|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10 Aug 2024, 00:44 (Ref:4222330) | #526 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,687
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
10 Aug 2024, 03:37 (Ref:4222334) | #527 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,170
|
Quote:
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 |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Aug 2024, 09:48 (Ref:4222347) | #528 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,687
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
10 Aug 2024, 11:28 (Ref:4222349) | #529 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,517
|
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. |
||
|
10 Aug 2024, 13:42 (Ref:4222359) | #530 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,170
|
Quote:
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 |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Aug 2024, 14:01 (Ref:4222360) | #531 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,687
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
10 Aug 2024, 17:27 (Ref:4222385) | #532 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 863
|
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?
|
|
|
10 Aug 2024, 17:45 (Ref:4222387) | #533 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
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. |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
10 Aug 2024, 18:30 (Ref:4222394) | #534 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,687
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
10 Aug 2024, 19:08 (Ref:4222398) | #535 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
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.
|
|
|
10 Aug 2024, 19:16 (Ref:4222400) | #536 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,170
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by Richard C; 10 Aug 2024 at 19:34. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
10 Aug 2024, 19:22 (Ref:4222403) | #537 | ||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,812
|
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 |
||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
10 Aug 2024, 20:01 (Ref:4222405) | #538 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
Quote:
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! |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
11 Aug 2024, 12:08 (Ref:4222448) | #539 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,858
|
I think the NFL increased the number of teams in the NFL/AFL around 15 years ago. How did that go down?
|
||
|
11 Aug 2024, 13:27 (Ref:4222453) | #540 | |||
Race Official
20KPINAL
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 23,812
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
"If you're not winning you're not trying." Colin Chapman. |
12 Aug 2024, 15:25 (Ref:4222555) | #541 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
12 Aug 2024, 16:33 (Ref:4222561) | #542 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,858
|
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?
|
||
|
12 Aug 2024, 17:13 (Ref:4222567) | #543 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
12 Aug 2024, 17:38 (Ref:4222568) | #544 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,858
|
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. |
||
|
19 Aug 2024, 11:41 (Ref:4223135) | #545 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,990
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was. |
19 Aug 2024, 14:54 (Ref:4223142) | #546 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
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?
|
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
19 Aug 2024, 15:40 (Ref:4223149) | #547 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,431
|
Quote:
I think the contract expired is all, and wasn't renewed. I guess less exciting than "pulled" though. |
||
|
19 Aug 2024, 17:32 (Ref:4223156) | #548 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 9,987
|
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? |
||
__________________
Home, is where I want to be but I guess I'm already there I come home, she lifted up her wings guess that this must be the place |
19 Aug 2024, 22:36 (Ref:4223180) | #549 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 4,687
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
__________________
“We’re far from having too much horsepower…[m]y definition of too much horsepower is when all four wheels are spinning in every gear.” ― Mark Donohue |
20 Aug 2024, 14:05 (Ref:4223206) | #550 | ||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,395
|
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 |
||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… #CANCERSUCKS #GOCHIKO Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Andretti...Montoya...Andretti...Montoya! | macdaddy | ChampCar World Series | 33 | 9 Dec 2003 06:03 |
Andretti Green: Kannan, Franchitti & Andretti!!!! | Down F0rce | IRL Indycar Series | 9 | 19 Sep 2002 07:49 |