No new teams before 2026? The likely cost of F1’s $200m “anti-dilution fund”

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Over a year has elapsed since we revealed plans for a $200 million (£154m) fee to be levied on new teams entering F1 from 2021.

But, until McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown on Saturday confirmed to RaceFans during a media session in Mugello that the clause had been included in the 2021-25 Concorde Agreement, his grid peers mostly shied away from discussing this rather thorny issue.

Previous questions to various figures about the topic had been brushed aside with comments such as: “The Concorde Agreement is not yet signed, so it’s premature to speculate.” But clearly team bosses pushed Liberty Media to include this most self-serving of clauses as condition of signing, for neither the commercial rights holder nor the FIA stand to gain from it.

The opposite, in fact, for clearly it will stifle grid growth, and thus the spectacle.

Brown suggested the fee was introduced to prevent debacles such as USF1, which was woefully underfunded and planned to enter F1 on a (borrowed) wing and (mumbled) prayer. But following that episode the FIA introduced a new team entry process which amply covers such applications, with Haas F1 (accepted) and Stefan GP (rejected) providing proof of its veracity.

Zak Brown, McLaren, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020
Brown said the fee will ensure new entrants are credible
True, “a random team” – as Brown referred to USF1 – could slip though the net, but the checks and balances in the system mean it’s unlikely.

Simplistically referred to as a ‘new team entry charge’, it’s important to understand the true definition and purpose of what is actually an ‘anti-dilution fee’. The $200m is a franchise fee intended to compensate existing teams for any dilution of the prize fund. The latter will potentially be shared on a performance basis between all entrants, not merely the top 10 as is currently the case.

The anti-dilution fee applies only where the incoming team is the 11th (or higher) entrant. Obviously, this fee will boost the values of existing teams at the expense of attracting newcomers. Worse, the fee flows not to the ‘franchisor’ (Liberty) – not even partially, as is generally the case with businesses such as McDonalds – but will be divided up equally among existing teams.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Proponents of the fee point out that from 2021 incomers qualify for full prize monies from year one of their participation as opposed to year three under the current system. But, using Haas F1’s 2016 arrival as example, that shortfall amounted to under $60m during its first two years – a far cry from the $200m fee.

Jean Todt, 2020
FIA president Todt wants new teams in the sport
Whatever the true reasons for its existence, the fact is that any incomer will fund the opposition to the tune of $20m each even before the team has even turned a wheel in anger – just when the new team is at its most vulnerable! What could be better designed to ensure that newcomers do not make the grade?

There were also suggestions during the weekend that Liberty and the teams could waive the fee, but that would require unanimity. Which begs the obvious question – why would any team turn away a $20m gift, even if only as a one-time payment?

Given the anti-dilution fee is highly likely to stifle grid expansion, why did the FIA not block the clause’s introduction?

The answer is simple: The clause relates to a commercial agreement, and as decreed by the European Union the governing body may not involve itself in commercial issues, only in safety and regulatory matters. That said, during a select media briefing at Mugello, FIA president Jean Todt restated his desire to see the grid expand.

“Today we have 10 teams, all putting in a lot of effort, sometimes to be able to be competitive, sometimes to be able to survive,” he said. “If we introduce another team, in a way that team will lose value. On the other side, in my opinion Formula 1 should be able to host 12 teams. I wish I had a magic [wand] to answer that.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

The bottom line is that, as underscored by Benjamin Durand, the boss of aspiring F1 team Panthera, in an exclusive interview with RaceFans, is that “it’s easier to find 100 million than to find 300.”

Durand said that, rather than starting up afresh, they are now investigating the purchase of an existing operation. Without divulging names, he said that negotiations entered into with a current team mysteriously ceased in July – around the time the Concorde Agreement was being finalised – which suggests the owners realised the value of their asset would increase in August.

Mika Salo, Toyota, Circuit de Catalunya, 2002
Few teams paid F1’s former $48m bond
On that basis Williams, put on the market in April, was sold too cheaply at the equivalent of $165 million.

The irony is, of course, that F1 is unlikely to attract additional teams until 2026 at earliest, meaning current team owners will not realise any new team windfalls, while no newcomer is likely to pay much over the odds for a team given that the $200m fee could disappear once the current Concorde Agreement expires.

Once again F1 is likely to find itself in a holding pattern for all the wrong reasons. For proof look no further back than a little over a decade: between 1998 and 2007 F1 demanded a $48m bond from newcomers as proof of solvency, with the sum to be repaid (with interest) over a 24-month period commencing after its first race.

The result was that around 60% of the teams changed hands, while the sport attracted just one new entrant – global car giant Toyota, which would hardly have balked at such a sum.

Apart from that single entry there was zero grid growth until the bond requirement was scrapped with the (2010-12) Concorde Agreement. For all its 70-year heritage, F1 never was very good at learning from its past.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2021 F1 season

Browse all 2021 F1 season articles

Author information

Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories 2021 F1 season articles, F1 newsTags , , ,

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 52 comments on “No new teams before 2026? The likely cost of F1’s $200m “anti-dilution fund””

    1. Well done Gentlemen for exposing this blatant monopoly stiffling any new teams entering F1.

      1. It’s not a monopoly. Do you ever go to the airport and demand free entry to an executive lounge? Try ringing up a West End theatre producer and demanding to perform on stage.

      2. It’s not a monopoly in any way. Just start your own series if you want to, or buy a team or franchise.
        And as the article explains this is one of the fairest ways of charging a franchise fee; rather than the money going to the franchisor (FOM) it goes to the existing franchisees (current teams).

        Also the the €200M has the immediate benefit of sharing in the money pot rather than having to wait 2 years. With the new prize money distribution schedule (more to the small teams) this is undoubtely worth more than the €60M Haas missed out on. It will probably be closer to €70M 2-year participation fee (plus higher prize money than before, plus a budget cap).
        I doubt you can buy yourself into any other major franchise sport for less than €200M.

      3. @wildbiker I think the closer analogy is a cartel (anti-competitive domination of a market by colluding competitors). The question should really be how many teams FIA and Liberty see as an ideal (12 teams = 24 cars? more?) and any ‘dilution’ penalty should kick in after that, or further expansion should simply be ruled out.

        1. Having a progressively increasing anti dilution fee would also help – it would encourage potential entrants to sign up sooner rather than later so it’s easier to keep a full grid

    2. This is quite crazy yes. I agree fully. How much investment is expected? The only way we can get a full grid then is 3 cars per team.

    3. What I don’t understand is why the FIA keeps claiming they want 26 cars on the grid, and every time a team pops up or is informing about being able to join. Everything is set into place to make sure no new teams will join.

      It is the only thing F1 teams agree on, no more competition.

      For all its 70-year heritage, F1 never was very good at learning from its past.

      The fundamental problem of F1, the FIA and FOM.

      1. Unfortunately, it seems that the FIA can’t do anything about it

        The answer is simple: The clause relates to a commercial agreement, and as decreed by the European Union the governing body may not involve itself in commercial issues, only in safety and regulatory matters. That said, during a select media briefing at Mugello, FIA president Jean Todt restated his desire to see the grid expand.

        1. Except, that “International agreements” has been the pet peeve trumpcard excuse when difficult questions are being asked in Europe, since they were able to bring it up as an excuse.

    4. I wonder if this will also increase turnover of current teams?
      Suppose Renault/Alpine and Haas sell out next year for $200m each – some investment company buys in solely to flog them off at $250m+ – but destroys the internal structure and morale of the teams as they go.

      Pretty efficient way to gut F1 for quick profits.
      I wonder if Liberty considered this when they offered the Concorde Agreement to the teams?

    5. I found this bit to be interesting:

      Once again F1 is likely to find itself in a holding pattern for all the wrong reasons. For proof look no further back than a little over a decade: between 1998 and 2007 F1 demanded a $48m bond from newcomers as proof of solvency, with the sum to be repaid (with interest) over a 24-month period commencing after its first race.

      If new teams weren’t interested in joining when it was a $48m (~$70m today) which was payed back, then they sure as hell aren’t interested in joining with a non-refundable $200m now. Quite a shame; would like to see a grid of 24/26 cars.

      1. Teams were interested in joining back then but the $48M broke their backs so hard that they were already insolvent before they even started. Only big car manufacturers could easily afford that amount.
        The unfortunate thing about modern society is that established entities do everything in their power to prevent others from attaining the same position.
        A bunch of enthusiasts can no longer aspire to running an F1 team. To raise these new types of amounts you will require so much suits and paper work with those big banks.
        Just thinking about it. $200M before you even buy your first wheel nut. Then you have engineers and technicians to employ. Tools and machinery. Factory of some kind. The true cost of a new entrant is vastly more than that $200M.
        Ford walked out of F1 when it was still far cheaper to manage.

    6. If these were “normal” businesses wouldnt this payment breach anti competition laws?

      Imagine Sainsburys, Tescos and Asda getting together to agree that any new supermarket had to pay them £200 million to compete.

      I assume these laws just dont apply to sports teams, even though they are run as businesses and on stock exchanges etc.

      1. Imagine Sainsburys, Tescos and Asda getting together to agree that any new supermarket had to pay them £200 million to compete.

        That’s the wrong comparison.
        Even if Sainsburys (F2), Tescos (F1) and Asda (F3) get together, any other company can start a new supermarketchain and do not have to pay them.
        But if you want to be part of Tesco (F1) and start a new Tesco store (F1 team) then you will have to pay Tesco (FOM/teams) a franchise fee.
        @brickles

    7. It’s a ridiculous scenario. Perhaps I’m naive (in fact, I almost certainly am…) about the situation, but surely if a team wants to compete, let them come along… if the car isn’t fast enough, they won’t qualify, so the rules of competition excludes chancers. The top teams in the championship still get the garage space if that’s an issue.

      I’d also pay a scaling financial loyalty bonus for longevity to incentivise teams to stay on the grid and not come and go as they please. For example, Ferrari would be paid the most, followed by McLaren, followed by Williams etc.

      I can’t understand why we’re not welcoming more teams with open arms. It would increase the competition, the “show”, the sponsorship, the cars available for drivers…

      But again, everything’s easy from the comfort of my laptop!

      1. Cars occupy space on the track @ben-n. In Q1 they make the queue longer and make it harder to get a clear lap. In the race they mean more lapping that muddies the race for the podium. In one of Liberty’s new bunch restarts they mean more carnage.

        All the time they mean more choices for our TV director to get wrong.

        So for the upside to outweigh these downsides, an extra team needs to be pretty special! Porsche yes, Panthera no, afaic. So this huge entry fee works nicely.

        Also, inasmuch as wanting more more more cars is just an ego thing, it does that job too, without the clutter on track. Clever :)

        1. There are ways to sort it out, for example, bringing back pre-qualifying. You could, say, have the top 15 in the Championship automatically qualify; then everyone else has a pre-qualifying session to take the final 9 spots on the grid for the weekend. You can’t have unlimited entries, but 32 cars aiming for a slot on a 26-car grid doesn’t seem unreasonable. If the team isn’t good enough they’ll quickly disappear and the cream will rise.

        2. @zann Agree with the logic, it seems more designed to protect teams down the grid who stand to lose out much higher (relatively) with a new low-ambition team entering. Given they’re border line solvent anyway, you can understand the concern. However, that’s why I think the aim should be to know how many teams F1 wants and work towards that. Not produce an obstacle to expanding beyond 10 in the foreseeable future. But that seems to have been the conscious decision.

          1. Yes @david-br @ben-n if more teams really are a good idea there must be ways to do it, but: why would we want more? Specifically. What would they add to our enjoyment, and how?

            All the arguments for seem pretty mindless.

            It depends on what level of team, for me. Already I don’t especially care if one B team beats another B team, or not.

            So if a new team has to front $200m that means they’re more likely to be special, which makes it a great idea.

            1. @zann – I can think of a very long list of why we would want more… a few below:
              – More cars = more action, more racing, more challenging, more tension, more overtaking = more entertainment.
              – More opportunities for talented drivers who aim for Formula One, but find themselves stuck in Formula 2, or farmed out to Formula E or the DTM (De Vries, Vandoorne, da Costa, Vergne to name only a few).
              – More opportunities for mechanics, designers, engineers, managers etc.
              – More content to cover for journalists.

              I could compile a much longer list given the time!

              I’m thoroughly enjoying the battle between McLaren, Ferrari, Racing Point and Renault this year. It doesn’t matter that it isn’t for 1st place, or even 3rd. If the racing is good, the camera will find it and I (and I hope most others) will enjoy it; even if it is for meager points or even bragging rights.

            2. I agree @ben-n that the battle between McLaren, Ferrari, Racing Point and Renault is great. Plus Williams. Add the top 2 and that’s 7 teams we care about. Out of 10. Or, probably, out of 11, 12 or 13. So adding another Haas, Alpha Tauri or Alfa Romeo isn’t going to improve F1 much, on balance, is where I’m coming from.

              The extra teams might add more action, or they might have the cameras on them while there’s a brilliant attack being set up somewhere else, by one of the stars, that our ex-TV-drama director is blissfully unaware of! We only have one TV picture, and already we get too much just in replay and only the end of the move not how it was set up, because he’s not a racer by instinct and can’t see things coming or appreciate where the skill element is.

              Afaik the drivers you mention are all sweet guys but they’ve all been in F1 simulators or even cars and then been relegated to other series. And yes the extra teams would be great for their staff, but not for me as a fan. James Key only became interesting when he joined McLaren as the TD.

              The journos cover what’s interesting. Would that be Panthera? At this point, not for me. Porsche? Tesla? Yes. Graeme Lowdon and John Booth. Yes. But that’s the difference: a new team IF it’s very, very worthy and going to be awesome; just not otherwise.

      2. @ben-n with regards to your suggestion of a “loyalty bonus to incentivise teams to stay on the grid” – isn’t that just a case of reintroducing the “heritage bonuses” that so many complained was a distorting influence on the competitiveness of teams on the grid?

        The other aspect is that you say “the rules of competition excludes chancers”, but the application process that the FIA opened in 2009 and 2010 with relaxed entry criteria saw a lot of teams that could really only be described as “chancers”. There was the bid by Durango, an organisation that was eventually expelled from GP2 due to it being insolvent and trying to run cars that were dangerously unsafe (there was at least one instance of the stewards explicitly banning them from racing due to unsafe parts), Stefan Grand Prix, where all he had were a few leftover spare parts from Toyota, Epsilon Euskadi’s bid at a time when the team was being put into administration as it was bankrupt – there were quite a lot of speculative and rather questionable bids, and some of the applicants had rather dubious credentials.

        Even the ones which did eventually get selected weren’t great – we saw USF1’s efforts eventually collapse, and HRT would have gone the same way if Campos wasn’t kicked out by those backing the project.

        That is in essence the issue here – making the application process accessible enough to credible entrants, but at the same time being able to screen out the more dubious or unreliable bids, as there will be those hoping to get into F1 who really aren’t competitive enough to be there. We certainly saw that in the early 1990s when quite a few of the short lived backmarker teams were little more than glorified Formula 3000 teams – several of them even used a Formula 3000 chassis – so I wouldn’t agree that “the rules of competition excludes chancers” given what we’ve seen in the past.

        1. I was actually in favour of the heritage bonus, as long as it was fair. Having it only going to Ferrari was not fair. Having a higher proportion of a “pot” go to Ferrari certainly would be. They’ve been in the sport through thick and thin and deserve to be rewarded for that… so too McLaren, so too Williams and increasingly as time goes by, Red Bull and friends. Something akin to @esploratore ‘s split suggestion below, though maybe not quite as much!

          Regarding “chancer” entries; as long as they meet safety requirements, I see no reason to prevent rich companies wasting their money. If they want to start a Formula One team, let them. If they don’t make the grade safety-wise or performance-wise, then that’s their problem, not Formula One’s.

          1. @ben-n isn’t it the case that most of those teams already have their reward given they are usually the ones who are being made the centre of attention of the marketing of the sport, such that they tend to already have a commercial advantage over the smaller teams (hence the complaints of reinforcing advantages for those teams)?

            With regards to new entrants, I tend to sit more in a middle ground in that I would be interested in seeing more competitive teams, but not just adding teams for the sake of having teams added to the sport.

            You mention that having more teams would give “more opportunities for talented drivers who aim for Formula One”, but I would say that isn’t necessarily the case – particularly for some of the more speculative entrants. When we had the new entrants in 2010, only Marussia really brought in new drivers on a semi-regular basis, with the other teams mostly hiring retired F1 drivers, with an increasing penchant for pay drivers over time (figures like Karthikeyan or Yamamoto come to mind).

            Arguably, the main highlights were Bianchi and Ricciardo, and both of them probably would have ended up in F1 anyway given their links to their young driver programmes – both of them also only got their seats at those teams because they had them bought for them by the driver programmes they were in. Unless that team were financially secure enough, they’re unlikely to hire drivers in the mould of de Vries, Vandoorne, Vergne or da Costa unless they were paid enough to do so.

            Similarly, whilst it would be good if there were “more opportunities for mechanics, designers, engineers, managers etc.”, at the same time it depends on those teams being stable enough for a long enough time to not just recruit existing staff, but to then be able to bring in and train up new technical staff as well (that is, arguably, a more difficult job these days because there is arguably a declining body of technical staff in junior series due to the amalgamation of a wide range of racing series due to high costs, coupled with the declining number of design companies in those junior series).

            In that respect, I would prefer a situation where you could see one of the better ranked teams, such as ART Grand Prix or Prema Powerteam, from Formula 2 being able to make the step up to F1. If you look at those teams, they would probably be more likely to achieve the sorts of goals that you have – Prema in particular would probably be quite well placed, as that would create an organisation that spanned all the way from Formula 4 to Formula 1, creating a natural progression path.

            To me, a slightly smaller cohort of better funded and more effectively run teams would probably be healthier for the sport in the long term and would create a better pathway to achieve those goals you have.

      3. Yes, thinking something along the lines of 35 mil for ferrari, who’ve been around for 70 years roughly, for mclaren would be like 26 mil, williams 22 mil, after that I presume sauber is one of the teams that have been around the most as well as renault, probably like 15 mil.

      4. $200 mill up front and then the salary of the engineers, drivers and management, the cost of designing and constructing the cars, the wind tunnel, the ongoing maintenance costs. There won’t be any new teams that’s the reality. Only team takeovers when they are up for sale and corporations are out to make a profit so they might as well dismantle the team if there are no results to show to their shareholders

      5. I agree with you @ben-n. If a new team wants to try, let them. They should fulfill the crashtests and all other requirements. They are better off spending the $200m on setting up the team and developing the cars…

    8. Durant should just buy Williams from Dorilton for $220 mio. Look like a win-win. The Doriltons didn’t look too excited either.

    9. Gonzalez McChippy
      18th September 2020, 10:21

      The article doesn’t really expand on one of the other reason some of the lower teams will have been keen on this, essentially it underlines the potential sale value of the team, by around $199.99 million. Underperforming team? desperate to bail out? kerrching! If you can find a buyer that is!

      I bet Gene Haas liked this proposal!

    10. So we’re stuck with 20 cars for the next few years. The sad thing is if for some reason a team looses their right to race, such as what happened to Force India, then they become almost worthless. No one will want to buy them.

      1. Stroll was able to buy ForceIndia for peanuts. With the right connections and motive you can still buy the meat and leave the bones.

        1. Lawrence Stroll paid 90M pounds for Force India, which included money to pay the creditors the full amount owed, but because there was the potential for it to take years for all the creditors to get that money, Stroll generously paid them himself the full amount owed. So eventually he will get most of the extra 90M pounds back. So his initial outlay was 180M pounds. That isn’t what I’d call “peanuts”.

          1. @drycrust The creditors where paid out of that 90 million though.

            1. Often, when there’s a bankruptcy you hear of creditors getting something like 10 cents for every dollar owed to them. Lawrence paid the creditors twice, once via the legal administrators and once the full amount owed directly. Presumably Lawrence will then be refunded by the administrators. The total amount he paid up front was 180M pounds with the expectation he’d get refunded the full 90M pounds, but if it is going to take years to resolve this then I’d be surprised if he gets the full amount back. So instead of the creditors having to worry about debts accumulating interest the Force India accounts have all be settled.

    11. The elephant in the room is the ludicrous engines. Bond or fee, evidence of solvency or whatever, its all fairly irrelevant.

      Historically a Cosworth or a Hart or Matra would build an engine and to varying degrees of success, new boy chancers would bolt on a chassis and go racing. We can see what happens when current teams go stale, Ferrari/Williams and fresh teams RBR in the 2000s and historically Tyrrell, March even Williams themselves can bring a new ethos. That’s where any new team now could be competitive. To a degree Haas did that but have certainly lost their way. Its an absolute mountain to climb to pay all that up front then deal with these space ship engines. And that’s not even getting started on doing all that and then listening and watching the land yacht hoover bags you’ve just sweated tears over, lift and coast and phut phut round a circuit.

      1. tony mansell, most of those outfits you mention were gone a long way before the current engines you’re complaining about – Hart, after all, disappeared during the V10 era (let alone Matra disappearing in the 1980s, and only lasting until then because Ligier had to be paid to use those engines).

        Indeed, if you go back to the V10 era, where were those privateers you talk about? Most of them had vanished – even calling Cosworth an independent manufacturer was a bit of a stretch in those days given it was fully owned by Ford, such that era really was the death of the independent manufacturer and the point at which the sport was only supplied by automotive manufacturers. To blame the current engines now is to ignore the fact that the sport has really been in this situation for more than 20 years and to falsely blame a fake chimera.

    12. Twohundredmilliondollars?

      1. Lol yes sir, gets you 4 tires, nice steering wheel and a beautiful view of the rear of a Mercedes.

        1. Pretty ritzy club F1 has become. Today’s Grand Prix racers are in it solely for the lucrative advertising dollars. This is the biggest dumb amount of F1 money since Ron Dennis coughed up the then shocker
          $100 million dollar fine while in pursuit of winning. I wonder if F1 has become so stupid expensive that it’s throwing around extremely high Dollar amounts that this path will eventually collapse this sport. It’s kind of out of control when the cost of an entry form could ever end approach
          $200 MILLION DOLLARS.
          I’m gunna have to wait until payday before I start my own Grand Prix team.

        2. @canadianjosh You get to see the front for one or two times during the race too though. When being lapped.

    13. They say they want more teams to join but seem to make it pretty difficult for anyone that isn’t backed by a huge amount of money to do so. If anything the fact that F1 requires these obscene levels of finance to compete is a sickness, and should be lowered to make the sport far more attractive to entrants. This fee I feel just makes independent teams, the guys that just want to go racing a thing of the past. They’re priced out, but only manufacturers or those backed by ridiculous wealth can come in. The grid desperately needs at least two, maybe three new teams and there’s no way that’s going to happen for a long time now.

      The costs need to be brought down dramatically. That would lead to a bigger field of cars, more drivers and arguably a competetive grid as the financially weaker teams wouldn’t just get priced out of development. It’s stuff like this that makes a joke of the claim F1 is a meritocracy as it doesn’t reward people who did the best job, it rewards those who can afford it.

    14. Wasn’t Super Aguri also a new team in that period? I know they didn’t bother the F1 waters too much, but to be fair, neither did Toyota…

      The bond seems like quite a reasonable entry requirement on its face (obviously the amount is debatable), why was it such a deterrent?

    15. It’s not a bond, it’s a fee.

    16. In North American professional sports it’s not unusual to charge a franchise fee to new entrants. For example, the last new team to join the NFL had to pay a $700 million franchise fee. However, there is a big difference in that North American sports teams get a far better distribution of money related TV rights and licensing deals (NFL teams get an even split of the $8.1 billion from TV and various license fees) and get 100% of the ticket sale money as well as a chunk of the concession money when events are hosted at their stadiums. As far as I am aware, only Red Bull own and operate a F1 track where they can make money from ticket sales and concessions (which then get used to pay the event fee, something which North American sports teams do not have to pay but also the travel between events is not as complex as in F1).

    17. When I read the initial comments on this fee, they sounded rather enthusiastic that finally F1 had done something right…which I did not completely comprehend. So a view from this angle is appreciated…thanks Dieter.

    18. This has nothing to do with preventing teams like USF1.

      This has everything to do with keeping out teams like Haas F1. Haas entered the sport on the cheap, and started scoring points, which reduces the funds to other teams.

      This is not an “anti-dilution” payment, this is the “my Precioussss!” bribe. Er, fee.

    19. Applying teams logic (the less teams the better, since each team gets a larger piece of the pie) the ideal situation would be if there was just one team which takes the whole pie. Until we have a full 26 car grid an argument can be made that the current 10 teams are taking more than it actually belongs to them rather than additional teams diluting their value. Only if a 14th team would want to enter we could speak of dilution.

    20. I think the 200 million entry fee is a good precaution because when the budget gap comes next year f1 will look a lot more interesting for individuals who may not have the income to actually stay in f1 once they get into f1. Doing f1 on the cheap has been attempted enough times to know it will always lead into bankruptcy. I am not sure if the 200 million would really prevent another usf1 situation though. I think back in the day usf1 did pay 100 million entry fee back then. Like did manor, lotus and hrt.

    21. What engine supply would a new team take anyway? Renault?

    22. The FIA is entitled to allocate an engine supplier of none takes up a new voluntarily. Supply conditions also stipulated

    23. This BS story wouldn’t make we want to puke so badly if the had to donate the money to their favorite charity.

    Leave a Reply

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

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.