I agree entirely with your last sentence when you say "the car is the reason they aren’t competing for this championship or even for wins." Even since the departure of Schumacher and Raikkonen Ferrari has never really had a dominating car capable of winning a championship for the driver. The list of drivers that you quote contains three previous champions with other teams,but none ever did it for Ferrari. This surely suggests that the car is the reason and Elkann needs a reality check.
Cool looking black Ferrari that Perez drove in a test at Imola on Thursday. No sponsors no adds just a bit of yellow on wheel brows. please log in to view this image
I’d say even the 2007/2008 cars were only competitive, certainly in 2007 McLaren for sure had the better car. 2008 is hard to read because Raikkonen dropped off so much that Massa became the lead Ferrari driver and Hamilton made quite a lot of mistakes which created a fight of what should have been an easy McLaren win. In a world where Alonso doesn’t fall out with McLaren, my impression is that he adapts increasingly to the Bridgestones, wins 2007 (just) and 2008 (not dominant, but never really in doubt), Hamilton takes a bunch of wins and Raikonnen stays motivated cleans up the rest. Ferrari is occasionally the best car at some races, but not consistently enough to really expect a Championship in either year. If I were a Ferrari fan, I think what I’d be most disappointed in is that that there’s no synergy where they make each other stronger and build something together. RedBull have done this spectacularly with Vettel and Verstappen and even to a lesser extent Riccardo, Merc seem to be doing it with Russell despite their challenges in the GE era. It was happening a bit with Sainz, but I don’t think it was ever going to get to a Championship level. Despite their obvious love Charles and Ferrari have for each other, I don’t see it there either. The only time in my lifetime they have done that is with Schumacher. Maybe this is just another way to express Jazz’s “pulling in the same direction point”, but it also makes me think “does that come from team, driver or both?” My feeling is that the driver is an important part, certainly when I think about Schumacher, Verstappen and Russell, that seems clearly true - maybe that’s where Elkan is coming from “it’s not worked this year, but we need you to engage and build something for the future and I’m not seeing that”?
Interesting (and for me unexpected) update on Felipe Massa’s “Crashgate” case: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/articles/c4gpg757j2lo
I think a lot of it relates to an interview Bernie gave in 2023 about crashgate. I think he suggested that the FIA and he knew about it in 2008 before the end of the season and didn't do anything about it till later in 2009 when Pique was dropped by Renault and he spilled the beans. Before that interview neither the FIA or Bernie had admitted to knowing about Pique crashing on purpose. So while Massa was annoying in 2009 he couldn't really complain to the FIA or Bernie as he thought they only found out way after the 2008 season had ended.... I do wonder if Bernie was being a bit economical with the truth in 2023 when he said he knew in 2008. He's probably bigging himself up as usual....
Nice little earner . Wolff sells £230m stake valuing Mercedes F1 at £4.6bn please log in to view this image IMAGE SOURCE, GETTY IMAGES Image caption, Toto Wolff will remain as team principal at Mercedes By Andrew Benson F1 Correspondent in Las Vegas Published 4 hours ago Toto Wolff has sold 15% of his shareholding in the Mercedes Formula 1 team to American billionaire George Kurtz. Kurtz, 55, is the founder of the cybersecurity firm Crowdstrike, which is a sponsor of Mercedes. The deal values Mercedes F1 at $6bn (£4.6bn), a record for an F1 team. McLaren were valued at £3.5bn in a change of ownership structure in September. Wolff's holding company owns one-third of Mercedes F1, so the shareholding he is selling equates to 5% of the team. Wolff, who will net $300m (£230m) from the deal, will stay on as team principal and chief executive officer, while the governance of Mercedes F1 continues unchanged. Kurtz, whose stake is coming out of his personal funds rather than his company's, said the valuation put on the team was "in line with the market", adding that "if you look at sports [valuations] across the globe, they are all up". Kurtz said: "Formula 1 is really at an inflection point where it is a thriving business. "If you're making an investment like this, you believe that the sport is going to grow, F1 is going to grow and the team valuations are going to grow, and you're going to be able to contribute to that growth." Kurtz will not be on the main board but will join the team's strategic steering committee, on which Ola Kallenius, the chairman of the management board of the Mercedes Group, Ineos chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Wolff meet to discuss issues to do with the team. Kurtz described his role as "nothing more than a seat at the table to provide input and discussions". Wolff said: "George's background is unusual in its breadth: he's a racer, a loyal sporting ambassador for Mercedes-AMG, and an exceptional entrepreneur. "He understands both the demands of racing and the realities of building and scaling technology businesses. That combination brings specific insight that is increasingly relevant to the future of Formula 1." The deal represents a more than seven-fold increase in the value of Mercedes F1 since Ineos bought its one-third stake for £208m in 2020. The rise reflects the growth in valuations of F1 teams in the past few years as a consequence of the increasing appeal of the sport around the world. This was also seen in the success of the F1 movie starring Brad Pitt, which was released last summer and has grossed more than $630m (£482m) at the box office. It is Pitt's most successful film and the most successful sports movie of all time. Mercedes are second in the constructors' championship with three races remaining this season, starting with this weekend's Las Vegas Grand Prix. Their lead driver George Russell has won two of the 21 grands prix this year and is fourth in the drivers' championship behind McLaren's Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri and Red Bull's Max Verstappen. Less than Man Utd but more than Liverpool - analysis The valuation put on this deal is a measure of the growth in F1 over the past few years, which is being reflected in the perceived value of teams. Valuations typically come from a given multiple of revenue or profitability. In this case, Mercedes' valuation is just over seven times its revenue, which was £636m last year. A similar calculation was used for the McLaren valuation in September. In terms of other sporting entities, Mercedes are valued at slightly less than Manchester United and slightly more than Liverpool - so it's in the ballpark of valuations for leading non-US sports franchises. Teams in US leagues, such as American football's NFL and ice hockey's NHL, are significantly higher. Kurtz said he had based his decision to invest on F1's recent growth in the US market, through the Netflix Drive to Survive series and three grands prix in Austin, Miami and Las Vegas, in addition to the other race in North America in Mexico. He said: "It's a thriving business. And from that standpoint, if you have a thriving business with more market opportunity, particularly in the US, in my opinion, you're going to see valuations grow. Can it grow into something like the NBA or like the NFL? I think so, which is why I invested." F1 team valuations are increasing because the sport is growing in popularity, there are predictable outgoings because of the cost cap - which was introduced in 2021 - and the team, in this case, and F1 both have long-term stable sponsorship income and partner contracts. Mercedes' revenue comes from sponsorship and licensing, F1 prize money and other revenues from inside the sport - for example selling gearboxes to Williams and Aston Martin. Mercedes is one of F1's two most valuable teams, along with Ferrari, which is valued at $6.5bn (£5bn) by Forbes. It is an intrinsic part of the wider car company, which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange. McLaren and Red Bull are next, followed by Aston Martin and Williams. Forbes predicts the entry of Cadillac, part of US car giant General Motors, next year, will further elevate valuations.
“annoyed” rather than “annoying” I hope? Yeah, honestly I believe the Bernie interview, but if I recall correctly, he said something along the lines of “we knew at the time, but Max Moseley knew we couldn’t prove it”, which makes sense to me. It was suspicious, both the strangeness of the crash and then the fact that Fernando was on a highly unusual strategy that was able to take advantage of it, and I’m sure both Max and Bernie could twist enough arms to find out “off the record”. (I actually think I knew by 2021 who confirmed those suspicions, but I assume that’s not something in the public domain so I’ll keep that to myself.) So then the Bernie interview doesn’t really change anything, the FIA couldn’t have done anything more other than make their suspicions public in 2008, they still needed Piquet and Briatore to fall out and Piquet to come forward to launch a case which is what happened. By that point the WDC is declared and set so really the only act that’s outstanding would be that perhaps Renault (and to a lesser extent you could make an argument for Alonso) should be stripped of the win (again this is more about whether the original case was resolved in an appropriate sporting way and doesn’t really have anything to do with any new facts from Bernie). This judgement says Massa can’t claim to be declared 2008 WDC (essentially confirming there’s no legal basis to challenge a FIA decision provided they follow their own procedures), but does say Massa has a “good” claim for compensation - I take that to mean “worth a court’s time” rather than “likely to win”. He’s going to get access to a lot more info now, so we’ll see what happens, but I don’t see the angle he can pursue myself yet.
Yep - Toto preparing for retirement. Stories like this really ram home the commercial value of “casual fans” and explain why big sports don’t cater to the “hardcore” as much as the hardcore want/expect. I do think ignoring the hardcore is a dangerous strategy in the medium/long term, but we’ve not hit a point where that’s been proven in any sport yet. There’s a counter thought that a subset of casuals become a kind of new evolved “hardcore” and provided you have that - the sport will evolve in a robust way. If you’re interested in the business of sport, it’s a pretty fascinating topic/time in this regard right now.
