Prospective new teams for the FIA F1 World Championship.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Interesting. I can just remember being with Tyrrell in 1984. There was a total of 12 staff. That included Ken the boss, his wife Norah who ran the stopwatches and made the sandwiches (!) and also BOTH drivers!

The records for the company at the time show that they had an average weekly staff count of:
41 in 1983 (34 design and manufacturing and 7 office)
38 in 1984 (31 design and manufacturing and 7 office)
41 in 1985 (33 design and manufacturing and 8 office)

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The records for the company at the time show that they had an average weekly staff count of:
41 in 1983 (34 design and manufacturing and 7 office)
38 in 1984 (31 design and manufacturing and 7 office)
41 in 1985 (33 design and manufacturing and 8 office)

Apologies to the pedantic, I meant the team at the track, to run the cars.

Your figures would mean an average stipend of £2,500. Doesn't seem right either.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Your figures would mean an average stipend of £2,500. Doesn't seem right either.

How do you reach that conclusion?

The company recorded an average weekly number of employees of 34 for 1984 with an annual salary of just over £404k. That makes the average salary at Tyrrell to be just under £12k (or £4k above the national average).

How many of the staff were on stipendiary terms?

[P38 in workshop]

To round out the nostalgia section,some of those Tyrrell people at the track might have just been the type of weekend warriors that crop up in National classes these days-and then ,come to that.In the eighties,money was a lot more thinly spread than since and I knew one F1 fabricator who was startled to find that his kids were eligible for free school meals when they went to the village school.Thanks in part to Bernie,the situation improved a couple of years later.


to return to the subject under discussion,the notion of a franchise system might be contained in the Concorde agreement,but we aren't too likely to get a look at that.My earlier point about Andretti's entry and anti trust legislation doesn't seem to have attracted informed comment from those who live in the land of Liberty and Andretti.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

to return to the subject under discussion,the notion of a franchise system might be contained in the Concorde agreement,but we aren't too likely to get a look at that.My earlier point about Andretti's entry and anti trust legislation doesn't seem to have attracted informed comment from those who live in the land of Liberty and Andretti.

I certainly don't live or hail from the Land of the Free, however I wonder whether an American court would be able to hear such a lawsuit as it is the FIA that issues F1 licences (or whatever) to the teams and the FIA are firmly entrenched and based in the EU.

And do not forget that the EU commissioners have already looked into the FIA and FOM relationship, which was the reason that Mosley "sold" the commercial arm, i.e. FOM, to Mr E many years ago. And that appears to have satisfied the EU.

[courageous]

Since we're playing "when I rule the world" fantasy, I always figured the best way to deal with it is to kill three birds with one stone
get more new drivers seen, opening up for more teams & make F2 interesting

beef up Formula 2 regs so they are a lot closer to F1
open it to multi chassis (maybe like Le Mans P2 - 4 chassis cost capped & equalized)
F2 sprint race top 6 qualify for the next Grand Prix proper
Any points scoring team at the end of the season is permitted to enter F1 proper (defer 1 year so they can build themselves up)


Of course, none of these ideas resolve the issue of existing teams not wanting to share their cake & I don't think anything will other than telling them to suck it up

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

to return to the subject under discussion,the notion of a franchise system might be contained in the Concorde agreement,but we aren't too likely to get a look at that.

We might be fortunate enough (if that is the correct way to view it) to have someone leak it again.


https://formula1-dictionary.net/Big/...de_racefax.pdf

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I certainly don't live or hail from the Land of the Free, however I wonder whether an American court would be able to hear such a lawsuit as it is the FIA that issues F1 licences (or whatever) to the teams and the FIA are firmly entrenched and based in the EU.

I'm not sure of the current agreement - but the 1997 agreement stated that:
'This agreement is governed by, and shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with, the laws of England.'

and

'Arbitration will take place in Lausanne (Switzerland)'


If the matter is taken to the US legal system, it will definitely be interesting to see how the existing teams react to any breach of the agreement if the governing law of the agreement is still in Europe.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

How do you reach that conclusion?

The company recorded an average weekly number of employees of 34 for 1984 with an annual salary of just over £404k. That makes the average salary at Tyrrell to be just under £12k (or £4k above the national average).

How many of the staff were on stipendiary terms?

Sorry, it was your 1968 budget I was mistakenly taking with your 1984 overall headcount. My mistake, it was clear something was wrong, although presumably the 1968 figure was pre-decimalisation?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I certainly don't live or hail from the Land of the Free, however I wonder whether an American court would be able to hear such a lawsuit as it is the FIA that issues F1 licences (or whatever) to the teams and the FIA are firmly entrenched and based in the EU.

And do not forget that the EU commissioners have already looked into the FIA and FOM relationship, which was the reason that Mosley "sold" the commercial arm, i.e. FOM, to Mr E many years ago. And that appears to have satisfied the EU.

Switzerland isn't in the EU is it?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Switzerland isn't in the EU is it?

Since when has Paris been in Switzerland? Although it has an office in Geneva, the FIA's head office is in Paris, but they use the sports' arbitration service when required which is, I think, in Switzerland.

One must ask whether you get a cheap thrill from nit-picking, because you seem to thrive on it?

And in answer to you previous jibe, I may be old but I'm not senile yet, thank goodness. I am more than aware that Autosport and Motorsport.com and now owned by the same company. However, as Autosport.com places a limit on how many views one can make, unless one subscribes to it, whilst Motorsport.com doesn't, I mentioned both sites.

[crmalcolm]

I wonder if there is a reason why it is called The Concorde Agreement?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

I wonder if there is a reason why it is called The Concorde Agreement?

Where the first one was signed IIRC.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Since when has Paris been in Switzerland? Although it has an office in Geneva, the FIA's head office is in Paris, but they use the sports' arbitration service when required which is, I think, in Switzerland.

One must ask whether you get a cheap thrill from nit-picking, because you seem to thrive on it?

And in answer to you previous jibe, I may be old but I'm not senile yet, thank goodness. I am more than aware that Autosport and Motorsport.com and now owned by the same company. However, as Autosport.com places a limit on how many views one can make, unless one subscribes to it, whilst Motorsport.com doesn't, I mentioned both sites.

Whatever.

There’s reasons why, like many sports, they choose to complete their legalities in Switzerland and not, in this case, France.

Nit-picking? You were the one who said the legal process is in the EU when it very deliberately isn’t.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You were the one who said the legal process is in the EU when it very deliberately isn’t.

Legal process - or sporting arbitration? The two are very different.

Originally Posted by peebee2

There’s reasons why, like many sports, they choose to complete their legalities in Switzerland and not, in this case, France.

In 1997 - England was in the EU and the 1997 agreement was governed by the laws of England.
The ICC has been located in Paris since 1927 and the 1997 agreement detailed that disputes would be settled by the ICC.
Switzerland was only relevant for arbitration of decisions given in accordance with the Sporting Code.


What leads you to think that they have changed this legal construct for later agreements?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Whatever.

There’s reasons why, like many sports, they choose to complete their legalities in Switzerland and not, in this case, France.

Nit-picking? You were the one who said the legal process is in the EU when it very deliberately isn’t.

If you bothered to read the FIA's own information about their Tribunals (T) and Appeals (A), you will find that a) all proceedings about Ts and As will take place in Paris, or if elsewhere will be considered to have taken place in Paris (Article 14.1 and Article 14.2) and the applicable law is French (Article 14.4).

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Legal process - or sporting arbitration? The two are very different.



In 1997 - England was in the EU and the 1997 agreement was governed by the laws of England.
The ICC has been located in Paris since 1927 and the 1997 agreement detailed that disputes would be settled by the ICC.
Switzerland was only relevant for arbitration of decisions given in accordance with the Sporting Code.


What leads you to think that they have changed this legal construct for later agreements?

Because BCE wanted it in England.

To be ultra pedantic for you, England has never been a member country of the EU!

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

If you bothered to read the FIA's own information about their Tribunals (T) and Appeals (A), you will find that a) all proceedings about Ts and As will take place in Paris, or if elsewhere will be considered to have taken place in Paris (Article 14.1 and Article 14.2) and the applicable law is French (Article 14.4).

Yes, it’s exactly as I said thanks. The (self-appointed) regulation comes under Swiss law. No accident.

Anyway, lighten up, you’ll give yourself a connery.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Yes, it’s exactly as I said thanks. The (self-appointed) regulation comes under Swiss law. No accident.

Anyway, lighten up, you’ll give yourself a connery.

You seem to have trouble reading! Since when is French law anything to to with Switzerland, which, as you pointed out earlier, is not in the EU?

And as I wrote, the FIA's own PDF states the courts are subject to French law; there is no mention whatsoever of Swiss law.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Someone would have to do the math to see if that means the current teams will win or loose money in this scenario. But it is also more complicated. See below

The idea was that it would be exactly the same if the new teams scored zero points but reduced if they did score.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Or... another way of looking at it. Someone like Porsche shows up. Doesn't pay an anti-dilution fee. Builds up a big team, beats established teams and takes their money from them.

That's true but there's only so much you can appease the current teams, and rejecting an entry because they might beat the current teams is going way too far. They don't own F1.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I think this gets back into the points we made earlier. That it makes little financial sense to create an F1 car if you are not confident you are going to be in the race on a regular basis. Also, all of this devalues (right or wrong) the existing teams. Being in the current exclusive club gives those at the tail end a bit of a boost in value that they otherwise wouldn't have. And that value boost probably helps them in the end on track.

I think you are greatly underestimating the cost of just showing up with an F1 car.

This might be right, but my idea causes three new teams to be added and automatically get to race regularly, and then although perhaps more teams wouldn't want to join because of pre-qualifying, those that thought they could easily qualify would join and the grid would increase in quality as the team that drops to 27th fastest fails to qualify and perhaps goes bust, which is harsh but at least they got a bit of time racing and they may just reduce to only attempting to pre-qualify occasionally to save money rather than racing every time. I do understand that showing up with a car is extremely expensive but am not expecting 40 cars, just that the grid will expand and new teams will find it easier to join.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Where does these old F1 cars come from? This implies customer cars and teams who are not required to own the IP of their cars. Which is not where we are today.

I used the term because it was what peebee said, I assumed he/she just meant uncompetitive, cheaper cars (not that any F1 cars are cheap of course).

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Even in the BTCC they don't want teams to pick and choose which events they enter and skip, as it's bad for promoters and fans. Hence the fixed 32 TOCA BTCC license holders that are required to attend every round.

I don't mind the idea of entries fluctuating (e.g., 40 cars entering Brands Hatch, while say only 16 bother to make the trip to Knockhill), but it's generally the sign of a lower-level, less professional series.

This is where it comes down to personal preference. As I said before, I think looking less professional gives a series an extra bit of charm. But I don't think it is bad for fans, because I think having a bit of variety at the back makes things more interesting, and don't think it would be as extreme as your example.

[morninggents]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I certainly don't live or hail from the Land of the Free, however I wonder whether an American court would be able to hear such a lawsuit as it is the FIA that issues F1 licences (or whatever) to the teams and the FIA are firmly entrenched and based in the EU.

Not sure what relevance US courts may have over the various F1 agreements/contracts, Mike.


If they (US courts) had any significant influence how come NASCAR gets away with their situation?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Because BCE wanted it in England.

Is that a statement of fact - or an assumption?

If factual, what was the reason for BCE wanting the Concorde Agreement(s) to be governed by the laws of England?
And which parties would have wanted later Agreements to be governed by laws elsewhere?

FIA is HQ'd in Paris, F1 Gp is HQ'd in London, Liberty Media is HQ'd in Colorado, FOTA is disbanded.
Why do you keep referring back to Switzerland as an assumed location for the legal governance of the Concorde Agreement?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by BTCC frog

This is where it comes down to personal preference. As I said before, I think looking less professional gives a series an extra bit of charm. But I don't think it is bad for fans, because I think having a bit of variety at the back makes things more interesting, and don't think it would be as extreme as your example.

imo its 100% bad for fans.

not hard to imagine a scenario where Ferrari, or Ham, or Max or one of the actual main features get knocked out of pre qualifying because of a change in the weather or some minor infraction to the pre qualifying rules or somepay driver spins out or because several of the new tracks cant even accommodate 20 cars on track at the same time during quali.

and while that may make for great television it would certainly leave a lot of people who paid a lot of money to be there to see their favorites in action and in person.

honestly dont even want to get into the engine and part use rules for those that dont compete in every race...or those that just show up explicitly for one race with no concern about lifetime usage of that PU.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by courageous

get more new drivers seen

admitmittely this reason resonates with me as a reason for more entries....but

undoubtedly though, any new entry will have to rely of pay drivers in the beginning at least. and while there is a huge range of talent among the pay drivers are more pay drivers on the grid really the best thing for the sport?

how many sessions have been stopped early or SC deployed because either Latifi this season or Mazepan last season spin out pretty much every time they are on track?

more teams just means more rich kids with questionable skill and that just means more disruption to the racing.

personal preference would be to continue enabling the existing teams to move away from the necessity of prioritizing money over talent...to me thats professional sports.

[BTCC frog]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

imo its 100% bad for fans.

not hard to imagine a scenario where Ferrari, or Ham, or Max or one of the actual main features get knocked out of pre qualifying because of a change in the weather or some minor infraction to the pre qualifying rules or somepay driver spins out or because several of the new tracks cant even accommodate 20 cars on track at the same time during quali.

and while that may make for great television it would certainly leave a lot of people who paid a lot of money to be there to see their favorites in action and in person.

Not all the drivers would be competing in pre-qualifying, the point of having it is to prevent there being too many cars on track. In the late 80s and early 90s they had rules for who would have to compete in pre-qualifying, it was anyone who was a new team or hadn't scored a point the previous season. Something similar could be done so that only backmarkers were in pre-qualifying.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

honestly dont even want to get into the engine and part use rules for those that dont compete in every race...or those that just show up explicitly for one race with no concern about lifetime usage of that PU.

This is a good point because in terms of sustainability we don't want too many engines and other parts used unnecessarily, although if teams aren't competing in every race the likelihood is they won't have the budget to destroy too many engines and other parts. I'm sure this could be figured out.

I know this is entirely hypothetical and would probably never happen but I still believe that it could work.