Mark Hughes

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Current page

163

Current page

164

Current page

165

Current page

166

Current page

167

Current page

168

Current page

169

Current page

170

Current page

171

Current page

172

Current page

173

Current page

174

Current page

175

Current page

176

Current page

177

Current page

178

Current page

179

Current page

180

Face to face with Todt, small teams at risk, advantage Rosberg

I believe that there is a conspiracy in Formula 1 that is trying – and at the moment looks like succeeding – to keep costs high enough that they can induce a few small teams to expire and thereby trigger three-car entries from bigger rivals. At least two of the major four teams are supportive of the plan, which would allow them to retain huge factories built up during the boom years and their attendant cost bases. In reducing the number of teams, it would also create larger slices of the thin cake not devoured by the sport’s owners. Essentially, all of F1 is being skewed around two teams – McLaren and Ferrari – having facilities that are too big and too expensive for the current climate. They can afford them, but only because the others are making sacrifices. F1 collectively cannot afford them because it cannot afford the iniquitous income share among the teams that is necessary to feed the giants. Yet that is the direction these teams – and also to a lesser extent Red Bull and Mercedes – are taking.

At the time of my interview with FIA president Jean Todt (p36), he still held out hope that he was going to be able to mandate some serious cost-cutting measures suggested by the F1 Strategy Group. Almost inevitably however, most of these were blocked – blocked by the very teams that were part of the strategy group that formed them. Given that Todt is effectively handcuffed by the processes, it means that those big teams have effectively and cynically stalled what was a genuine attempt at introducing some financial sanity and sustainability into its structure.

As soon as Ron Dennis returned to the helm of McLaren, and Martin Whitmarsh was banished, the team’s whole attitude to cost control U-turned. While Whitmarsh had been proactive in trying to find a way through the nightmare of imposing and policing a cost cap, Dennis came out immediately and said he was against the idea and had no interest in being part of it. It was his job to look after McLaren and that’s what he was going to do. Ironically, the costs associated with running McLaren’s fantastic MTC facility are why teams such as this have such a voracious appetite for income. That income is squeezed from a total available pot that is smaller than it should be, because the sport’s ownership is greedily structured. And even within that pot the distribution between teams is iniquitous. Instead of spreading the pot so that even the smallest teams can have a viable business, the big teams would prefer to be rid of the smaller fry, thereby taking their meagre income and directing it at propping up facilities that are just too big, too costly.

If instead of trying to introduce a cost cap teams were told they could not have a head count of more than 400 people (excluding engine departments in the case of Mercedes and Ferrari), then Lotus, Sauber, Force India, Toro Rosso, Marussia and Caterham would automatically comply. Williams would need to trim some jobs. Red Bull and Mercedes could probably achieve it with much less pain than McLaren. Their facilities are much smaller and they use sub-contractors more extensively. Ferrari could surely disguise it easily enough by re-assigning official roles into the production car company. McLaren?

So F1 heads on with a few more restrictions on wind tunnel and simulation time, but essentially on a path that spells extinction for some of the smaller teams. That’s why for all its surface fairness, it’s unhealthy having teams – particularly the big ones that largely comprise the F1 strategy group – coming up with the rules. They need to be imposed by an enlightened dictator (like we had), albeit one who doesn’t sell the sport out or become personally vindictive against those standing in his way (like we also had).

At the moment we have a very fair governance structure being subverted by self-interest among the big teams. The egalitarianism of the structure, outlined by Todt in the interview, makes it vulnerable to this subversion. The subversion in turn is being driven by too much of the income leaving the sport through the owners.

You may also like

Related products