Andretti F1 - 2025

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, I agree. It's too much of a closed shop and there needs to be more teams in. Be good to have 12 teams again. Too many talented drivers are missing out because of the limited spaces on the grid. Just doesn't feel right that there are no rookies on the grid for this year. However every one of the current teams still deserves their place, but their elitist attitude to other teams joining is not making them popular. F1 needs a rethink

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by peebee2

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.

Figures from team owners like $1billion are a fantasy until someone actually pays that amount.Not a team owner saying he has been offered it.
The teams don’t deserve to have this type of protection.Maintaining the current status quo in perpetuity is not the way to strengthen and grow any type of business F1 included.
FOM would realise that but the teams playing the breakaway card every time scares FOM into acting against their own best interests.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Figures from team owners like $1billion are a fantasy until someone actually pays that amount.Not a team owner saying he has been offered it.

? Team shares have changed hands at close to that amount, for example Alpine.

[chillibowl]

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..

while i have disagreed with your assessment of this in the past i must admit to coming around to your line of thinking more and more in light of recent developments concerning the Andretti bid..

Originally Posted by Teretonga

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?

however i do still struggle with this part though.

people like teams. i like teams. drivers and personnel come and go but my support for a team remains. their history and the knowledge that they will be able to continue does matter to me and their existence does add to the popularity of the sport to me.

right or wrong, aiding these teams usually requires money and protections which i also still happen to think they are entitled to.

of course its hard to balance those values with the need to allow for new teams to enter...hence why this part of your argument is still tricky for me.

[Mike Harte]

I think that 3 teams have possibly earned the right to have a dilution fee, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, but the rest are really just Johnny Come Latelys although they have come up through the ranks, apart from Haas, having bought existing teams, and are all now hanging on to the coat tails of the 3 originals. Considering the amount of money that Red Bull have put in to F1, they may well be also considered with the 3.

However, the true value of any of the teams is what anyone would be prepared to buy them for if it came to a distressed sale.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I think that 3 teams have possibly earned the right to have a dilution fee, Ferrari, McLaren and Williams, but the rest are really just Johnny Come Latelys although they have come up through the ranks, apart from Haas, having bought existing teams, and are all now hanging on to the coat tails of the 3 originals. Considering the amount of money that Red Bull have put in to F1, they may well be also considered with the 3.

However, the true value of any of the teams is what anyone would be prepared to buy them for if it came to a distressed sale.

I tossed out a relegation idea in this or another thread recently. The logic might be that if over a multi-year period of time (probably 3-5 yrs?) that if you continue to be at (or near the bottom) that your entry could be revoked or you might be forced to sell the entry.

From a business perspective, it would not be the best. But the business perspective is to maintain a monopoly which is also not good. I don't know if NASCAR still has this issue, but they used to have teams that would enter a car just to run a few laps and retire the car and they could make a profit via revenue sharing and/or prize money. They added no real value to the racing or entertainment.

I think there is room for some system to replace habitually poor performers that are able to stay afloat due to the economics alone and not due to on track performance.

Richard

[1969MGCGTdriver]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I don't know if NASCAR still has this issue, but they used to have teams that would enter a car just to run a few laps and retire the car and they could make a profit via revenue sharing and/or prize money. They added no real value to the racing or entertainment.

I think there is room for some system to replace habitually poor performers that are able to stay afloat due to the economics alone and not due to on track performance.

Richard

That was one of the excuses that NASCAR used, along with trying to provide a stable environment for sponsors, to support the "need" to go to the franchise system. IMO it was all BS just to help make money for the teams and keep the outsiders out, exactly like what is now transpiring in F1.

They need to get back to the old days; anybody can show up to race as long as their car is legal and they can meet the 107% rule.

Maybe also follow the past and only award points and/or prize money down to a certain finishing place (lets say 20th just for S&Gs). This "protects" the top teams while providing an avenue for new blood that is truly committed being there and trying to improve.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

That was one of the excuses that NASCAR used, along with trying to provide a stable environment for sponsors, to support the "need" to go to the franchise system. IMO it was all BS just to help make money for the teams and keep the outsiders out, exactly like what is now transpiring in F1.

They need to get back to the old days; anybody can show up to race as long as their car is legal and they can meet the 107% rule.

Maybe also follow the past and only award points and/or prize money down to a certain finishing place (lets say 20th just for S&Gs). This "protects" the top teams while providing an avenue for new blood that is truly committed being there and trying to improve.

It was bugging me that I couldn't remember the name for the strategy I called out. It is known as "start and park" and appears to have been a problem in NASCAR as even the last place cars were getting decent payouts. I don't follow NASCAR at all, but according to the Wikipedia article on Start and Park, attempts to fix this eventually led to the NASCAR "Charter" system which seems much like owning an F1 team entry. This might be what you are talking about above? And that system includes a process like I call out above if you finish in the last three positions for three years in a row you can be forced out.

I generally agree that it should not be a closed system, but if they are going to make it a closed system, they should have a process to forcibly remove the least competitive and free up a spot for someone else to jump in.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It was bugging me that I couldn't remember the name for the strategy I called out. It is known as "start and park" and appears to have been a problem in NASCAR as even the last place cars were getting decent payouts.

I don't follow NASCAR at all, but according to the Wikipedia article on Start and Park, this eventually lets to the NASCAR "Charter" system which seems much like owning an F1 team entry. And that system includes a process like I call out above if you finish in the last three positions for three years in a row.

I generally agree that it should not be a closed system, but if they are going to make it a closed system, they should have a process to forcibly remove the least competitive and free up a spot for someone else to jump in.

Richard

My thoughts:

If it is open, it has to be fully open. ie - if a team wants to enter, there is a clear performance (only) based standard that controls entry.

If it is closed it should be a franchise style. Otherwise, in the example above - let's say Williams came last two years in a row. All the rest of the teams have to do is allow them to finish 9th in a single season and the status is maintained. It would be better to just admit that the series is limited to, and controlled by, the current 10 teams. Like NFL (for example) then a process to get competitiveness is required. That can be a achieved by having a testing regime that gives Haas 20 days of testing through the season, and Red Bull 0 days.

Back on topic - under the current system it is too ambiguous what would make a 'good' entry and a 'poor' one. It should be absolutely clear what a prospective team needs to do to create a new entry.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Richard C

It was bugging me that I couldn't remember the name for the strategy I called out. It is known as "start and park" and appears to have been a problem in NASCAR as even the last place cars were getting decent payouts. I don't follow NASCAR at all, but according to the Wikipedia article on Start and Park, attempts to fix this eventually led to the NASCAR "Charter" system which seems much like owning an F1 team entry. This might be what you are talking about above? And that system includes a process like I call out above if you finish in the last three positions for three years in a row you can be forced out.

I generally agree that it should not be a closed system, but if they are going to make it a closed system, they should have a process to forcibly remove the least competitive and free up a spot for someone else to jump in.

Richard

To be fair, I think the chances of us seeing the likes of Life and Andrea Moda in F1 ever again are very very slim. So we shouldn’t worry too much about the quality of teams that do come to F1

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

My thoughts:

If it is open, it has to be fully open. ie - if a team wants to enter, there is a clear performance (only) based standard that controls entry.

Agree

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

If it is closed it should be a franchise style. Otherwise, in the example above - let's say Williams came last two years in a row. All the rest of the teams have to do is allow them to finish 9th in a single season and the status is maintained. It would be better to just admit that the series is limited to, and controlled by, the current 10 teams.

If I read what you are saying correctly, you are saying the teams would collude to have someone come in a worse championship position just to prevent someone from getting relegated? Maybe they would, but what if it required more complex and risky manipulation than that? What if they had to be in the last three positions for three years. Lets look at the past three years...

Orange means you are on the bubble and red means you are one of the last three finishers at risk of relegation.

2021
Aston Martin
Williams
Alpha Romeo
Haas

2022
Aston Martin
Haas
Alpha Tauri
Williams

2023
Williams
Alpha Tauri
Alfa Romeo
Haas

In my rule example going into 2023 there was real risk for Williams and Haas. Let's just look at Haas. They would have had to have finished higher than Williams and that would have pushed Williams into the bottom three. I think it would be hard to collude on that just to save Haas. Frankly... if these rules were in place, I think many teams (and frankly FOM) would relish to watch Haas get kicked out and replaced. Especially if the resulting number was still just 10 teams.

I actually think that three years in the bottom three is be overly harsh, but make it five years in the bottom three and it is still Haas.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Like NFL (for example) then a process to get competitiveness is required. That can be a achieved by having a testing regime that gives Haas 20 days of testing through the season, and Red Bull 0 days.

I like what you are saying to some degree. I think the problem is... There is probably plenty of diversity of NFL teams as that number is 32 teams (pretty high). While we all tend to think that F1 doesn't have enough teams at 10. Even in my example of relegation, I think any brand new team should have some protection to prevent immediate relegation. Either a helping hand (such as you suggest with increased testing, etc.) or maybe a longer period for risk of relegation. But most likely a helping hand would be the better solution.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Back on topic - under the current system it is too ambiguous what would make a 'good' entry and a 'poor' one. It should be absolutely clear what a prospective team needs to do to create a new entry.

I think that is fair. And I think it is back on topic. My opinion (and I think many share this, but not all) is that Andretti probably would meet any reasonable evaluation for inclusion, but was excluded for other reasons (keeping the count at 10 vs. 11). So the argument (again, not everyone agrees) is that it was defined what was needed, but excuses were found. And yes, as I say, not everyone agrees, so no need to quote and repeat the reasons FOM has given (not you crmalcolm, but others who will just repeat the FOM line as if it were the gospel truth).

Regardless, it's messed up and unlikely to get better via the next Concorde agreement. So we might as well get used to having 10 teams only.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by S griffin

So we shouldn’t worry too much about the quality of teams that do come to F1

honest question but why not and isnt that sort of the point of this thread?

why was a team, that from all outward appearance, with a manu (ultimately in tow) from a family/company deeply connected to motorsports including F1, willing to build a facility, willing to pay the fee, already working on building a new car from scratch is deemed to be not bringing in enough value dont we have a right to know what exactly value means to the gatekeepers?

totally agree with crmalcolm that we should know exactly what the criteria is.

an inference on my part, but if there is an expectation that the next concorde is set to raise the anti dilution/franchise/entry fee (or whatever name it will go by) to what they believe a team to be worth then that means this is not a closed system right?

at some point an 11th team will be let in...provided they meet some, as of right now unknown, set of criteria...hence to need to update said entry amount right?

so what if its an entity back by a national government, a corporation that makes products the majority of F1 community is not in favour of, a multi billionaire of unsavory means etc etc?

perhaps all far fetched but if they are excluding entities with actual sporting credentials and with ties to the auto industry then what exactly is left?

[S griffin]

The problem is quite a few teams have fallen by the wayside before their time. Really they should encouraged more teams that are ready to come in. 10 teams are not enough, we need at least 11. Anymore is a bonus

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

an inference on my part, but if there is an expectation that the next concorde is set to raise the anti dilution/franchise/entry fee (or whatever name it will go by) to what they believe a team to be worth then that means this is not a closed system right?

Why do we think any anti-dilution fee will be priced appropriately/fairly/tied to team value? They could set the amount so high that it is effectively out of the reach of anyone. Would that also not increase their value once again by fixing the exclusivity but giving the appearance that it is not a closed system?

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Why do we think any anti-dilution fee will be priced appropriately/fairly/tied to team value? They could set the amount so high that it is effectively out of the reach of anyone. Would that also not increase their value once again by fixing the exclusivity but giving the appearance that it is not a closed system?

Richard

I could say that the number we have heard, 650m, would still be less than the extrapolated price based on the Ryan renolds group buy in of Alpine…but yes they absolutely could be doing it just to create the appearance that it’s not a closed system.

So yeah fair point.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

They need to get back to the old days; anybody can show up to race as long as their car is legal and they can meet the 107% rule.

[P38 in workshop]

Originally Posted by 1969MGCGTdriver

They need to get back to the old days; anybody can show up to race as long as their car is legal and they can meet the 107% rule.

I could not agree more.If you want the big valuation of the team,then you should demonstrate that you deserve it.

[porsche962fan]

and allow customer cars too so the costs can go down

[RED55]

Think what they like about valuing themselves , f1 has a delicate future because its relationship to road cars is getting less considering the push to electric . There is only one question to ask a new team when they want to enter the championship and that is why ? What would the correct answer be do we think .

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by RED55

Think what they like about valuing themselves , f1 has a delicate future because its relationship to road cars is getting less considering the push to electric . There is only one question to ask a new team when they want to enter the championship and that is why ? What would the correct answer be do we think .

Depends upon who is asking the question. For FOM they want the answer to be about business value. Fan and maybe FIA might be something else.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by peebee2

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.

No.
I have not missed the point about your reasoning for the anti-dilution fee at all.

If you have read my post you will notice that I have said that I have regarded the reasoning behind the anti-dilution fee as contrived and essentially unwarranted.
So I have not missed your point at all.
I simply regard it as contrived and not applicable and what follows tells you why.

If there is a capital value to be preserved, and I'm not agreeing that there is in terms of managing the distribution to teams, which is what my post is about, then it is the responsibility of the promoter and financial/commercial rights holder to preserve the value because it is in their interests to do.

It is not the job of the commercial rights holder to place that burden on any new entrant and they have no historic right to do so.

If the FIA as regulator wanted to preserve to identity and interest of historic teams they could simply incude in the responsibilities of the commercial rights holder a requirement to provide a fund to provide extra support for teams that had a historic place in f1 having been continuously entered in the championship in the same team identity for a minimum of 50 years.

This would take us back to 1973 and the only constructors who have competed continually over that time as an identity are Williams, McLaren and Ferrari.
That money would not come from the general distribution to teams but from outside that item in any 'Concorde' prize fund agreement so it did not have any effect on the distribution of funds to the teams.as per the prize fund.

In any arrangement that split the commercial operation of the sport from the FIA regulator the commercial rights holder is managing the right on behalf of the FIA.
The amount of value of holding that right is incumbent on the rights holder to develop the commercial value of the series on behalf of the FIA.
Sould Liberty decide to sell and reap a profit from it that is their right as a business and that is the profit they take from their management of the series.

But to artificially encumber new entrants will a nonsense 'anti-dilution fund' is rubbish.
The arguments the teams have always put up was that it would dilute their return.
But if Liberty is continually expanding the series and subsequently the amount of return to the teams then it would be highly unlikely that their would be a significant fall in returns to the teams which the mathematics indicates.

It is NOT Liberty's right to claw amounts from new entrants approved by the FIA to their series (and it is their series, not Liberties, unless they want to break away from the FIA, in which case it would not F1 any longer) just to add to the 'value' of their company.

That is why any dilution fee should be applied to the prize fund for the series.
The teams are the ones competing under the FIA regulations and any such should be applied directly to them.

Any other arguments from Liberty are contrived and have no real place in the management of the series, unless of course they returned the dilution fee to the FIA to fund its activities as the regulator of international motorsport worldwide.

But that is not the intent of those asking for the fee.

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I tossed out a relegation idea in this or another thread recently. The logic might be that if over a multi-year period of time (probably 3-5 yrs?) that if you continue to be at (or near the bottom) that your entry could be revoked or you might be forced to sell the entry.

From a business perspective, it would not be the best. But the business perspective is to maintain a monopoly which is also not good. I don't know if NASCAR still has this issue, but they used to have teams that would enter a car just to run a few laps and retire the car and they could make a profit via revenue sharing and/or prize money. They added no real value to the racing or entertainment.

I think there is room for some system to replace habitually poor performers that are able to stay afloat due to the economics alone and not due to on track performance.

Richard

Ive thought about this Richard and have some comments about it.

Having a relegation system would be difficult considering the FIA as regulator is not permitted by the EU anti-competition decision to have a direct influence in the commercial side of the series.
Do we have a whole bunch of suitable teams lined up to just jump in on a few months' notice.
No. It is a major undertaking, unless you permit teams to sell chassis and new entrants don't have to build their own, but if we play around with that and go back to the sixties style, we're getting away from what we currently have too much.

They may approve an entrant but cannot control the actions of the commercial rights holder directly and as the teams have some say in FOM they may have an undue influence on admission to the series. This is partly the present conundrum exists.

If we had 22 cars, 11 teams, as I have indicated in my original post on the subject with the percentages I indicated, you may still have 12 or 13 teams allowed. Relegation would not be from competing, but from receiving a payout as a top 11 team.
An extra team, in its first year, could be required to enter without eligibility for a payment in its first year, or its first two years, although I would say just one year.
(Andretti said at one point he would be happy to compete without eligibility for the payout in his first year.)

This is because if they were really competitive, one year without eligibility would be enough to establish where they fitted in the order.

It could be one or even two teams if they met the FIA criteria, and they enabled them to front up, not FOM's decision at all.
The series belongs to the FIA.

There would be no eligibility for FOM transport et al, in their first year so they would really have to have themselves well-funded, so it would have no effect on the Liberty/FOM commercial drain on series funds.

However, if they finished ahead of an existing team in their second year that would act as a relegation lever that would elevate them into the top eleven teams, and it would also act as motivation for the eleven teams to get their act together.
A bad year could see two of thirteen teams drop to the last two places in the order.

The historic teams?
Note what I said in my reply to peebee2 in my previous post.

'If the FIA as regulator wanted to preserve to identity and interest of historic teams, they could simply include in the responsibilities of the commercial rights holder a requirement to provide a fund to provide extra support for teams that had a historic place in f1 having been continuously entered in the championship in the same team identity for a minimum of 50 years.'


So there could be a payment made may be 10-25 million. somewhere in that range, made to teams they had been in continuous entrants in F1 in the last 50 years under the same identity or team name.
So McLaren, Williams, Ferrari fit that extra payment, but it would not fit in the prize fund but would be an extra payment outside it.

Yes, it would be a cost to Liberty's financial accounting, but it is 'preserving the historic identity of F1 teams'.
If that is a real interest to Liberty and matters, they should do it.

If it of interest to the FIA they have a responsibility to make it a rule.
Otherwise, all the talk of Liberty maintaining the value of F1 is just pie in the sky bs.

It is not applicable to teams of historic existence but who have changed their identity, so teams that morphed from Minardi to RCARB, or BAR to Mercedes, or Jordan to Midland to Spyker to Force India, to Racing Point to Aston Martin would not be eligible.

It might act as a deterrent for new owners to rename teams in their sponsors brand name, if they were to lose a possible minor source of income that would make a difference if they were below the cost cap.

[Alan52]

A number of good options but when you have Liberty turning to water at the slightest hint of the words breakaway series then nothing will change.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Ive thought about this Richard and have some comments about it.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Its a good post. I also wanted to be clear that my preference is for the commercial side to not be so closed, but if it is to be closed, then this relegation idea could be a solution to stagnant and poor performing teams.

You call out the FIA/FOM split between regulation and commercial. I actually think this relegation process would have to be owned fully or primarily by the commercial side. I think this could address existing EU rulings. And this could not be imposed during an existing Concorde period. It would have to be agreed upon by any team who signs the next agreement (and some might not, but more on that later). All of this might seem like a bridge too far (and probably is), but I can imagine that with the correct incentives it could happen.

While I talked about simple rules of being dropped if you finished within the bottom three over a period of years. I think there needs to be a objective aspect (the bottom three rule or something similar) and a more subjective rule. The more subjective rule would effectively put FOM in the position of making any final call one way or another. FOM having this power is a risk for abuse by them, but I think they really would only relegate a team if that team was just really stinking it up.

I can imagine the agreement saying that if FOM see a team meeting the relegation threshold AND showing a pervasive level of competitiveness, then they could be dropped if a suitable replacement is available. I think NASCAR has something similar. When I was reading up on how NASCAR does this, I think there was a recent example in which NASCAR could have pushed a team out, but chose not to do so.

Scenario 1... F1 is very healthy with strong competition up and down the entire grid. As I am fond of saying, someone always has to be in last place. And that fact is true regardless of how good that last place team is. Lets say that while meeting the relegation threshold, it actually is a VERY tough battle happening at the bottom end of the field and fans are liking it. In that case, FOM would not replace the team. Basically there is no problem to fix.

Scenario 2... One or more teams really are not particularly good and have been that way for awhile. They are not really bringing anything special to the series. One or more meet the relegation threshold. FOM decides it is best to mix things up and replace a team. Again, there would have to be a suitable replacement waiting. This is fixing the issue of a habitually poorly performing team.

As to suitable replacements, I expect that if this relegation process is put in place and those on the sidelines are watching Scenario 2 starting to play out year after year as a particular team is inching toward likely relegation, then that is when those who are itching to get into F1 are getting their ducks in a row and building up the case for whatever the entry criteria looks like. I would be shocked if nobody is at the FOM doorstep with proposals in hand if a team is just about to be relegated.

If nobody is lined up, then it rolls into the next year. If we have no interest then I guess nothing happens, but history has shown that there seem to be interest these days. And teams could still be bought and sold, so someone interested still has the purchase option vs. waiting for a potential relegation.

You mention chassis sales. I also am a supporter of allowing that.

Originally Posted by Teretonga

The historic teams?

As you point out in your post, there will have to be concessions made to what we might just call the historic teams. "Historic Teams" is a friendly way to cover what might be truly historic teams (Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and maybe Renault if you stretch it). You might want to include teams like Mercedes and Red Bull in the "historic" category on purely "historic" reasons, but I really think real reason that you include them into this special category is that they have significant clout and/or commercial weight. They are "Big Gorillas". This might include Red Bull, Mercedes and maybe a future Audi as well. Ferrari is significant enough that it is both historic and a Big Gorilla (probably the biggest). Regardless of how to categorize them, you are going to have a group of first class citizen teams. Of which you will need to throw them a bone to agree to all of this.

I think that is to be a mixture of money and promises. The money could be as you lay out and the promises could be something as simple as exclusion from relegation for the duration of the agreement. Note... one problem with this entire idea is that this future radical Concorde agreement needs to last long enough for relegation to actually be triggered (or could be triggered) before it provides any value.

Being safe from relegation might not be viewed as fair (and I could agree with that), but deals will have to be made. I think one concession that would be asked in return is that if you are a historic team, that you can't play marketing games like VCARB. You rightly call this out in your post. If you get special consideration as being "historic" then you should maintain that identity. Let's say you are Mercedes and you sell to new owners and the new owners don't want (or can't) use the Mercedes name, they get to keep their entry, but they would lose their historic designation and any benefits that come with it.

Lastly, I think if the first class teams were protected, they (and FOM) would actually strongly support this type of process. As I have pointed out, the negative response to Andretti, if applied to someone like Haas... Haas would not be allowed in at all. FOM bought F1 "as is", but is clearly not fully happy with all of the current entrants. I expect privately they would love to replace Haas with someone else if they could.

Another challenge here is that those teams would would not make the cut into the special historic club would be hesitant to sign. Because they basically would have to perform in ways that the historic teams might not be required to do. Either they would have to be given perks of their own or... if FOM was to play hard ball, tell them, fine, you are no longer in F1. So imagine the teams that this might impact...

VCARB, Haas, and Aston Martin. I can't imagine all would refuse to sign. And if one or more were to refuse, it is more likely they would sell to someone who would sign. If someone didn't sign and was to just burn their team to the ground on principle, then FOM could allow a brand new entry to replace them. Again, a minimum buy in for a new team would be high and even buying a team who didn't want to participate in risk of relegation should retain high value if that buy in remains high.

Would they sell at a less than premium price? Maybe. But maybe something could be found to solve the "lost of value" the relegation process and being second class teams might create. I can't solve all problems in one post.

In short, the resulting rules for this would be more complex and perks would have to be handed out. There would be real challenges. Do I think this will happen. While I think its a great idea, I have no illusions it will happen if even discussed. I also am being harsh towards Haas in this post. While Haas is "nominally" an American team, it really isn't. And frankly I think Gene Haas continues to try to do F1 on the cheap and it isn't working.

Richard

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Its a good post. I also wanted to be clear that my preference is for the commercial side to not be so closed, but if it is to be closed, then this relegation idea could be a solution to stagnant and poor performing teams.

You call out the FIA/FOM split between regulation and commercial. I actually think this relegation process would have to be owned fully or primarily by the commercial side. I think this could address existing EU rulings. And this could not be imposed during an existing Concorde period. It would have to be agreed upon by any team who signs the next agreement (and some might not, but more on that later). All of this might seem like a bridge too far (and probably is), but I can imagine that with the correct incentives it could happen.....



Richard

I had not bothered with a clause to drop a team at all.
Why?
Because the current regulation allows for 26 entrants.
Any extra starters would have to qualify (less than 31 entrants then no prequalifying) and if someone couldn't make the top 26 then no race.
If only the top 11 teams in any one year are eligible for the prize funs which means two teams have to be fully self-funded if they are going to continue.

The battle to be out of the bottom two (if there are 13) will be as much fun to follow as the battle for the top 6 teams.
And how are they going to fully fund themselves for no results?

Even if they got a basic 12 million a year as a gift for attending and earning a grid spot (500,000 a race x 24) it would be peanuts in the overall cost and fund distribution.
There is nothing immoral or unfair about this. Teams have always had to be able to fund themselves and if the bottom two teams have backers, sponsorship, rich parents, whatever, then that is the chance they take.

What my suggestion does is completely remove the anti-dilution fund from the equation and allow any team that wants to have a go submit an entry to the FIA and once checked out for funding etc. They get permission to have a go.
The 11 teams on the ladder (Ferrar, RBR, or MB/ Mclaren on the top rung probably), and someone on the 11th bottom rung with one or two teams trying to get on the ladder. A third team at the bottom would mean someone drops out in qualifying and if they are all two car teams, maybe two teams only get one car in.

There is no need for FOM/Liberty or anyone else to have an exclusion policy.
If they can't make it to the ladder and subsequently fail or give up so be it.

That is the competitive nature of the sport. Cooper won two championships in 59/60 but ultimately failed after 1968 when it was unable to raise funds but two of the drivers who drove for them in the championship years had by that time both established their own teams and won championships in F1 and Can Am.

If one of my three traditional teams fell over so be it.
They would have had the opportunity to claw back onto the ladder but if they failed to do that and could not sustain themselves then they would collapse.

You want to add MB and RBR to the traditional list but why?
The traditional list is for those who have a long-term place in the sport, because they have some historic value, not necessarily for what they have achieved. All of them, McLaren, Williams, and Ferrari have had long dry spells but were able to resurrect themselves and leap back into contention.

This way of dealing with things allows that to continue without the interference from either the FIA or Liberty or who later owns the commercial rights.

I'm never amazed by the number of people who want to allow individual companies, people politicians, organizations int o having authority over what other people do with their lives.

So, I am always reluctant to trust people with authority to do something, when it can easily be remedied by a simple organizational process that allows natural cycles of growth, evolution, demise or attrition to sort things out.

This system in a natural cycle allows the competitive to rise, allows everyone the opportunity to compete for the right to compete in F1 and allows the best to survive.
Everything on this planet in natural systems moves in cycles. Dominance and ability rise in the same way in F1.
What the sport doesn't need is to have mechanisms that allow the naturally competitive process to be manipulated by human interference.

Look at Mercedes. They came into F1 in the 50's, dominated, left, returned again in the 90's and 2000's then established their own team in again in 2010. That is nothing like what Ferrari, Williams and McLaren have done so my suggestion of 50 years (half a century) of continuous activity to qualify as a historically significant part of the history of f1 seems to me to be valid.

Red Bull will be historic in 2057, Mercedes in 2060, if they continue.
Brawn? Well Ross would need to buy a team, or build one, and start again.
That is not bad.
It doesn't mean Ross is not a significant historic figure in the history of the sport.
It simply means that Brawn, as a team have not established a long-term historic identity.
You could make it 40 years and not 50, but it wouldn't change anything, and it shouldn't because it is not a reward for achievement but a recognition of longevity.