F1 prize money change planned

F1 Fanatic round-up

Giedo van der Garde, Caterham, Shanghai, 2013In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone plans changes to prize money in F1.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

F1 shakes up prize money as prepares for ??6.5bn float (The Telegraph)

“Bernie Ecclestone said that the board of the sport?s parent company Delta Topco has voted to proceed with the Initial Public Offering (IPO). He also revealed details of a shake-up to the terms of F1?s $698.5m [??451.02m] prize fund which will see the last-placed team lose the $10m [??6.46m] it currently receives every year. ”

Kubica confirms F1 simulator test (Autosport)

“There is this rumour to which I say, yes, I was in the Mercedes F1 simulator in the past.”

F1 after Bahrain: The State of Play (BBC)

“Di Resta must be aware his career hangs in the balance. If he is beaten by Sutil – regarded as a solid driver who is not quite top level – his chances of being picked up by a top team will nose-dive.”

Maria De Villota: “I see life differently now” (James Allen on F1)

“Initially I was angry with the doctor because he had failed to save my eye, but then little by little I became aware that losing an eye was a lot less important with respect to what I still had; life itself. I felt I?d been part of a miracle. I look now at my scars as part of my story, I carry them with pride.”

McLaren’s Team Principals (McLaren)

“The Formula 1 establishment was left slightly confused, wondering why that nice Mr McLaren was employing such an aggressive co-director. But both Bruce [McLaren] and Teddy [Mayer] knew exactly what they were doing, and the ??good cop/bad cop? routine worked very well for both of them. But, more important, it worked very well for the McLaren team.”


Comment of the day

Is the sport versus entertainment debate split along generational lines?

I think the problem with F1 (and other sports) now is that a lot of the younger audience wants to be entertained constantly, If you even get one to two laps that are dull you often get them whining about how boring it all is. You get one-stop races and they say it’s boring because they need to see some action in the pit lane and need to see strategy because that’s deemed more entertaining for the ‘show’.

On the flip side you have the older, longer-term fans (like myself) who just want to see a race, We enjoy watching cars running close to the limit, We enjoy watching battles for position play out over many laps and we like to see real overtaking which drivers really have to work hard to achieve. We don’t care about pit stops or tyre strategy because we never had any of those things when many of us began watching F1, We want to see cars racing out on the track rather than driving slowly down a pit lane two to three times a race.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Alvino!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

The Osella FA1L lived up to its name on this day 25 years ago as it failed to pass scrutineering for the 1988 San Marino Grand Prix.

For the 1988 season cars were required to be designed so that the driver’s feet was behind the front axle line for safety reasons. But teams were allowed an exemption from that requirement if they used cars that were sufficiently similar to their 1987 designs.

Osella intended to do so but the scrutineers decided that the FA1L was not close enough in design to its predecessor, the FA1I. They showed up with a revised car for the next race in Monaco where Nicola Larini brought it home ninth.

Image ?? Caterham/LAT

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

105 comments on F1 prize money change planned

  1. Tyler (@tdog) said on 29th April 2013, 0:07

    With the proposed changes in prize money and the significant costs increase resulting from the 2014 engines, you have to wonder if a team like Marussia will survive beyond the next couple of years. Perhaps the powers that be actually want fewer teams on the grid.

    • Hairs (@hairs) said on 29th April 2013, 0:14

      Luca di Montezemalo was gifted a significant delta topco shareholding last year. He hates backmarkers.

      I’m sure it’s a coincidence.

    • cg22me (@cg22me) said on 29th April 2013, 0:15

      Agreed. It reminds me of what Bernie said a short while ago, saying he’d prefer 10 Teams (if I recall correctly) and that’s it, as long as Ferrari remain in the sport.

      I’d imagine that $10 million will conveniently “disappear” somewhere…

      • JackySteeg (@jackysteeg) said on 29th April 2013, 0:38

        Even those bottom teams employ hundreds of people. That’s hundreds of mortgages needing paying, hundreds of children’s mouths to feed… But nah, Bernie doesn’t want an 11th team.

        I don’t understand his gripe with backmarkers. If he hadn’t hoarded so much of F1’s income for him castles and his awful daughter’s champagne parties then maybe there’d be no such thing as backmarkers.

        • Kimi4WDC said on 29th April 2013, 4:03

          Can’t blame him, team that outsources all their development and manufacturing, there for all the wrong reasons. Yes, they need time, but they had time and when Sala joined them last year it was a total chaos as he described.

        • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 29th April 2013, 7:45


          Even those bottom teams employ hundreds of people. That’s hundreds of mortgages needing paying, hundreds of children’s mouths to feed…

          It’s a bogus point in my opinion. Formula 1 teams don’t make a dent in unemployment numbers. Most, if not all, people employed by the teams are highly qualified and would have absolutely no troubles finding jobs elsewhere.

          I’d love to see more teams in F1, I’d like to see 25 to 30 cars entering each and every race. I want to see battles all over the track, and I think the sport needs back-markers as much as it needs front runners… but I don’t buy your argument at all.

          The problem is, that the bar is set too high for the new teams. Running a Formula 1 team is a business. Financial incentives are very important and they just aren’t there. Still, it’s not like those are poor, poor people, who barely make the ends meet and struggle to feed their children :)

          • K0V4LA1NEN said on 29th April 2013, 10:11


          • MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 30th April 2013, 8:03

            @maroonjack not sure you fully got the point, you can be qualified all you want, that doesn’t garuntee those people will pick up and find a job day 1, after being given a notice of being laid off. So really it isn’t as daft as you would like to put it, and more so his point is that there really is no reason for Bernie to hate on such teams that help bring in fans for underdogs, more corporate heads and other monies that actually help him. Also with the fact that they run men and women from nations that get more viewers (not that it’s helping) to cheer for a fellow countrymen or woman. All in all the main point is Bernie seems to be running some bully campaign along with this idea of making more money anywhere he can. Doesn’t matter if it is racing race hosting cost, team entry cost, or limiting the pot of money given at the end of the season for Constructor standings. Main point, Bernie is in bed with Ferrari (as always) and is full of BS and greed, quite simple.

          • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 30th April 2013, 10:37

            @magillagorilla I’m absolutely certain you didn’t fully get my point. I support smaller teams and I hate seeing Bernie axing them. All the more I hate bad arguments on my side. I criticised a very specific thing here, and that’s presenting highly qualified, successful, strong and motivated people as poor losers who can’t pay their rents or feed their kids. I don’t think we need to patronize or victimize them.

            There are many good reasons to keep smaller teams alive, but keeping them alive just so that few hundred people could have well paid jobs isn’t one of those reasons.

          • MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 1st May 2013, 8:27

            @maroonjack No I got your point, I never said nor pointed out that you don’t

            support smaller teams and I hate seeing Bernie axing them.

            rather I was saying that the main point was Bernie axing teams just to do so; which is what the person you responded to was saying at the core, with a sub-issue being job creation or lack of it. I’m not patronizing anyone, but from my experience and others I’ve met, along with the global issues in Europe more so than the U.S., to sit there and say that those people would have an easy time finding jobs is somewhat naive. There is such a thing as being over qualified in the world market. I agree with you that people shouldn’t be mad due to jobs being lost, if these teams really wanted to carry on they’d move to feeder classes or sports car racing. Where you lose me and the other half of why I feel the need to respond, is the idea that there is some great ease to get jobs. Though that may not be your intention, you did a good job of implying otherwise.

        • DaveD (@daved) said on 29th April 2013, 22:10

          I hate to say it, but I’m giving you a big +1 on that one.

          I have no problem with someone doing well, but Bernie seems to have taken so much money out of the sport that he may have damaged it in the long run. I’d rather see more competitive teams than see how many silly mansions his daughters can buy.
          Maybe we should be calling Bernie “His Majesty”?

      • Estesark (@estesark) said on 29th April 2013, 14:34

        I wouldn’t mind seeing only ten teams in the sport, so long as the one leaving is Toro Rosso, and not Marussia or Caterham. I’ve never been completely comfortable with the concept of junior teams, and it would be a shame if they denied a smaller team their place in the paddock.

    • sdtaylor91 (@sdtaylor91) said on 29th April 2013, 0:17

      I absolutely hate that rule, there’s no logic to it. How is the team that finishes last supposed to move up the grid when all the other teams have more money? And the prize money for teams is increasing which only compounds that disadvantage!

      If i’ve read it right all teams will get prize money this year, but 11th place from 2014 onwards gets nothing, I hope Marussia gets 10th this year because they need the money more than Caterham atm, I don’t want to see another team quit the sport

      • Cristian (@theseeker) said on 29th April 2013, 5:48

        There is some logic to it. I honestly don’t think that the team that finished last in the Constructors Championship should receive any prizes. It’s hardly something to offer a prize for and I believe performance should be praised, as well as lack of performance should be discouraged. That’s my opinion.

        • sdtaylor91 (@sdtaylor91) said on 29th April 2013, 6:24

          Yeah i kind of agree, but 11th place would get nothing and the team that finishes 10th haven’t exactly done great and i’m not sure of the exact figure but they get well over $10 million, for teams like Marussia and Caterham thats a gigantic sum of money.

          Also, that money comes from the commerical side of the sport and, slowest or not, the team that finishes 11th has contributed to the spectacle of f1 and they should get something for that

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th April 2013, 8:47

          If you don’t sell well and still get the money it’s a subsidy… I tend to hate subsidies because it’s usually inefficient, but somehow I don’t want to see F1 getting rid of that because that’s valuable money back markers need to step their game up. Maybe find an alternative scheme like, e.g.: if a team finishes last for 2/3 straight years the $10 mil should be shared by the rest of the field.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th April 2013, 18:14

        Hm, so in effect Bernie is now saying “yeah, sure we have deals with 10 of the 11 teams still in F1, that’s perfectly allright”

        But if I was the FIA I would not sign a Concorde Agreement with a FOM who has a contract with ALMOST all teams, because what kind of a commercial partner is that? And in theory it could be a worry from a EU-competition law point of view too. Something the FIA should be wary off.
        Taking it a step forward, why would the other teams want to sign such a Concorde agreement, when its quite possible that it’ll be one of them who ends up 11th (Caterham, even Williams or just think back at McLaren getting docked their points and ending up last). I just can’t see that happening.

        Off course its necessary to have the CA in place for the IPO to go ahead. But who cares if that does not happen? Not Bernie (he might like it more when he is in control), nor the teams, just CVC who want to cash in.

        I see a purpose to this.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th April 2013, 0:43

      Bernie said he only wants 10 teams, and what Bernie wants Bernie gets.

      • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th April 2013, 0:46

        Oh! and before Bernie, the promoters (track owners) offered “starting money” as well as prize money.

      • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th April 2013, 4:31

        @hohum – So Bernie is trying to drive one of the eleven teams out by offering absolutely no prize money to the teams that finish in tenth and eleventh? Wouldn’t that just drive two teams out?

        • K0V4LA1NEN said on 29th April 2013, 10:15

          he might want caterham and marussia to merge????? that would reduce the teams down to ten

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th April 2013, 13:14

          @prisoner-monkeys, I may have missed that detail, I was working on the basis of ” the last placed team” not receiving any money, but applying your logic and knowing the way Bernie works I can see that every year there could be 1 less team . However I just re-read the article and Bernie is going to divide 63% of the revenue between 10 teams .

      • William (@william) said on 29th April 2013, 7:27

        Marussia are going to fold at the end of this year or they are close to it. What Bernie says is what he gets. I wish the calendar was like a grand slam which was proposed by Bernie and it should happen in 2014 or 2015 due to the amount of circuits are coming

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th April 2013, 10:25

          @william – That’s a pretty bold claim to make. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they will close down? And if not, what makes you so certain of it?

          • William (@william) said on 29th April 2013, 13:53

            There are so many pay drivers in the field this year as they need them to keep the team viable if they didn’t have pay drivers they won’t have the money coming in. HRT folded very quickly wasn’t there a talk of Scorpion Racing coming in 2014. They could always merge Caterham and Marussia together which will make 10 teams as Bernie only wants 10 teams in the field

    • Kimi4WDC said on 29th April 2013, 1:36

      I want teams who do not rely on prize money to survive a season. If it means we going to cut down to six teams, fine. F1 will suck (possibly), sponsors will cut the funding due to lack of competition and then new teams will enter when they think they can survive.

      I understand Bernie why he didn’t like HRT, frankly it was a company run to make a profit for certain people. Bit more complicated with Marrusia and Caterham as their main stake holders seems to have genuine interest in the competition – but that reflects their improving results.

      I fear that Sauber might fall very far behind if Monisha does not adjust her vision of the team. It’s great to run sustainable business, complaining about something other teams got a better handle on is not the way, maybe they need a new marketing manager.

      • Mike (@mike) said on 29th April 2013, 3:10

        frankly it was a company run to make a profit for certain people

        HRT was not making a profit.

      • anon said on 29th April 2013, 8:43

        By that logic, even some of the larger teams in the sport would be wiped out – there was a BBC article quite recently covering the finances of the teams, and they seemed to think that the majority of the field was in financial difficulty. Only the top four teams of Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren and Mercedes were financially stable and, even for those teams, FOM’s prize money makes up the bulk of their income.

        Lotus, for example, have been struggling for some time in the wake of the “Crashgate” scandal – the debts they racked up then, once most of their sponsors abandoned the team, are still with the team, and in the Abu Dhabi GP last year the BBC reported that their mechanics were threatening to down tools and walk out of the circuit over unpaid wages. If a team that far up the grid that has been pulling in more sponsors recently is still in financial trouble, that raises a few questions about the overall stability of the grid.

      • Iestyn Davies (@fastiesty) said on 29th April 2013, 13:22

        I think HRT lost over 30m in the end – the last owners being a Spanish bank. And under the new rules system, only the top teams will have a representative on the rules committee? They will probably reinforce their spending advantage and who will oppose them? The FIA? So who’s got the deciding vote? Oh yes, it’s Bernie!

  2. MNM101 (@mnm101) said on 29th April 2013, 0:09

    what are the quotes mark is talking about ?

  3. matt90 (@matt90) said on 29th April 2013, 0:33

    Clever way to treat struggling teams. The treatment of F1 by the FIA under Todt has steadily become more and more disappointing over the years. I think the only reason I ever thought it was okay was because it was just so much better than the dictatorship Mosley seemed to be running by the end.

    • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th April 2013, 0:50

      But them who do you thing would be the right man to take over Todt? Berger?

      Sadly small teams have little leverage to negotiate, don´t have a big following, or popular drivers. If they go we will cry a little for them but none here is about to give up

      • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th April 2013, 0:54

        Sorry… hate this laptop…

        As I was saying, no one in here is giving up on the sport because HRT is no longer here, or Caterham is going away.

        • Tyler (@tdog) said on 29th April 2013, 2:19

          no one in here is giving up on the sport because HRT is no longer here, or Caterham is going away

          Probably true @celeste but it would take a lot to stop me, and I’m sure most others here, from watching F1.

          Shouldn’t the dominant criterion for proposed changes to the rules not be “is this so bad it will stop me watching” but rather “is this good for the sport”?

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th April 2013, 2:40

            @tdog Agree, logic should be

            “is this good for the sport?”

            And how do you know that´s not their logic?
            As fans we only get very little of the information that decision are being making on. We in the light of the little information we see made judigement: this car is faster, this team is better, this driver sucks… FOM is being a bully to the little teams. But in the end we don´t know if these judgement are real.

            Maybe the floatetion is need it for F1, as much as it is a sport, it is a business too and it will only keep going as long as it´s keep getting profit and a good profit.

            FOM´s logic is not far away for the one of othe big companies; they are getting rid of the “extra weight” to made the company more eficient

          • @tdog @matt90 @celeste The sad situation about this small teams is that they can’t really move to a “plan B”, they need that prize money due to the lack of sponsors eager to level the team’s money (if they are 11th). And that lack of sponsors makes teams avoid the decision to hire excellent drivers who could take more risks, and by that, try to grab some points (which would mean actually getting some prize).

            I don’t really know how the sponsorship works in F1. Infiniti sponsors Red Bull with gazillions, yet the other day it was commented here how rare is to see one of these cars in the streets. PDVSA chips in, and the Williams cars barely appear on TV now, so how that investment can favor them, no idea.
            But if a HUGE company (insert your favorite company here) backs, lets say, Bianchi, puts tons of money and resources in the car, and makes the team a serious contender, then they could really use that as marketing: “Bianchi, the best rookie, powered by …”

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th April 2013, 4:54

            PDVSA chips in, and the Williams cars barely appear on TV now, so how that investment can favor them, no idea.

            Well I don´t think Nicolas Maduro cares to much about the world knowing what PDVSA is…

            As for Infiniti, since it is a luxury company don´t think they are behind hundreds of thousands of sales increses, is more about a brand recognition. Last year Infinti saw an increse in USA, from 98,461 to 119,877, so at least it was worth a little considertin every Infiniti is worth more than $1000000.00.

            I used to worth to a company that sales Nissan, Ferrari and Maserati in my country and we brought a model Nissan based on an Infiniti, the sales goal a year for Ferrari and Maserati was one or two. For the “Infiniti” it was 10 to 15 top….

          • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 29th April 2013, 21:16


            Shouldn’t the dominant criterion for proposed changes to the rules not be “is this so bad it will stop me watching” but rather “is this good for the sport”?

            Well said.

        • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 29th April 2013, 8:50


          No one in here is giving up on the sport because HRT is no longer here, or Caterham is going away.

          Are you certain? Most of us would not, but some Russian fans might very well leave. Those small teams also have their fans.

          On the other hand I wouldn’t leave the sport even if we lost Ferrari. In fact I think most of us would stay and I think that the leverage of the top teams is vastly over-estimated.

          • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 29th April 2013, 8:58

            * Some Russian fans might very well leave if we lost Marussia, of course ;)

          • celeste (@celeste) said on 29th April 2013, 16:34

            @maroonjack that´s an interesting idea, but does people of countries really support teams by their nationalities? I mean obviously Italy and Ferrari, and Mclaren with UK could be an exception; but since most of the rest of the world don´t have a “national” f1team found it hard to believe… but I couldn be wrong.

            I think one or two weeks ago Keith posted the case of an F1 race that Bernie while being team principle try to boycott, and since Ferrari didn´t do it the boycot fail. As much as I don´t like it traditional teams (Mclaren, Williams) and specialy Ferrari have a lot of support and a lot if power. As for RBR that the world champion give up on the sport it wouldn´t look good…

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th April 2013, 0:51

      “That’ll be half a mill. each for the 10 remaining teams and 5 mill for us”.

      • Dizzy said on 29th April 2013, 1:03

        You can’t blame Jean Todt for this as the FIA don’t have control over the commercial aspect’s of F1. Its Bernie who has made the change not the FIA & Jean Todt can’t really do anything to change it.

  4. nackavich (@nackavich) said on 29th April 2013, 1:15

    The Osella FA1L. Were the designers having a laugh?

  5. marsianwalrus (@einariliyev) said on 29th April 2013, 1:29

    I somewhat disagree with the COTD – though the argument that the fans like to continue watching the races they grew up watching may be viable. I certainly put my rose-tinted glasses on when I playback the races of 90s (when I started watching) in my mind; however, having re-watched quite a few of them recently (and not just my favourite moments on youtube) I cannot quite get the feeling that today’s races are better.

    In that respect, I cannot consider myself among the newest generation of F1 viewers – DRS, faltering tyres, and many pit-stops-a-race were definitely not the formula in the 90s. My dad was watching since the 80s, and he also feels that today’s races are more competitive, more entertaining and more focused on driver’s ability.

    This is, naturally, not only due to the technical or sporting regulations of this era, nor is it completely dependent on the Pirelli tyres or the DRS – after all, as Keith was recently pointing out, the data suggests that sport’s greatest racing talent in history is currently on our screens – not to mention that we usually get 3-4 teams capable of fighting for podiums, if not victories, almost every race.

    However, all that aside, I do enjoy the great majority of modern races more – despite having watched, and enjoyed (at the time), the races of the 90s. Yes, there were some classics in the late 90s and early 2000s – but the rest of those seasons often made a bleaker picture. I do want to watch close and gritty racing – DRS often kills that, but it is also crucial in preventing a lap-after-lap Trulli-trains of the past – I remember a particular race when Coulthard was stuck behind the Arrows of Bernoldi the entire time. Yes, I want the drivers to be able to defend properly – but I definitely do not want faster cars impeded when the following car is 2 secs faster. I think those hold-ups themselves were no less artificial than DRS is.

    If it were up to me to decide, DRS would definitely stay – not only because its virtues (in my humble opinion) outpace its vices – but also because I feel there are even more artificial rules to the racing than DRS. Take one-move-allowed-when-defending. A horrible rule – I understand the safety concerns, but if the defending driver were actually allowed to defend when his pursuer uses DRS – the overtakes would be far more ‘natural’ and a result of actual confrontation. Take Schumacher and Hill battles in 1995 – I don’t think they would be any less entertaining if there was DRS then – I do however think they would lose that inch-and-nail quality if Schumacher wasn’t allowed to block wherever possible. Blocking works everywhere, I encounter it each time I compete in karting – people simply don’t leave room and are more than happy to run you off the track – it’s real racing. Once again, I respect the safety regulations – but then we might as well introduce a speed limiter on the cars. Another set of regulations I hate are the blue flags – once again, letting your opponents past is unnatural whether or not you’re seven laps down.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th April 2013, 9:41

      I like modern F1 bar 2013 Pirelli tyres. I liked 2012 tyres, even early in the season when teams did not understand tyres completely. I fear Pirelli pushed too much this year and just hoping teams figure out a way to drive on those tyres before July.

      I don’t dislike the concept of DRS, but it destroys the race at some tracks, mostly due to poor definition of DRS zones. Maybe no zones at all, and a certain number of use per race should be fine, maybe they should define “No DRS zones” for safety reasons and let drivers use it whenever they want as long it’s allowed. This solution should be tricky under the “within 1 second” rule, so probably it should be dropped too.

      • Jay Menon (@jaymenon10) said on 29th April 2013, 9:59


        Agree with most of your comments. The guys racing today are much more closely matched compared to yesteryear. The guys coming up through the ranks are definitely more well prepared for F1 nowadays. I think the races have been great over the past couple years, good close racing throughout the field.

        I think the 2012 tyres had the right balance, this year seems a little too aggressive. Havings said this, some drivers have shown that you can drive within the limit of these tyres to great effect. Relative to car performance, the best drivers will be able to adapt to whatever conditions they are faced with, thats why they get paid the big bucks.

        Im a bit of a fence sitter when it comes to DRS. Its great at some races and not so at others. Im sure the rules can be tweaked to find the right balance, perhaps introduce a finite number of times the defending driver can use it in a race perhaps? Having said this, when it comes to the guys at the sharp end of the grid, as we have seen in the past, passing with DRS isnt as straightforward. So good positioning and late breaking from the defending driver make it quite difficult for the traling car.

    • kingchaos (@kingchaos) said on 29th April 2013, 10:35

      Good thoughts; I can agree with many points. I’d like to add that the whole discussion IMHO is too tightly focused on overtaking and not on what makes a race a good/entertaining race.

      For me, the key elements are tension, uncertainty about the outcome and surprising events. The latter are seldom with the high level of reliability these – but just add rain…

      For the rest of the races to be entertaining, I need a certain amount of uncertainty. And the lack thereof was the reason why China (for me) was no good race: It was not a mediocre race because the overtakings were artificial. It was mediocre because the outcome was predictable quite early in the race (except for Vettels position.)

      And Bahrain was not a better race because there was fewer artificial overtaking but because the outcome was open and there WERE fights for position and not just encounters of cars on different strategies.

      As @einariliyev there were classic races in the 90s – but most of them are considered classic beacause they had this element of surprise and tension. And on the other hand we had much processional driving and trulli trains. Frequently you could watch the start and doze off without missing anything. For me, the races of today are better because of the more uniformly distributed competitiveness alone.

      And for DRS: At that time it was “Oh, he’s not 3 seconds faster than the driver in front – he won’t overtake anyway (before the next round of pit stops).” Today it is “Oh, he’s 1.5 seconds faster and soon he will be within 1 second – he will overtake anyway (and maybe challenge the driver in front of both)” None of them include much uncertainty – but I tend to prefer the latter.

    • Maksutov (@maksutov) said on 29th April 2013, 16:37


      lol.. very funny

      Well i too agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately, as much as the competitiveness of f1 racing has increased over the years, so has the structural vulnerability of the cars. Drivers are no longer able to make exceptions and bump into each other like they did in the past. Which explains partially, why the ban on harsh defensive moves was introduced in the firs place. Another reason is that, as the teams became more competitive (closer to each other) the defending became more apparent – it was much harder to overtake; meaning that any excessive defending meant that the offending car will never be able to overtake. And in the end, that scenario would be much more boring than the situation that we have now.

      But if I had it my way, I would most of what you suggested.

      • George (@george) said on 29th April 2013, 18:16

        @maksutov @einariliyev
        The other point about the one move rule is that in the past drivers would race responsibly. Because there was such a high risk of injury if you caused a crash, you wouldn’t intentionally push a competitor off the road (or at least most people wouldn’t…).

        The fact that this rule had to be written into the book rather than remaining an unwritten rule is exactly why it is needed, the drivers today will do anything to defend a position, even if it means causing an accident.

        On the subject of DRS, I dont feel it’s needed with the current variation from the tyres, if the tyres become more durable again then I revert to my previous stance (DRS is a stop-gap for aero dependance reduction).

  6. Mike (@mike) said on 29th April 2013, 3:11

    the last-placed team lose the $10m [£6.46m] it currently receives every year.

    This is bad for F1. Why do they purposefully hurt the sport?

  7. ivz (@ivz) said on 29th April 2013, 3:14

    Whats with the bulky air intake on the Lotus?

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 29th April 2013, 4:32

      @ivz – The two pods either side of the airbox are actually vents for the passive double-DRS system. However, Lotus is still struggling to make it work, so they’re keeping the vents sealed for the time being.

    • mantresx (@mantresx) said on 29th April 2013, 5:52

      That’s the DDRS air intake, but i you ask me I think they’ll give up on that one, it’s just taken them far too long, if it was such a great idea it would’ve been implemented months ago.

  8. dragoll (@dragoll) said on 29th April 2013, 3:43

    The exception is the 11th-placed team Marussia and Mr Ecclestone says “they don’t have a commercial agreement because they are not in the top ten. We pay the top ten, that’s what we do. For three years we did something different because we had an agreement with Max but from now on we will pay the top ten and that is it.”

    So, according to Bernie, if you’re not in F1 unless you finish in the top 10 teams? What rubbish… If he is serious, then why have more than 10 teams?

    This marks another poor decision for the good of the future of the sport. I understand back in the days when back markers were circulating 107%+ lap times, but that hasn’t occurred to my knowledge with Marussia… If he wants to use carrots and sticks to try and elevate the performance of teams, perhaps consider a relegation/promotion system from GP2, like they do in Football. That way the team continues to exist, and we also get further interest in the squabble for the back, like we do for the squabble for the front. It would also provide a nice little entry point for GP2 teams.

    • Kimi4WDC said on 29th April 2013, 4:09

      I think that’s exactly what he have in mind. Ten teams that are capable to keep above the cutting line or else you should be running a GP2 team and not F1 team.

      With all the investment and interest from partners I don’t think Marussia is going anywhere, Caterham is more likely to give up, considering all the rumours of them selling out or trying to merge.

  9. bull mello (@bullmello) said on 29th April 2013, 5:15

    Nice to see Bruce McLaren mentioned. He was another reason I became a fan of F1 back in the day. Imagine a passionate racer/constructor coming along these days to start their own team, build a car, drive it successfully and even win races. Those days were over a long time ago and aren’t ever coming back. And to bring this full circle to the news of the day, if someone had the wherewithal to start a team, you’d need the wealth of Richard Branson, the talent and experience of a young Kimi/Fernando/(insert driver of your choice) and the genius of Adrian Newey, and then you started out the 11th team on the grid, you would still have even one more obstacle to overcome.

  10. mantresx (@mantresx) said on 29th April 2013, 5:47

    I’ve always wondered, do drivers also get money for winning each race (and championship for that matter)? or all they get is the trophies?

    • dragoll (@dragoll) said on 29th April 2013, 8:15

      @mantresx I don’t believe there is any prize money from the FIA directly to drivers, however, many drivers have performance bonuses, that they negotiate with their teams. I remember Senna had a very good package with Williams, and it was rumoured that he was getting paid millions per race victory.

      That wouldn’t obviously matter to Marussia drivers who aren’t likely to win a race unless something really bizarre happens, at which point, it probably wasn’t skill related and more likely to be due to a massive FIA rules debarcle excluding all other teams, or a massive 1st lap shunt where 99% of the field is taken out.

      • cg22me (@cg22me) said on 29th April 2013, 9:24

        I can just see it now… Grosjean and Maldonado line up 19th and 20th, with VDG and Chilton behind.
        GRO and MAL fight each other ruthlessly ’til the first corner, where they forget to brake and plow into the 18 cars in front of them.

      • Starbuck (@starbuck) said on 29th April 2013, 11:28

        I believe you’re thinking of McLaren. Senna had race-by-race contract there in 93. Also, they offered Damon Hill a comparably small salary + 1 million USD per race win prior to the 1997 season.

      • DVC (@dvc) said on 29th April 2013, 23:13

        Nelson Pique was on $1M per championship point with Benetton I believe.

    • Alex Brown (@splittimes) said on 29th April 2013, 12:56

      The term ‘Grand Prix is pretty much meaningless these days, isn’t it?

      “How much does this victory mean to you?”
      “Nine points, twenty-thousand dollars and a lot of happiness.”

  11. Minardi (@gitanes) said on 29th April 2013, 6:09

    Could not agree more with the COTD.

    The long history and international intrigue that comes inherent to Formula One automatically gives it a huge advantage when it comes to the overall drama on raceday. Those of us that remember decades gone by, all certainly appreciate a great race on Sunday, but its not always about Sunday. Sometimes its Saturday (Monaco), sometimes its the off-season car design and testing, sometimes its the controversy brought on by regulations, and sometimes its watching teammates body language on the podium.

    Considering the incredible improvement in reliability over the years along with the somewhat dire economic conditions around many areas of the globe, F1 hasn’t exactly had as easy ride to keep the world entertained over the past 5 years, but despite the regular complaints we endure race after race……its not too bad.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th April 2013, 7:20

      Let me say that I couldn’t agree less with @dizzy on the COTD @gitanes, and I won’t until we get clear who these a lot

      of the younger audience wants to be entertained constantly, If you even get one to two laps that are dull you often get them whining about how boring it all is

      younger people are.
      To me (in my mid 30s, having been following F1 for 20 years now), it feels more like the classical “blaming the youth” because the guys making the decisions are just as much in their 40-70s (or 83 in BE’s case) as you guys complaining about it.
      I have seen a load of fans complaining about DRS and the tyres, and while sure enough the more senior ones have more often pointed to racing “in the old days” as the ideal situation, the newer fans dislike highway passing with DRS and tyres lasting only till the end of the qualifying lap just as little.

      IMO its more people who have had the Schumi years as well as the Bridgestones-everlasting as a large part of their experience of F1 who like the changes, because we know all too well that with current reliability of the cars, and aero solutions unchanged without DRS and tyres made to go off and make it tricky we will see loads of xxx-trains and 2 second faster cars failing to make it up the field because its simply impossible to pass.

      I do not like the way they went with DRS (Would be better to change aero, its not needed with the tyres as they are now, and if its there, it should at least be far less powerfull) and I am perfectly satisfied that Pirelli recognized they were taking it a bit too far in China, but it does add to the sport to have drivers have to manage their tyres.

  12. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 29th April 2013, 7:03

    Im a bit torn on the prize money issue. On the one hand, if teams can factor in not having that $10mil then it’s up to tyem to fund their campaign entirely. I’ve said time and time again that this isn’t a charity. But on the other hand, both existing teams at the back would really suffer and I hate to think that they’d have rug pulled from beneath them.

    • Tyler (@tdog) said on 29th April 2013, 7:27

      I’ve said time and time again that this isn’t a charity

      No, F1 isn’t a charity. However, it is a major global sport with significant revenue. The participants create the product which generates the TV rights, hosting fees, advertsing rights and the like. Football players at Premier League level don’t play for free, why should Marussia or Caterham be any different?

      Giving the smaller teams a very modest percentage of the revenue generated is about basic fairness, and is also in the interests of the sport itself since it promotes their longevity and competitiveness.

      Of course, a private equity fund trying to flog off shares in an IPO isn’t necessarily thinking about the long term health of the sport, but that doesn’t make it the right decision.

      • othertales said on 29th April 2013, 8:34

        Couldn’t agree more!
        It’s a typical example of how to increase the revenue percentage teams get but without losing too much money for Bernie/CVC in the process — if that means losing 1 or 2 teams at the back, so be it.

      • tmekt (@tmekt) said on 29th April 2013, 12:23

        Football players at Premier League level don’t play for free, why should Marussia or Caterham be any different?

        Bad comparison. The players don’t get their paychecks from the league but the teams and that’s exactly how it is in F1 as well: Bernie doesn’t pay Kimi (or any other driver) for being in F1, Lotus does. I can’t say that I know a lot about the structure of Premier League but aren’t the teams shareholders of the league, therefore getting their say at the decisions and their part of the revenue?

        The question is, does F1 (the company/companies behind) benefit – the additional “longevity and competitiveness” of the sport, as you said – from Marussia or Caterham being in the sport enough to justify the cost for keeping them in?

        • Dan Brown (@danbrown180) said on 29th April 2013, 16:52

          It’s a pretty fair comparison, if slightly misguided. TV money is split between the teams, not only in the Premier League, but right down to League 2.

          It’s like saying if Manchester United play QPR, and Manchester United win, QPR don’t deserve any of the TV money. Utterly ridiculous.

          Whether it’s at the front of the grid, or the back of the grid, the cash should be distributed between the teams, so a much fairer way would be distribute a flat and equal rate to each team, that increases based on points scored in the world championship.

          Here’s how Premier League TV money is split:
          “The domestic cash is split three ways: 50 per cent ‘equal share’, 25 per cent dependent on how many times a club was on TV (facility fees) and 25 per cent dependent on where a club finished in the table (merit payment).”

          Seems fair to me.

  13. Atticus (@atticus-2) said on 29th April 2013, 7:24

    Genius ideas.

    Let’s just drown the 10th place team as well after the HRT exit. You are right, there is no need to provide motivation for progress at the back of the field – NASCAR’s wave around and lucky dog rule did not create fascinating racing at the back, oh wait, it did. As well as the extra $10mn between Caterham and Marussia last year and not just in Brazil. R-u-b-b-i-s-h.

    And I really don’t think Paul di Resta would head downwards if he gets beaten by Adrian Sutil. He will get beaten, by the way, in my opinion. That’s because I think everybody in, or close to the paddock, myself included (although I’m not close physically), bar that journalist, regards Sutil as a top class driver instead of a mediocre one, or something like this. Di Resta was not lucky with his teammates; Hulkenberg was a top class as well. Di Resta can be very good, if anything, his own inconsistency could cost him a top seat in the future. And the progress of top talents, such as Sutil and Hulkenberg.

    • coefficient (@coefficient) said on 29th April 2013, 11:41

      Sutil, Top Talent? Priceless! LOL! He’s a midfield bog standard ordinary seat warmer for a more wealthy and even less talented replacement.

  14. Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 29th April 2013, 11:47

    Q: Should a team that comes 11th get prize money?
    A: Of course not!!!

    Q: Should F1 be so expensive that there are only ten teams that can afford it?
    A: of course not!!!

    Q: Will customer cars allow for a more cost effective and competitive Formula One?

    Let’s swallow our pride and stop pretending Formula One shouldn’t lower itself to think about a more cost effective way of going racing. Wouldn’t it be great to see Bianchi driving last years Ferrari and mixing it with the top guys? Sure it would!

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th April 2013, 12:07


      Q: Will customer cars allow for a more cost effective and competitive Formula One?

      – possibly more cost effective (but so would a single make championship be) but certainly not more competitive

      • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 30th April 2013, 0:01


        Why not ?

        Thanks to customer teams being allowed in motoGP Cal Crutchlow has been fighting with the top teams this season on what is effectively last season’s Yamaha (although the engine is close to being this season’s spec).

        It would take some careful rule writing to make sure we don’t end up with the back 3 or so teams running 3+ year old cars that have no chance of competing but I think that if it was done properly then allowing customer teams could make F1 more competitive.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th April 2013, 6:41

          @beneboy I don’t see the danger in having the backmarker teams driving in too old (=uncompetitive) equipment but exactly the opposite.

          Just look at the way STR is only half a team. I think its a far too realistic image to see 6-8 RB-cars and 4-6 Ferraris with 4-6 McLarens and maybe 2 Mercedes cars running. We can be sure that the RB cars will not fight the leading driver, we can be neigh certain that when Massa is not allowed to be in front of Alonso, neither will the other Ferraris and McLaren might say they let everyone race, but when it comes to this situation, I would be surprised to not see them enact their power over their customers.
          Using customer cars might make sense when there are no constructors able to build the mid field, but doing so now would eliminate the technical teams of everyone down from the top 4 (I count Lotus in with those because I doubt they would be able to support more cars, pure budget wise), handing all power to a group of 4 teams.

          • Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 30th April 2013, 10:49

            I think you misunderstand the concept of customer cars. Your analysis leans towards the idea of junior or sister teams. That’s exactly what we don’t need need for the reasons you state.

            Customer cars are off the shelf, no strings attached purchases. A supplier of customer cars must make them available to anyone without condition. The customers technical teams would then have a sound footing to spend all of their resource developing the car further and making it even more competitive. This would empower the smaller teams! They could be competitive more cheaply but also have a stronger footing to attract sponsors.

            At the same time all that money spent by the big teams designing new cars could partly be recouped by selling them on.

            It’s a no-brainer, win win solution.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th April 2013, 11:55

            Customer cars are off the shelf, no strings attached purchases. A supplier of customer cars must make them available to anyone without condition.

            The only way how that can happen is if the supplier itself is NOT competing in the series though @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk, that’s why I ignored that option for now, as I don’t see the likes of Ferrari, McLaren or Red Bull Technology take on such a role, and I doubt Dallarra, SWIFT etc will ever be able to build competitive F1 cars.

            The moment the people selling the cars compete themselves, you will get situations where they use their clout with customers to influence how the rules are made, and no doubt some of them will be influencing the operations themselves as well, enacting constructor orders additional to team orders.

          • beneboy (@beneboy) said on 30th April 2013, 14:38


            As I said, I think it would take some careful writing of the rules. Going back to MotoGp, Cal Crutchlow has been racing against the Yamaha factory bikes and I see no reason why we couldn’t have a similar situation in F1 – if the rules were written carefully.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th April 2013, 14:54

            @beneboy, I think its because a bit different type of “market” and level of customizing that teams do.

            I think it can work, and does actually work in MotoGP, in Superbikes its likely even easier, and it works pretty well in sports-cars racing as well, because there is not such a level of car development/aero development during the season to be able to compete.
            That is where F1 30-40 years back was different too. A car did not change as much over a season so it was completely viable to buy that car or have it on loan and race it for a year or 2 and even win.
            Nowadays there is such a level of bringing new bits and pieces during the year that you need a wholly different infrastructure and level of understanding of the intricate flows working together on your car that it would be all but impossible.

      • Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 30th April 2013, 10:59

        To most casual observers it might as well be a single make championship. paint all the cars the same colour and you’d be hard pushed to tell the difference. Anyone who thinks F1 isn’t too expensive is quite frankly nuts. For example none of the recent the rule tinkering saved HRT. It needs something more radical.

        • Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 30th April 2013, 14:00

          I don’t agree with you @bascb that customer cars could only be provided by non-participants. It depends on how the rules were be framed. It also depends on how important you think it is to retain the smaller teams and what lengths we need to go to to achieve this.

          Lets try and envisage a scenario that would make customer cars practical without the ‘constructor orders’ you mention. Suppose the contract to sell customer chassis is drawn up between the constructor and the FIA. Included there is a requirement for a minimum period (say 3 or 4 years) that the constructor will supply cars (up to a realistic maximum) to any buyer at an agreed price brokered by the FIA. Note the agreement will not be between the Constructor and the entrant of the chassis.

          This means the entrant running the customer chassis can easily ignore any ‘constructor orders’ because they know the supply will not be affected (certainly not in the short term). A constructor supplying more than one customer team cannot selectively stop the supply at contract end (or renewal) without breach of contract.

          Even if a constructor does decide not renew it’s customer car contract after 3 or 4 years at least that’s 3 or 4 years of secure competition for a smaller team to gain a foothold. To become a full constructor or find alternatives.

          Customer cars can work! We just have to want to make them work.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th April 2013, 14:29

            Yes, @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk, that scenario might work in theory.

            But practically, none of the teams that construct winning chassis would be likely to agree to such a scenario (imagine getting beaten to a win/podium/points by your customer running last years cars).

            Apart from the question of how you would prevent the whole grid getting RB6s and stifle all development that way. And when have we ever had stable rules long enough for that to be possible in the last 2 decades?

            The problem with running a customer cars and then becoming a constructor yourself is one of the reasons there is no successfull outfit able to step up from lower tier championships, because to get into F1 you have to invest about 100 million or more in infrastructure to even be able to build a car, let alone make it competitive. To become a constructor that means effectively doing so parallel to running the customer car, and only a very rich team is ever going to be able to do that, turning customer cars into a dead alley for a team.

          • Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 30th April 2013, 15:45

            Well @bascb I guess you are against customer cars as a method to help the lower teams and bring new teams in. One man’s wine is another man’s poison!

            As for a grid of RB6’s then I guess that might be a bit boring but at least 24 RB6’s racing around would be better than 4 or 5 race wining cars and the remaining 10 or eleven just trailing around at the back. I did also mention there should be realistic maximums for customer cars.

            As for stable rules we are only talking 3 or 4 seasons plus they can be modified! Also exceptions can be put into the rules to allow the previous years cars. As I said. If you want it to work. It can.

            As for getting the 100 million you mention what’s a good way to raise it? hmmm let me think…. if only we had a formula one team with some cars to put SPONSORSHIP logos on…oh wait a minute…customer cars! Problem solved methinks.

            As for an entrant eventually becoming a constructor and the running in parallel of constructed and customer cars then that would partly be solved by the extra sponsorship opportunities. It would be no different to a current team having to produce a new car for next season anyway. The customer car would make it easier, building up financially and developing operationally.

            Customer cars are not a dead alley at all. They are a stepping stone. We are trying to help the lower teams and new entrants here aren’t we?

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 30th April 2013, 15:54

            Customer cars are not a dead alley at all. They are a stepping stone. We are trying to help the lower teams and new entrants here aren’t we?

            – Only if it actually helps them @sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk

            I am pretty sure that instead it will only help make a 2 fold championship with 3-4 big teams who develop cars and win most of the prizes. And then the field filling outfits who are lucky to get on the podium once in a while but otherwise have no hope of ever getting in the running for real. Not to mention it would all but devastate the midfield first, as the likes of Williams, FI, Sauber and possibly Lotus will struggle to compete with others who just buy their stock McLarens, Ferrari’s and and Red Bulls.

          • Sean N (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk) said on 30th April 2013, 16:10

            We already have as you say:

            ” a 2 fold championship with 3-4 big teams who develop cars and win most of the prizes. And then the field filling outfits who are lucky to get on the podium once in a while.”

            So what’s the difference? Beside this years midfield cars will usually be quicker than last years front runners so the midfield wont be devastated.

            I think you are against it on principle, which is absolutely fine. I think sometimes F1 looks down it’s nose at other formulae and series’. As I said we need something radical.

            But anyway it’s been interesting to have a difference of opinion
            with you @bascb but I have to call it a day and switch my PC off.

            The main thing is will still have F1. happy viewing

  15. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 29th April 2013, 11:58

    F1 never learns. 10 years ago at the start of the season all of the teams were banging on about cost saving and trying to do more to assist the smaller independent teams, saying that if somethign wasn’t done it could lead to them folding. What happened? Nothing, and within 3 years the 2 smallest teams (Minardi and Jordan) were gone. We are still having debates about how to save costs and we’ve already lost one of the teams that joined the sport in 2010, taking away prize money from the last placed team will only make things worse with the result that we lose another small independent team. It’s pathetic.

    I’ve said it so many times before, the battle at the back is as important as the one at the front. I don’t buy the argument that the smaller teams add nothing to the sport. They give up and coming talent a chance to shine, both drivers and designers. Marussia have the promissing Jules Bianchi who is doing a great job so far, Caterham have Charles Pic who is highly rated. Where would they be without Marussia and Caterham? Standing at the back of another team’s garage with headphones on feeling sorry for themselves, that’s where. Of the teams that have died recently, Minardi gave us Alonso and race winners Webber, Fisichella and Trulli. Where would Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey be without the likes of Arrows and Leyton House? You need the teams at the back of the grid to grow and develop the sport, because that is where future champions cut their teeth.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th April 2013, 12:08

      Where would they be without Marussia and Caterham? Standing at the back of another team’s garage with headphones on feeling sorry for themselves, that’s where. Of the teams that have died recently, Minardi gave us Alonso and race winners Webber, Fisichella and Trulli. Where would Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey be without the likes of Arrows and Leyton House? You need the teams at the back of the grid to grow and develop the sport, because that is where future champions cut their teeth.

      well said @geemac, thanks

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 29th April 2013, 13:40

      Yes, very well said @geemac, it’s ridiculous the amount of money FOM/CVC/Bernie take out of the sport, it’s the teams that have to spend millions to build the cars that do the racing that provides the product that FOM markets.

    • You’ve got it absolutely spot on @geemac !

  16. Killertofu (@killertofu) said on 29th April 2013, 13:56

    Saw a really cool Youtube video last week illustrating the quote above: “On the flip side you have the older, longer-term fans (like myself) who just want to see a race, We enjoy watching cars running close to the limit, We enjoy watching battles for position play out over many laps and we like to see real overtaking which drivers really have to work hard to achieve. We don’t care about pit stops or tyre strategy because we never had any of those things when many of us began watching F1, We want to see cars racing out on the track rather than driving slowly down a pit lane two to three times a race.

    • Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 29th April 2013, 17:44

      On the flip side you have the older, longer-term fans (like myself) who just want to see a race, We enjoy…

      @killertofu – “we enjoy…” so how is this any different than wanting to be entertained constantly? Isn’t the race itself, and what takes place during the course of it, constant entertainment?

  17. Joe Papp (@joepa) said on 29th April 2013, 17:42

    I think the problem with F1 (and other sports) now is that a lot of the younger audience wants to be entertained constantly

    re. CotD: wow. speechless. Imagine that – wanting to be entertained for the full course of one’s commitment to a sport as a fan. Why, in the good ol’ days, after walking uphill 7 miles both ways to school and home, we were lucky if we saw 3 overtakes during an F1 GP and considered ourselves thoroughly entertained! You kids today with yer fancy shoes and yer fancy dress, plus yer fancy SKYboxes and yer fancy torrent sites, wanting to be entertained constantlypffft!

  18. All this talk about the price money has made me hate Bernie even more. At the end of the year it’s almost certain that caterham or marussia will finish last in the constructors meaning their survival is slim which is such a shame with marussia being my favourite team and with caterham being highly rated in my books. The four years they tried to progress through the sport will be all for nothing wasting alot of people’s time and money and we will be left with even less seats for young drivers to fill and see what they are able to do. Such a shame but best of luck for marussia.

  19. Rooney (@rojov123) said on 29th April 2013, 23:40

    Far fetched as it may sound, perhaps Mr E is supporting Marussia with an eye to a full buy out of the FOG (so aptly named) and having such an issue clouding the IPO issue proposed, the price will drop and CVC will take what they can? Bargin basement buyout and the teams buy back their sport? Cynical I know but……

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.

Skip to toolbar