[apexit4]

Dire times at Williams. Apparently the team is up for sale, either partially or completely. They have also severed ties with their titles sponsor, RoKit.

F1 cant afford to lose another team off the grid. I do hope they find an investor or someone to take over the team.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/05/29/...nsorship-deal/

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...7gdSuqJRf.html

https://www.racefans.net/2020/05/29/...f1-after-sale/

[M5Rick]

Originally Posted by apexit4

Dire times at Williams. Apparently the team is up for sale, either partially or completely. They have also severed ties with their titles sponsor, RoKit.

F1 cant afford to lose another team off the grid. I do hope they find an investor or someone to take over the team.

https://www.racefans.net/2020/05/29/...nsorship-deal/

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/a...7gdSuqJRf.html

https://www.racefans.net/2020/05/29/...f1-after-sale/

I can't say I'm completely surprised and covid-19 was the coup de grace.

[yco]

i hope they ll as well even if its a really bad timing on global economy..
i wasnt sure about Claire Williams at all.. she s great and fun woman but this doesnt seem for here really.. things were going so downhill in recent years.. i hope they can find a sponsor and Williams name wont change..

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by M5theonlyone

I can't say I'm completely surprised and covid-19 was the coup de grace.

Most likely yes. I'm sure its a bit frustrating for them considering how close we are the introduction of a budget cap. It wouldnt have resolved their issues, but likely would have given them more time.

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by yco

i hope they ll as well even if its a really bad timing on global economy..
i wasnt sure about Claire Williams at all.. she s great and fun woman but this doesnt seem for here really.. things were going so downhill in recent years.. i hope they can find a sponsor and Williams name wont change..

I think the consensus on the topic of Claire is that she isn't as strong a leader as the team needs. But I agree, keeping her as team principal for so long has played a part in leading the team to its current situation.

[SenorFunkyPants]

The team screwed themselves years ago.
When Hill won the championship in 1996, Adrian Newey asked for some shares in Williams as a reward, he also argued strongly than Damon should be kept on.
Williams and Head mistakenly assumed it was mostly down to them that they had won that championship and rejected Adrian Neweys requests.
The rest is history...Wiliams never won a title again in a car *they* designed themselves.

[racerbruce]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The team screwed themselves years ago.
When Hill won the championship in 1996, Adrian Newey asked for some shares in Williams as a reward, he also argued strongly than Damon should be kept on.
Williams and Head mistakenly assumed it was mostly down to them that they had won that championship and rejected Adrian Neweys requests.
The rest is history...Wiliams never won a title again in a car *they* designed themselves.

Results don't lie....and there have been zero results for Williams.

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by SenorFunkyPants

The team screwed themselves years ago.
When Hill won the championship in 1996, Adrian Newey asked for some shares in Williams as a reward, he also argued strongly than Damon should be kept on.
Williams and Head mistakenly assumed it was mostly down to them that they had won that championship and rejected Adrian Neweys requests.
The rest is history...Wiliams never won a title again in a car *they* designed themselves.

I remember hearing that anecdote about Newey and Williams in the past. He's arguably the best aerodynamicist in F1, so his departure has definitely had a lasting effect on them. But the team has made more mistakes over the years that have run them to where they are now. Unfortunate, but a case study in what not to do I suppose.

[yco]

seems like Williams is saved..

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...mpany/4799818/ ..

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by yco

seems like Williams is saved..

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...mpany/4799818/ ..

I think you may have misinterpreted what was written in the article. Williams went through a refinancing of loans they already had. The refinancing may have helped them lower how much they have to pay over the course of the loan, but I didnt see anything about any new investments that would help the team.

[///M Power-Belgium]

Damn virus !

[bitterspeak]

Originally Posted by yco

seems like Williams is saved..

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/w...mpany/4799818/ ..

"Saved" is a strong word. I think they bought themselves some time to show what their team can do for the rest of this 2020 season (assuming we will race on July 5th). Hopefully, their performance can result in attracting some new sponsors and a potential buyer.

[David70]

In 2019 Williams received $60 million from Liberty while Ferrari got $205, MB got $177 and Red Bull $152, not suprisingly Williams isn't competitive and can't afford to stay in business. An extra $100 million would help a mid pack team compete with the top teams (or in the case of Ferrari to Williams $145 million).

https://www.racefans.net/2019/03/03/...2019-revealed/

Then look at the estimated revenue and operating income per team and I doubt this will be the last team up for sale - https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm.../#4c48b43a1ddb

With the current system top teams will remain at the top and the rest will be fighting for mid pack places and trying to survive financially. Spending caps sound like a step forward but I think impossible to enforce. If MB has an aero project at their Alabama plant that is 90% F1 and 10% production cars but flips the numbers it will be impossible to figure out.

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by David70

In 2019 Williams received $60 million from Liberty while Ferrari got $205, MB got $177 and Red Bull $152, not suprisingly Williams isn't competitive and can't afford to stay in business. An extra $100 million would help a mid pack team compete with the top teams (or in the case of Ferrari to Williams $145 million).

https://www.racefans.net/2019/03/03/...2019-revealed/

Then look at the estimated revenue and operating income per team and I doubt this will be the last team up for sale - https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm.../#4c48b43a1ddb

With the current system top teams will remain at the top and the rest will be fighting for mid pack places and trying to survive financially. Spending caps sound like a step forward but I think impossible to enforce. If MB has an aero project at their Alabama plant that is 90% F1 and 10% production cars but flips the numbers it will be impossible to figure out.

While I agree that the prize money structure does contribute to the issue, the lack of strong leadership has largely contributed to their current situation.

Look at Mercedes for example. While they did buy out Brawn after their championship winning season, they hung around the upper part of the midfield before making the jump to the top of the field. They invested their time and money wisely and have been rewarded for it. They do have large financial backing from Mercedes, but that doesn't guarantee success. Take a look at Toyota for that. They invested many millions of dollars into their F1 program in the 2000s and had hardly anything to show for it. They didn't succeed despite the financial backing of a manufacturer because they had the wrong approach to investing their time/money.

[David70]

Originally Posted by apexit4

While I agree that the prize money structure does contribute to the issue, the lack of strong leadership has largely contributed to their current situation.

Look at Mercedes for example. While they did buy out Brawn after their championship winning season, they hung around the upper part of the midfield before making the jump to the top of the field. They invested their time and money wisely and have been rewarded for it. They do have large financial backing from Mercedes, but that doesn't guarantee success. Take a look at Toyota for that. They invested many millions of dollars into their F1 program in the 2000s and had hardly anything to show for it. They didn't succeed despite the financial backing of a manufacturer because they had the wrong approach to investing their time/money.

From my link above, prize money is one issue but column 5 seems completely out of line. Basically they pay the premium teams even more regardless of how they do, just because of who they are.

On top of that five teams receive further payments – a ‘constructors’ championship bonus’ is paid to four teams; three other teams receive bonus payments ranging from $10 million (Williams) to $35 million (Mercedes and Red Bull); and a special Long-Standing Team payment is made to Ferrari alone. Worth $73 million this year, the LST payment has ensured Ferrari has consistently received the most money of any team since the current prize money structure was introduced in 2013.

I agree money doesn't guarantee success but having more of it makes your odds go up. I believe all of our professional sports have some type of revenue sharing to give the small market teams a little better chance but if we came up with a system where we paid the Cowboys an extra $73 million because they are the Cowboys (like Ferrari in F1) nobody would consider this fair. Revenue sharing is anti capitalism but as much as we like to think of the teams competing with each other, the combined "show" suffers when the owners (Liberty) can't put on a good event. I would argue the event isn't as good as it could be when we know before the season starts that it is highly unlikely teams 4-10 have any chance of winning even one of the 20+ races.

What do you think the odds are of Haas winning a race next year or even in the next 5 years, even with the best leadership available? Liberty wants me to cheer for them an their possible 7th place finish in a race if they do everything just right? Maybe we can hope one of the top 6 wrecks, as Haas has close to zero chance of beating them in a race? I guess pray for rain as it is one of the few things that mix up the results.

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by David70

From my link above, prize money is one issue but column 5 seems completely out of line. Basically they pay the premium teams even more regardless of how they do, just because of who they are.


I agree money doesn't guarantee success but having more of it makes your odds go up. I believe all of our professional sports have some type of revenue sharing to give the small market teams a little better chance but if we came up with a system where we paid the Cowboys an extra $73 million because they are the Cowboys (like Ferrari in F1) nobody would consider this fair. Revenue sharing is anti capitalism but as much as we like to think of the teams competing with each other, the combined "show" suffers when the owners (Liberty) can't put on a good event. I would argue the event isn't as good as it could be when we know before the season starts that it is highly unlikely teams 4-10 have any chance of winning even one of the 20+ races.

What do you think the odds are of Haas winning a race next year or even in the next 5 years, even with the best leadership available? Liberty wants me to cheer for them an their possible 7th place finish in a race if they do everything just right? Maybe we can hope one of the top 6 wrecks, as Haas has close to zero chance of beating them in a race? I guess pray for rain as it is one of the few things that mix up the results.

I completely agree that a more equitable prize money distribution structure would help the teams further down the grid. I guess the point I was trying to get across is that while more money would have it easier for Williams to survive, there's no guarantee that they wouldnt be in this same situation a few years down the line. The prize money thats awarded to teams accounts for anywhere between 30%-50% of a teams budget (if memory serves me right). So if the team doesnt have strong leadership, they'll continue to get poor results, causing less sponsor interest, leading to less income and a potential sale of the company.

That all being said, I am all for a more equitable money distribution system. We cant afford to lose more teams and it seems its only going to get harder to find potential buyers for a team going forward.

[M5Rick]

^ Completely agree with last paragraph.

[David70]

Originally Posted by apexit4

I completely agree that a more equitable prize money distribution structure would help the teams further down the grid. I guess the point I was trying to get across is that while more money would have it easier for Williams to survive, there's no guarantee that they wouldnt be in this same situation a few years down the line. The prize money thats awarded to teams accounts for anywhere between 30%-50% of a teams budget (if memory serves me right). So if the team doesnt have strong leadership, they'll continue to get poor results, causing less sponsor interest, leading to less income and a potential sale of the company.

That all being said, I am all for a more equitable money distribution system. We cant afford to lose more teams and it seems its only going to get harder to find potential buyers for a team going forward.

I agree.

An article from 2017 - Gene Haas - Based on his statements I am surprised he is still in it, doubt he will last as he must understand that it is highly unlikely he will ever win a race

“There’s a big gap. There’s definitely a big racing gap between the front-runners and the team at the back.”

A number of options to reduce costs and narrow the gap between teams throughout the field have been suggested, including spec parts or a budget cap.

While Haas doubts anything can be done to reduce the gap, he stressed the need for some kind of unpredictability in F1.

“If anything, my point of view is that it’s a gap we can’t reduce. With what our current resources are and what we know, it seems an impossible gap to reduce,” Haas said.

“I think some of it is that the top three teams are maybe quasi-manufacturers, and since they run the whole car and make the whole car, they understand it a lot better.

“So we’re always going to be at somewhat of a disadvantage to the manufacturers who understand the car better than we do.

“But I think there needs to be some kind of a randomness in the sport where even a team in the back has some possibility of winning once in a while.

“Not every race, but if you can never win in this sport, it’s really not going to be much of a sport.”

When asked if he was considering his team’s future in F1, Haas said: “Well we’re certainly committed to Formula 1.

“But if we never have a chance to win, I’d really have to question why we’re here.

“I think every team should have at least some possibility of winning a race once in a while, through a fuel strategy or some alternative.

“But the gap’s so big now that I just don’t see how we can possibly close it.”

[racerbruce]

Another analogy to creating equality in sport....

Perhaps the top three teams in European football and American football shall play with 25% less players on the field.

This would provide teams that have no chance of winning....the chance to win.

Would you support such a strategy? Perhaps not.

[apexit4]

Originally Posted by David70

I agree.

An article from 2017 - Gene Haas - Based on his statements I am surprised he is still in it, doubt he will last as he must understand that it is highly unlikely he will ever win a race

I'm curious why Gene entered the sport to begin with. Surely he must have been aware of the status quo and how hard it would be to just get a podium, much less a win. The only thing that comes to mind is the budget cap, which has been talked about for a while and put off for just as long.

[243Racing]

Originally Posted by David70

“I think every team should have at least some possibility of winning a race once in a while, through a fuel strategy or some alternative.

“But the gap’s so big now that I just don’t see how we can possibly close it.”

Well...build a better car.

With all the money and resources they have, it does surprise me that most of the teams on the grid can't build a competitive (as in, in with a shout more often than not to get a win) car.

[243Racing]

Originally Posted by racerbruce

Another analogy to creating equality in sport....

Perhaps the top three teams in European football and American football shall play with 25% less players on the field.

This would provide teams that have no chance of winning....the chance to win.

Would you support such a strategy? Perhaps not.