Andretti F1 - 2025

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think we are at an impasse regarding the existence or not of an Andretti and GM partnership prior to 2028. All I can do is point to the joint statement from them both in 2023...

https://news.cadillac.com/newsroom.d...-andretti.html

Yes, it appears so (impasse) - nothing wrong with that. That of course is a very vague, PR puff release with no detail. I imagine that Andretti would have provided much more specific detail and information in the submission for entry, which of course none of us have seen. FOM didn't "buy" what was put forward until the GM PU was ready for 2028, at which point FOM said an application on that basis would be viewed differently.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Yes, it appears so (impasse) - nothing wrong with that. That of course is a very vague, PR puff release with no detail. I imagine that Andretti would have provided much more specific detail and information in the submission for entry, which of course none of us have seen. FOM didn't "buy" what was put forward until the GM PU was ready for 2028, at which point FOM said an application on that basis would be viewed differently.

We are beating a dead horse, but sorry I have one last comment. If you get to call the join statement vague and without details. I get to say that any potential consideration for 2028 by FOM is equally so. I would argue that there was more "something" with what was going on with Andretti/GM when they submitted an entry than whatever FOM was saying about a potential 2028 entry. One thing I always call out with respect to FOM asking Andretti to "try again later" is that FOM couldn't provide anything thing concrete around a potential 2028 entry because there was no Concorde agreement that covered that time period when those comments were made. Who knows what the entry requirements will be in 2028! FOM doesn't even know. I am relatively sure the current Concorde agreement runs through 2025. Beyond that is undefined. The "try again in 2028" is completely empty of substance other than just saying "try again in 2028" as some type of feel good statement that "seems" more promising than "no".

Has the 2026+ one finished being negotiated? There was talk in May of this year about it, but nothing since then. Reports from that time period even said team wanted to cap the entry at 10 which would exclude any new entry. But even today that is just speculation because we don't know the details. Maybe they will allow a new entry and it will cost $1 trillion dollars or maybe they don't allow any entries. Nobody know as I don't think it has been signed yet. If someone can provide evidence that it has, I am willing to read those new reports!

We don't know what the rules for entry will be in 2028 assuming a new team is able to even join in 2028. I have called this out many times and people just tend to pretend it isn't true. In my opinion, that comment from FOM is 100% without any real value.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Richard C

We are beating a dead horse, but sorry I have one last comment.

The Andretti application that failed was for 2025 OR 2026 (2026 being seen as the earliest likely opportunity, although Andretti thought it MIGHT be ready for 2025) and then running with a.n.other PU for two seasons before using the GM PU in 2028.

As there is no Concorde Agreement for 2026, all your comments about 2028 apply just as much to 2026 - but entry could have been provided for 2026 if the entry had stacked up in FOM's view and therefore, logically, the same applies for 2028.

[E.B]

I thought it might have been something to do with not wanting anyone to join with a 200 mill dilution fee as with the current Concorde. Best get them in after the new Concorde raises the dilution fee to the anticipated 600 mill. Then even the existing teams might relax a bit knowing someone isnt able to come in on the cheap and still end up with a 750Mill + asset. The days of buying an even bottom feeder team for C. a hundred mill are long gone.
Hopefully that thought makes sense as in understandable.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Tourer

The Andretti application that failed was for 2025 OR 2026 (2026 being seen as the earliest likely opportunity, although Andretti thought it MIGHT be ready for 2025) and then running with a.n.other PU for two seasons before using the GM PU in 2028.

As there is no Concorde Agreement for 2026, all your comments about 2028 apply just as much to 2026 - but entry could have been provided for 2026 if the entry had stacked up in FOM's view and therefore, logically, the same applies for 2028.

Actually the reverse makes more sense. 2025 was within rules of Concorde agreement. 2026 and beyond (2028) are not. I can imagine a 2026 entry would only be valid in the time frame this was happening if all current Concorde agreement signatories made a special agreement to allow 2026 entry using current Concorde agreement. Andretti including 2026 as an option was them just asking for an exception that would never happen. So you can't say because Andretti hoped and wished that 2026 would be real as an argument that 2028 is real. Especially as my original point stands that there is no mechanism for new team entry (yet) for 2026 and beyond.

Maybe what can be said is that Andretti asked for an impossibly for 2026 (but 2025 request was valid) and FOM answered with an impossibly for 2028.

Richard

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by E.B

I thought it might have been something to do with not wanting anyone to join with a 200 mill dilution fee as with the current Concorde. Best get them in after the new Concorde raises the dilution fee to the anticipated 600 mill. Then even the existing teams might relax a bit knowing someone isnt able to come in on the cheap and still end up with a 750Mill + asset. The days of buying an even bottom feeder team for C. a hundred mill are long gone.
Hopefully that thought makes sense as in understandable.

Even though no-one is admitting it, because of legal ramifications, this was a theory put forward by many at the time of the knock-back by FOM. Commercially, it would make sense but wouldn't go down well from a sporting point of view.

[P38 in workshop]

Could somebody please explain how an anti dilution fee is not in itself an anti trust measure when a team that has dominated the championship and reaped the rewards only pays about $7million as an entry fee?

[chillibowl]

Bit of a side question, but has anyone ever been able to force their way into a major sporting league via a DOJ anti trust hearing?

The implication of such a ruling/position would essentially mean anyone who wanted to could just start their own NFL, MLB, NBA, NBA, or MLS team without approval of the other owners of those respective leagues….that would be bonkers.

That would effectively devalue, derail, and possibly destroy the very logic of every pro sport league in N.America. Exclusivity is what makes these systems work for both the owners and the fans.

cyclical but this has got to be more about some regional politicians making hay during an election cycle imo. Would be surprised if this goes further than an investigation and doubt there will be an actual/meaningful hearing on it. Will see I guess.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Bit of a side question, but has anyone ever been able to force their way into a major sporting league via a DOJ anti trust hearing?

The implication of such a ruling/position would essentially mean anyone who wanted to could just start their own NFL, MLB, NBA, NBA, or MLS team without approval of the other owners of those respective leagues….that would be bonkers.

That would effectively devalue, derail, and possibly destroy the very logic of every pro sport league in N.America. Exclusivity is what makes these systems work for both the owners and the fans.

cyclical but this has got to be more about some regional politicians making hay during an election cycle imo. Would be surprised if this goes further than an investigation and doubt there will be an actual/meaningful hearing on it. Will see I guess.

Agree Chilli - I made exactly the same point re sports leagues many, many posts ago in this thread. They are not run in the same manner as mainstream businesses and mainstream competition, which is why I believe some of the major US sports are already exempted from these anti-trust laws. Liberty may well argue that the same exemption should be applied to F1 based on the precedent set for some of the major sports in the US.

Lots of hot air being generated as you say - by the Andrettis, by regional politicians but where it'll all end we won't know until it gets there.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Even though no-one is admitting it, because of legal ramifications, this was a theory put forward by many at the time of the knock-back by FOM. Commercially, it would make sense but wouldn't go down well from a sporting point of view.

Plenty of people admitting it, just not in press releases. If the mortgage man was investing $1b to have a $1b asset they would almost certainly be in.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Bit of a side question, but has anyone ever been able to force their way into a major sporting league via a DOJ anti trust hearing?

The implication of such a ruling/position would essentially mean anyone who wanted to could just start their own NFL, MLB, NBA, NBA, or MLS team without approval of the other owners of those respective leagues….that would be bonkers.

That would effectively devalue, derail, and possibly destroy the very logic of every pro sport league in N.America. Exclusivity is what makes these systems work for both the owners and the fans.

cyclical but this has got to be more about some regional politicians making hay during an election cycle imo. Would be surprised if this goes further than an investigation and doubt there will be an actual/meaningful hearing on it. Will see I guess.

Yes and No. In 1922 US Supreme court basically said that US baseball was an "exhibition" and not "commerce" (isn't that a laugh!). This was controversial, but has been upheld a few times. I think to a degree, just like F1 Stewards cover their eyes at what sometimes happens in turn one of lap one, the US Supreme Court sort of waved their hands so as to not knock down the favorite pastime of USA. As they say... Baseball and Apple pie! It seems the 1922 decision is pretty much a political one vs. following the law, but it so far stands the test of time.

Overall Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey have all had various anti-trust battles. Generally they have been given some leeway, but the topic does come up periodically and they do have to be careful to run run afoul of the arguments that have allowed them to operate as they do. Google it and you will see it comes up every so often in one sport or another.

One item of note is that F1, while gaining in popularity in the US, is not a classic "US Sport" and there is no guarantee it would receive similar treatment. US Supreme Court may shy away from causing issues with an established US sport, but might not with a primarily European one. You might say the argument would be that the others are allowed, so F1 should be as well. My understanding is that the anti-trust topic within US sports is complex and I am simplifying things here. F1 might also get a pass... with specific stipulations. Regardless, it's an uphill battle, but I think assuming that because there exists sports leagues in the US that seem to be fine that F1 "as is" fits within what is allowable under US anti-trust laws is not a sure thing.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

This article ''On the Antitrust Exemption for Professional Sports in the United States and Europe'', from the American Antitrust Institute, though in depth and lengthy, is worth reading.

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/w...eExemption.pdf

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

Overall Baseball, football, basketball, and hockey have all had various anti-trust battles. Generally they have been given some leeway, but the topic does come up periodically and they do have to be careful to run run afoul of the arguments that have allowed them to operate as they do. Google it and you will see it comes up every so often in one sport or another.

For sure issues come up but to my recollection it’s more about how they sell their broadcasting rights, how the league as a monopoly deals with their athletes, the establishment of new leagues that would be in direct competition, and investigating gambling or collusion which affect on field outcomes.

Challenging the requirements of adding a new team into an existing league seems a wholly different type of animal imo…but then again the past is not always a good predictor of the future and investigations can take on a life of their own.

Although… if it forces FOM to open up their books affording us loathsome and ignorant fans more insight as to better understand the economics of F1 then maybe it’s not such a bad thing lol!

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

The implication of such a ruling/position would essentially mean anyone who wanted to could just start their own NFL, MLB, NBA, NBA, or MLS team without approval of the other owners of those respective leagues….that would be bonkers.

I think the NFL increased the number of teams in the NFL/AFL around 15 years ago. How did that go down?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by morninggents

I think the NFL increased the number of teams in the NFL/AFL around 15 years ago. How did that go down?

The expansion in 2002 realigned the NFL, which is something that needed to be done.

Prior to expansion, there were three divisions in each of the two conferences: AFC East, Central and West and NFC East, Central and West Not all the divisions had equal numbers of teams. The AFC East and West had 5 teams each but the Central division had 6 teams. The NFC had 6 teams in all three divisions. Expansion added a 4th division, so each conference now had East, North, South and West divisions with 4 teams each.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by morninggents

I think the NFL increased the number of teams in the NFL/AFL around 15 years ago. How did that go down?

its been a mixed bag imo.

of the 5 (?) new teams in the last 25ish years, 3 were new teams being awarded to cities that had seen their previous NFL team relocate (Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston) and 2 outright new teams in first time locations (Carolina and Jacksonville).

of the 5, Baltimore has had a lot of success, with Houston increasingly becoming more competitive in recent years, but the other 3 are not much to write home about.

different sport so perhaps doesn't carry over and just my opinion of course, but a 1 or 2 out of 5 success rate for new teams does highlight just how difficult expansion can be and arguably its the reason why such high bars to entry can be justified.

[morninggents]

My reason for bringing this up was more about how the existing teams reacted to the increase. Was there any buy-in required from the new teams? Was there any compensation to the existing teams for dividing the TV income over a larger team number? What was the opinion of the existing teams to the projected increase in numbers when the move was proposed?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by morninggents

My reason for bringing this up was more about how the existing teams reacted to the increase. Was there any buy-in required from the new teams? Was there any compensation to the existing teams for dividing the TV income over a larger team number? What was the opinion of the existing teams to the projected increase in numbers when the move was proposed?

the Houston Texans (the last new team) paid 700m in the late 90s for their franchise and that money was spilt up amongst the existing teams/owners. TV income is, i believe, also split up equally amongst the teams so with more teams equalling more games, TV money went up for them as well.

if memory serves, all the various ownership groups seemed happy with the new teams and the money which came with it...but then they were the ones setting the price tag and enjoying the benefits of it.

[morninggents]

So not really much comparison with the FOM/Andretti situation where the addition of another team or two may not increase the TV income pot.

But things come around/go around and if F1 viewing numbers started to dwindle in a year or two from now maybe they would welcome new blood.

[TrapezeArtist]

Originally Posted by morninggents

But things come around/go around and if F1 viewing numbers started to dwindle in a year or two from now maybe they would welcome new blood.

I doubt it. I think the vested interests would be so desperate to shore up their dwindling income that the last thing they would do would be to let someone else get a share of it.

Personally I think the existing F1 teams have got far too big for their boots. I don't think they should have any influence over who can enter the championship. If a new team can commit to doing a complete season, they should be allowed to do so.

[chillibowl]

question, with perhaps a bit of revisionism added in, but in hindsight do we now look at Renault pulling their initial offer to provide engines to Andretti as more a function of them anticipating/knowing earlier even that they would be pulling out of F1 as opposed to not wanting to supply an upstart team?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

question, with perhaps a bit of revisionism added in, but in hindsight do we now look at Renault pulling their initial offer to provide engines to Andretti as more a function of them anticipating/knowing earlier even that they would be pulling out of F1 as opposed to not wanting to supply an upstart team?

Where'd you get the idea that they "pulled" anything?

I think the contract expired is all, and wasn't renewed. I guess less exciting than "pulled" though.

[chillibowl]

i have to remind myself not to be drawn into debates about semantics!

so leaving that aside, my follow up would be why the contract was not renewed then?

was it just a case of the Andretti bid not being sufficient or did something change on the Renault side affecting their desire to remain a supplier post rule change?

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i have to remind myself not to be drawn into debates about semantics!

so leaving that aside, my follow up would be why the contract was not renewed then?

was it just a case of the Andretti bid not being sufficient or did something change on the Renault side affecting their desire to remain a supplier post rule change?

Bruno Famin (at least I think it was him in charge at the time at Renault) was quoted along the lines of "the contract has ended but if they get an entry we can work with them on a new contract". It is one of the often overlooked items about Andretti - at the time of the FOM decision, Andretti did not have a PU contract with anyone.

Given timing of it all, and reports very soon thereafter that Renault was shopping around for a supplier PU for Alpine and looking to shut down F1 PU manufacture at Viry, it may well be Famin was not able to confirm ongoing PU supply at the time he said the above and it also may well have been (in fact it would be likely) that FOM was already aware of Renault's intention to stop producing PUs when it said "no" to Andretti, but we'll view your entry differently once you have a GM PU.

[GTRMagic]

While over in IndyCar, the popular rumour is Andretti Global is switching from
Honda to Chevy sooner rather than later…. And have lost their technical support contract with Meyer Shank, who are a devout Honda team because they seem to believe a brand switch is pending. And Andretti rumoured to be reducing to 3 cars (from 5) it’s not pointing exactly how you might think it could