The Official F1 2025 silly season *contains speculation*

[cuprabob]

Looks as though Antonelli has the vacant Merc seat.

[entropy]

skwdenyer said:

MartG said:

I wonder what the impact of this statement will be on the F1 team...

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.

Apparently Tony Stewart was (part) team owner in all but name and rarely at the workshops for day-to-day business. In recent times he has lost interest in NASCAR and got into NHRA. Smoke & NASCAR fans will say it's because he's fed up with the way NASCAR is being run the but the objective observation is that Smoke has always been his own man.

[entropy]

vaud said:

F1 is suffering? The cost cap was great for the sport, it made them all viable.

The teams were viable before the cost-cap. Ever stop to think why RBR & Merc quickly agreed to the cost cap? In its current guise it doesn't take into account of resources and infrastructure which the big teams have an advantage over. The team with the best car is more likely to keep its advantage over a season unless flaws are discovered; a team on the backfoot cannot make a huge mid-season chassis overhaul (e.g. Merc last year).

[entropy]

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?

Use the profit to invest in the team for continued success.

F1 teams transitioning from the 70s onwards is a good example. Why go to MIRA, Cranfield, Imperial, Southampton when you can operate your own wind tunnel 24/7? Would it not be better to have composite materials manufactured in-house rather than from Hercules? Would that have been possible just from breaking even alone?

If you're happy breaking even then you're just happy to make up the numbers on the grid.

[Forester1965]

entropy said:

Use the profit to invest in the team for continued success.

F1 teams transitioning from the 70s onwards is a good example. Why go to MIRA, Cranfield, Imperial, Southampton when you can operate your own wind tunnel 24/7? Would it not be better to have composite materials manufactured in-house rather than from Hercules? Would that have been possible just from breaking even alone?

If you're happy breaking even then you're just happy to make up the numbers on the grid.

In 2014 Mercedes made and operating loss of £92m. In 2015 it was £33m.

[Mark-C]

cuprabob said:

Looks as though Antonelli has the vacant Merc seat.

Any source for this? I'm not seeing anything.

And I know this is a speculation thread but it feels like we're due some concrete news ...

[vaud]

Mark-C said:

Any source for this? I'm not seeing anything.

And I know this is a speculation thread but it feels like we're due some concrete news ...

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1050405/1/toto-wolff...

More pointers than absolute...

[732NM]

entropy said:

The teams were viable before the cost-cap. Ever stop to think why RBR & Merc quickly agreed to the cost cap? In its current guise it doesn't take into account of resources and infrastructure which the big teams have an advantage over. The team with the best car is more likely to keep its advantage over a season unless flaws are discovered; a team on the backfoot cannot make a huge mid-season chassis overhaul (e.g. Merc last year).

Mclaren

[thegreenhell]

entropy said:

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?

Use the profit to invest in the team for continued success.

F1 teams transitioning from the 70s onwards is a good example. Why go to MIRA, Cranfield, Imperial, Southampton when you can operate your own wind tunnel 24/7? Would it not be better to have composite materials manufactured in-house rather than from Hercules? Would that have been possible just from breaking even alone?

If you're happy breaking even then you're just happy to make up the numbers on the grid.

If you're investing it back into the team to improve your performance then it's not profit. Profit implies surplus income for the benefit of the shareholders.

Teams have always spent everything they have on improving the car and the team. If they got to the end of the year and had £10m left in the bank they didn't think that's nice I'll put that in my pocket, they thought bugger I could have spent another £10m to make the car faster. Even 'profitable' teams were run at around breakeven. Profitable just meant they had enough to pay all the bills and keep racing and developing the car, and more 'profit' (really it's surplus income, not profit) meant more development.

It's different now with the cost cap because it limits how much they can spend so the bigger teams can end the year with a big surplus of cash, rather than just spending it all on the car.

[asfault]

OH MY GOD ACCOUNTANCY TALK IS SO BORING!!!

[ThingsBehindTheSun]

vaud said:

Mark-C said:

Any source for this? I'm not seeing anything.

And I know this is a speculation thread but it feels like we're due some concrete news ...

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/1050405/1/toto-wolff...

More pointers than absolute...

No surprise there. Looks like Sainz options are evaporating pretty quickly. Personally I would take the big pile of cash from Audi/Sauber and hope the whole thing isn't a disaster and they create a good car.

[732NM]

asfault said:

OH MY GOD ACCOUNTANCY TALK IS SO BORING!!!

Shall we talk CATERING?

[paulguitar]

732NM said:

asfault said:

OH MY GOD ACCOUNTANCY TALK IS SO BORING!!!

Shall we talk CATERING?

SAME THING

[732NM]

paulguitar said:

SAME THING

[Red Bull] No it's not [/Red Bull]

[TheDeuce]

thegreenhell said:

entropy said:

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?

Use the profit to invest in the team for continued success.

F1 teams transitioning from the 70s onwards is a good example. Why go to MIRA, Cranfield, Imperial, Southampton when you can operate your own wind tunnel 24/7? Would it not be better to have composite materials manufactured in-house rather than from Hercules? Would that have been possible just from breaking even alone?

If you're happy breaking even then you're just happy to make up the numbers on the grid.

If you're investing it back into the team to improve your performance then it's not profit. Profit implies surplus income for the benefit of the shareholders.

Teams have always spent everything they have on improving the car and the team. If they got to the end of the year and had £10m left in the bank they didn't think that's nice I'll put that in my pocket, they thought bugger I could have spent another £10m to make the car faster. Even 'profitable' teams were run at around breakeven. Profitable just meant they had enough to pay all the bills and keep racing and developing the car, and more 'profit' (really it's surplus income, not profit) meant more development.

It's different now with the cost cap because it limits how much they can spend so the bigger teams can end the year with a big surplus of cash, rather than just spending it all on the car.

Yep, the more successful teams that attract the big sponsors and scoop championship money can't help but make a pretty fat profit these days. They can put some of it into infrastructure improvements but not all of it by a long stretch I wouldn't think.

Take a team like RBR, dripping in sponsors so their income easily exceeds the cost cap, and then they're a top team so they scoop a load more cash - even if they don't have an amazing year. And the existence of the team is worth over $100m to the Red Bull brand each season easily, probably several times that.

Imagine owning a $1bn asset that holds/grows in value no matter what you do, delivers you hundreds of millions of free marketing and also returns a cash profit! No wonder Horny wants partial ownership of the team...

Every team is able to easily get sponsorship and championship money sufficient to meet the cost cap limit these days. The only way deeper pockets can make a difference each season is that the teams with more money than the cap can also afford to pay high top staff/driver salaries.

[tele_lover]

TheDeuce said:

Every team is able to easily get sponsorship and championship money sufficient to meet the cost cap limit these days.

Haas wasn't near the cap.

Williams wasn't near the cap and was short on sponsors.

I'm sure Otmar implied Alpine weren't hitting the cap either.

Unless I misunderstood your point?

[TheDeuce]

tele_lover said:

TheDeuce said:

Every team is able to easily get sponsorship and championship money sufficient to meet the cost cap limit these days.

Haas wasn't near the cap.

Williams wasn't near the cap and was short on sponsors.

I'm sure Otmar implied Alpine weren't hitting the cap either.

Unless I misunderstood your point?

Since the caps introduction and increase in the number of GP's I expect they all now easily meet the cap.


Initially some smaller teams remained beneath it but since the changes any team becomes a better sponsor prospect and also the cap has reduced by $10m since it's introduction.

Certainly some smaller teams made a lot of noises about not being able to meet the cap ahead of it's introduction - because they wanted it set lower and to include less exceptions, which is understandable as the higher budget teams still enjoy financial advantages in the sport.

[thegreenhell]

TheDeuce said:

tele_lover said:

TheDeuce said:

Every team is able to easily get sponsorship and championship money sufficient to meet the cost cap limit these days.

Haas wasn't near the cap.

Williams wasn't near the cap and was short on sponsors.

I'm sure Otmar implied Alpine weren't hitting the cap either.

Unless I misunderstood your point?

Since the caps introduction and increase in the number of GP's I expect they all now easily meet the cap.

But that's just supposition.

You also have to account for all the stuff that is excluded from the cap but still costs them money. A team might have income of $150m for the year against a cost cap of $135m, but if they have $30m of expenditure outside of the cap then they're still not meeting the cap even with a headline figure that's above the cap.

[TheDeuce]

thegreenhell said:

TheDeuce said:

tele_lover said:

TheDeuce said:

Every team is able to easily get sponsorship and championship money sufficient to meet the cost cap limit these days.

Haas wasn't near the cap.

Williams wasn't near the cap and was short on sponsors.

I'm sure Otmar implied Alpine weren't hitting the cap either.

Unless I misunderstood your point?

Since the caps introduction and increase in the number of GP's I expect they all now easily meet the cap.

But that's just supposition.

You also have to account for all the stuff that is excluded from the cap but still costs them money. A team might have income of $150m for the year against a cost cap of $135m, but if they have $30m of expenditure outside of the cap then they're still not meeting the cap even with a headline figure that's above the cap.

I did take account of that. I pointed it out as a reason the teams with overall deeper pockets have the advantage still, as they can better afford the best drivers and infrastructure improvements.

The extras above the cap are ultimately optional and avoidable.

[thegreenhell]

TheDeuce said:

The extras above the cap are ultimately optional and avoidable.

Not really. Marketing, legal, accounting, HR, admin, and their share of company overheads, FIA entry fees and fines etc, can all add up to millions they have to fund outside the cost cap. A team of 1000 engineers doesn't run itself without all the support staff that are outside the cost cap.