The Official F1 2025 silly season *contains speculation*
Discussion
I do feel for Sainz. IMO he’s a pretty complete driver, albeit possibly lacking that very last tiny fraction of speed when compared with the very best.
Nevertheless, to see him with so few options, and those that are seemingly available to him are at the wrong end of the grid (albeit maybe with potential) is surprising. I hope things work out for him.
Nevertheless, to see him with so few options, and those that are seemingly available to him are at the wrong end of the grid (albeit maybe with potential) is surprising. I hope things work out for him.
Nice to see JV being so unequivocal, I’d love to see Williams back in the mix and hope he makes it happen. Sargaent has been an embarrassment and Sainz would be a very good barometer as to how good Albon actually is . I reckon they’d be fairly close but Sainz the better performer overall.
skwdenyer said:
MartG said:
Something odd about that statement. If they've got such a great team, why not sell it, or hire in management, rather than closing it? Very odd, unless it is net loss-making.It's something to do with racing charters and Stewart disliking the way Nascar is run? I've only skim read it, and tbh, not really following nascar, I don't understand it.
nordboy said:
https://www.espn.com/racing/story/_/id/40285028/st...
It's something to do with racing charters and Stewart disliking the way Nascar is run? I've only skim read it, and tbh, not really following nascar, I don't understand it.
Sounds somewhat like FOCA vs FISA from a few decades back, with an added element of what’s going on at the moment with F1 and Andretti following the cost cap. It's something to do with racing charters and Stewart disliking the way Nascar is run? I've only skim read it, and tbh, not really following nascar, I don't understand it.
The teams want to see a bigger share of the new media rights contract, and want their entries to have a decent value on the resale market; meanwhile the old man who’s been around forever and took over from his father, wants to keeep the money in his own family as the teams struggle to turn a profit.
Forester1965 said:
The problem is race teams wanting to be businesses. F1 is suffering from this now.
F1 is suffering? The cost cap was great for the sport, it made them all viable.I'm not sure I see the suffering from a full grid, very close times from front to back, new teams angling to join, no pay drivers and a global audience. OK the leader has been a bit predictable until recently, but I'm not seeing the suffering?
vaud said:
F1 is suffering? The cost cap was great for the sport, it made them all viable.
I'm not sure I see the suffering from a full grid, very close times from front to back, new teams angling to join, no pay drivers and a global audience. OK the leader has been a bit predictable until recently, but I'm not seeing the suffering?
I haven't seen it as a full grid since it became fewer than 26 starters.I'm not sure I see the suffering from a full grid, very close times from front to back, new teams angling to join, no pay drivers and a global audience. OK the leader has been a bit predictable until recently, but I'm not seeing the suffering?
732NM said:
Race teams are businesses. They don't run on fresh air and pixie dust.
The purpose of a business is to make money. The purpose of a race team is to win races. The two are not the same. Something does not become a business by virtue of it requiring money though it may be structured as one to effect the job of doing business and restricting owners' liability for losses.
When race teams think their reason for being is to make a direct financial return for the owners it's ceased to be a sport in the true sense, in my humble opinion.
732NM said:
Motorsport is a profession, not a hobby, for any decent level of the sport.
Club level racing is a hobby, but even those competitors rely on businesses to supply what they need to compete.
Without viable businesses, there are no staff and no cars and no venues.
You're conflating being professional with running a business designed to make a profit from its operating activities. Club level racing is a hobby, but even those competitors rely on businesses to supply what they need to compete.
Without viable businesses, there are no staff and no cars and no venues.
Teams used to rely on prize money and sponsorship and it worked just fine. Some failed, others didn't. It was a meritocracy.
What sporting reason is there for a team to turn a profit rather than breaking even?
Forester1965 said:
You're conflating being professional with running a business designed to make a profit from its operating activities.
Teams used to rely on prize money and sponsorship and it worked just fine. Some failed, others didn't. It was a meritocracy.
What sporting reason is there for a team to turn a profit rather than breaking even?
Why does anyone go to work?Teams used to rely on prize money and sponsorship and it worked just fine. Some failed, others didn't. It was a meritocracy.
What sporting reason is there for a team to turn a profit rather than breaking even?
It's a job, you need a passion for it to survive just how much hard work it is, but it still has to fulfill the requirements of a job.
Now you're creating a false dichotomy that says you can't be paid unless your employer is profitable.
You can still be paid and not make a profit. You can still race and not make a profit. You can win a championship and not make a profit.
The purpose of a sports team should be to *win*. If the purpose is to *make a profit* that is a different aim. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be or becoming profitable. You need to at least break even. However if your main aim is to make money from the activity, you're no longer competing to win. You're competing to become wealthier.
You can still be paid and not make a profit. You can still race and not make a profit. You can win a championship and not make a profit.
The purpose of a sports team should be to *win*. If the purpose is to *make a profit* that is a different aim. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be or becoming profitable. You need to at least break even. However if your main aim is to make money from the activity, you're no longer competing to win. You're competing to become wealthier.
Forester1965 said:
What sporting reason is there for a team to turn a profit rather than breaking even?
For the same reason that universities turn a profit (sorry surplus) - to build some reserves for lean times? Better to have a team that knows it can ride a few waves (loss of sponsor) and not live just month on month. Employees also like to know they are going to get paid every month.Forester1965 said:
Now you're creating a false dichotomy that says you can't be paid unless your employer is profitable.
You can still be paid and not make a profit. You can still race and not make a profit. You can win a championship and not make a profit.
The purpose of a sports team should be to *win*. If the purpose is to *make a profit* that is a different aim. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be or becoming profitable. You need to at least break even. However if your main aim is to make money from the activity, you're no longer competing to win. You're competing to become wealthier.
I see your point but would counter thatYou can still be paid and not make a profit. You can still race and not make a profit. You can win a championship and not make a profit.
The purpose of a sports team should be to *win*. If the purpose is to *make a profit* that is a different aim. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be or becoming profitable. You need to at least break even. However if your main aim is to make money from the activity, you're no longer competing to win. You're competing to become wealthier.
a) Winning will make a sports team more profitable as a business, therefore the incentive to win is (should be) greater. More prize money, exposure for sponsors, etc.
b) Global sports like F1, tennis, golf & football ceased to be a 'pure' sport a long, long time ago. That's the reality of modern life.
vaud said:
Forester1965 said:
What sporting reason is there for a team to turn a profit rather than breaking even?
For the same reason that universities turn a profit (sorry surplus) - to build some reserves for lean times? Better to have a team that knows it can ride a few waves (loss of sponsor) and not live just month on month. Employees also like to know they are going to get paid every month.A charity might have a surplus, but its purpose is to provide funding for its cause.
A sports team might have a surplus, but its purpose is to win.
F1 teams now operate to make money. The sport is the incidental mechanism.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff