James Allen wrote something about this a couple of weeks ago. Personally I think it would be better for the teams to have a stake in the sport, preferably all teams but at least the big ones. It would give them more say over the way the sport is governed, Ferrari, Mercedes and McLaren would no doubt protect their home grands prix, and it would safeguard the sport against the uncertainty of what will happen when Ecclestone snuffs it.
I can see the benefits but at the same time there are so many downsides. 1) Bullying of smaller teams 2) Too MUCH say in negotiations 3) Financial disparity (by design) 4) Too many agendas to have a clear vision for F1 etc. Like your last point though. That uncertainty will cause problems, that much is for sure. I suppose giving the teams a stake in F1 might help negate that.
Forgive my ignorance but why invite just Ferrari and Red Bull onto the board? Or am I missing something?
The reference point is 2000 and since then they're the most successful constructors that haven't changed their names and have some kind of farm animal in their company logos.
Especially for excluding Mclaren; after all, they "only" have the one WDC to their name since 2000... and if I'm not mistaken, no constructors'?
Interestingly, Ferrari International Assistance and Führer's International Assistance both fit the acronym of the organisation that neither team will have any direct influence over whatsoever.
I see the benefits of the teams owning a stake in the sport. But I could see some buggeration and unfairness from it. As you said it would be great if all teams held an equal share but clearly for some smaller teams that probably would not be possible depending on the cost. The smaller teams must not be supressed so having the three/four top teams or so having too much influence would be very bad for the sport. I don't see a replacement for Ecclestone when he goes. I see power more evenly distributed, power which I think will fall into the hands of the teams.
Here's James Allen's article for those who haven't read it: http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/03/could-the-f1-teams-take-a-stake-in-the-sport/
Teams with ownership of the sport? Wow.... That would make for a fair and balanced sport. Let Ferrari and RB make a deal with the devil, then the rest of the teams can walk away and leave them all high and dry. Pardon my rage... but I think this is ludicrous.
I think all teams should have a share of the spoils and a say in how the sport and commercial prosepcts are developed. I think decessions would on the whole be made in the best interest of the sport, as opposed to Bernie generally looking fort he biggest cheque! I really think all teams should have an equal share and decession making ability.
I'm not sure the teams should have an equal stake but they should all have a say. This proposal smacks of rank opportunism for short-term gain. There's nothing in it to support stability, it's just a syphon. The shares under discussion are the Lehman Brothers shares and the two teams who would effectively 'own' this holding (by representation on the board) appear to have inherited Lehman Brothers' outlook. The teams should have a vested interest in the sport's stability and longevity but it should be run independently of them and their darker inclinations. The problem is, it may be the lesser of two evils. EDIT: No comment from Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Lotus.
please log in to view this image The majority of teams have 'committed' to continue beyond 2012, including McLaren; Mercedes are holding out, apparently. It's not clear that whether this means they've extended the current Concorde agreement for a year (perhaps as a result of Sky publishing parts of the new proposal last week?) or committed to sign up to the new one. please log in to view this image
