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The whole dilution fee is just self interest.
In a proper competitive and open competition there would be no dilution fee..

Teams would accept that their annual payout was the result of their performance during the season and that there was no entitlement beyond that prize fund.
That is the way motorsport elsewhere on the planet runs and has usually run, and has traditionally run.

By what edict do F1 teams think that they have somehow made F1 popular in a way that entitles them to have an entitlement to amounts of money beyond their placing in any given season?

The current Concorde agreement apportions money according to the number of teams participating in the season.
The FIA Maximum is 26 cars which is effectively 13 teams given tht a team is limited to 2 cars and has worked that way for the last decade.
there have been no third cars etc

At present it runs from about 13% for the winner down to about 6.5% for the one at the bottom.

If you apportioned the prize fund in a similar way for 11 teams it would run
12.5%
11%
10.5%
10%
9,5%
9%
8,5%
8%
7,5%
7%
6.5%

This is 100% of the prize fund and covers 11 teams. The last teams still gets 6.5% even if he finishes 11th.The 10th team now would get 7% or .5% more than it now gets.
If it was a billion dollars being shared out the 10th team would get 70 million, the 11th team would get 65 million. Andretti at one earlier point said he would run the first years under the current regulations and accept NO eligibility for any of the fund no matter where he finished.

Under the above distribution, which is very close to the present Concorde agreement in overall distribution, if Andretti finished last of the 11 teams for three years in a row he would get about 65 million.
Multiply that by 3 and you get 196 ,illion so the 200 million dilution fee he is effectively paying himself for his prize money. It hasnt cost anyone else anything.

If he was more effective than other teams and finished higher than 11th he would deserve the extra 5 million (which is what it would be if there was a onre billion dollar fund at the end of 2025.

Whatever way you divide money up between ten teams the average can only be 10%, the total cant be more than a 100%
This is why talking about differences of 10 million between the teams is a nonsense unless the upper teams are getting the vast majority ogf the money and the lower teams just a few scraps.
This is NOT the way it is done now because we know the last Concorde agreement flattened out the curve in a far more equitable manner.

A distribution amount that differentiated 10 million between teach team would require a 2-billion-dollar fund and we know it is nothing like, barely half of that or just over if the year is a good year.

So the dilution fund is simply greed. it is not a valid basis for entry and even the present 200-million-dollar amount is more than adequate if FOM uses it wisely.
An 11th team would make very little difference to the distribution curve and at the most the other 10 teams would be giving up, on average, no more than 650,000 if the 11th team was to get a 6.5% share of a billion dollars. A little more if the fund amounts to more than a billion in any given year.
And that assumes NO antidilution fund.
If a 200 million dollar fee is included then the 11th team is effectively paying for the 11th team for the first three years....

This means that the other ten teams are getting a free ride for the first three years even if they are les competitive than the new 11th team.

How can that be acceptable in an open competition based on success earned by merit?
It can't.
That is why the antidilution fee is garbage.
The other teams are not protecting heritage or anything they have given to the sport over the last decade. They have not contributed to the present rise in popularity.
They have simply participated, and others have done the work that has elevated the present financial success.
But that success is fragile and can vanish in less than a year.


Whatever the new Concorde has in it if it follows the present trend it will be even more protective, less open, and more contrived , than the present agreement.
All the arguments are contrived.
There is no merit in competing on a sloping field, especially if you are the ones playing downhill.
And that is what is happening in F1.
And if it continues it will kill the sport, fracture their golden egg they are trying to protect.

Eggs are fragile. They break easily.
Just how long before the present one breaks will interesting but break it will.
All eggs are broken eventually.
They either give birth to something else or are consumed for other reasons.

Scrambled eggs anyone?

Great, great post but seems to miss the point that the real purpose of the anti-dilution fee is to protect the capital values of both FOM and the existing entrants.

Going to be difficult to justify your $1b value to the Hollywood investors when Johnny-come-lately can rock up and build his own team for just $500m.