IRL dropping race purses and implementing "revenue sharing"?

[Jag_Warrior]

Indy to be the only race which pays a purse. $1.3 million (per car) just to run the series... win, lose or draw. So says this Speed TV article:

http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto/indycar/40171/

[sanguin]

How is this a good thing? Isn't it just team welfare?

[ChicagocrewIRL]

How is this a good thing? Isn't it just team welfare?

I will have a heart attack and die if you ever say anything positive about IndyCar. Having said that, I think I'll be around a long time.

"Every party needs a pooper that's why we invited you"

[Chris R]

should add stability to the series - can't help but mention the word "franchise" - or whatever it was they used in CART...

It seems like the IRL is truly becoming CART - hopefully without some of the pitfalls that eventually did CART in......

As much as I have an issue with TG, I suppose he is no worse than the cadre of people who led CART.....

[Chris R]

In case my last post sounds like trolling, I should add that I spent more time watching the IRL this year than ever before and less time watching CCWS... I still have a hang-up over the events of circa 1996 but I guess I'll have to get over it....

[LTalbot]

In theory, revenue sharing makes every team party to promoting the racing and ensuring the continued health and growth of the series. It may also allow more teams to participate, which is what we all wish for both American open wheel series.

[gofastandwynn]

should add stability to the series - can't help but mention the word "franchise" - or whatever it was they used in CART...

It seems like the IRL is truly becoming CART - hopefully without some of the pitfalls that eventually did CART in......

As much as I have an issue with TG, I suppose he is no worse than the cadre of people who led CART.....

What? Cart never did anything like this. This is the same thing that Bernie does with the payout that they do in formula 1, so that the small teams get more money. And according to what TSO heard about it, there will still be purses, but with the payout more spread out, ex the winner gets 100,000 but last gets 63,000 or something like that.

[mark123]

i think that its positive. any plan to reduce the gap between the big boys and the small teams is positive, and if it attracts more teams then that is also positive. The only danger is that it does not encourage drivers to take a small risk at the end of the race to go for the win (but I can't see this been a problem). All in all - well done IRL, its worth trialling for a season.

they could make it more simple by coming out and saying that they will supply engines and tyres for the season, so all you need is a chassis, driver and running costs. This might get some of those low budget teams in the other series looking over the fence.

[Bob Riebe]

Further proof that George has not a clue as to why USAC and early CART was so successful.
Between Ecclestone, France and George, it is obvious why racing has become a pathetic hole run by narcissistic tyrants.

Bob

[mark123]

How so Bob?

[sanguin]

Further proof that George has not a clue as to why USAC and early CART was so successful.
Between Ecclestone, France and George, it is obvious why racing has become a pathetic hole run by narcissistic tyrants.

Bob

I agree

[mark123]

I don't understand your logic - why?

Between Ecclestone, France and George, it is obvious why racing has become a pathetic hole run by narcissistic tyrants.

Bob

Well the jury and end result is still out on Tony George, but if I wanted a successful race series I'd happily have either of the other two narcissistic tyrants.

They maybe narcissitic, they probably are tyrants, but they are also both mega successful and have series the strength of which anyone else serious about having a racing empire would chop bits off their own anatomy to have.

[indycool]

Judging from the story, the teams like the concept, except for maybe A.J. and no one from AGR is quoted. How it shakes out in reality, time will tell. But it DOES promote consistency and every promoter on the circuit knows who he can promote at his race.

[T-D]

Judging from the story, the teams like the concept, except for maybe A.J. and no one from AGR is quoted. How it shakes out in reality, time will tell. But it DOES promote consistency and every promoter on the circuit knows who he can promote at his race.pookfare part deux. i'm lovng it.

janl, how come you haven't branded this thing "tgfare" yet? :laugh:

love how your boys at crackforum moved the thread to the members only forum, too. isn't this an appropriate "racing biz" discussion topic? :s pin:

[T-D]

how come you haven't come up with a clever name for this like "tg fare"?

seems to me exactly the sort of thing you routinely criticized ccws for.

[Jag_Warrior]

What? Cart never did anything like this. This is the same thing that Bernie does with the payout that they do in formula 1, so that the small teams get more money. And according to what TSO heard about it, there will still be purses, but with the payout more spread out, ex the winner gets 100,000 but last gets 63,000 or something like that.

And neither does Bernie/FOM. I can only go on what is in the Speed article, as far as the IRL's future payout arrangement. But in regard to F1, when you say that "small teams get more money" ...more money than whom? FOM's arrangement is secretive and varies from team to team, according to most of the articles I've read over the years. But I don't know that anyone doubts that Ferrari gets more $ per point than Spyker, for example, ever would. Tenure and success apparently play a part in F1's complex payout formula.

So, I'm not being argumentative, but I don't see any similarities between the IRL's seemingly straightforward "revenue sharing" concept and the conditional payout formula of Formula One Management.

Sounds like you've seen additional information on this topic. Please post or link it for the rest of us. I have no idea if this will be good or bad going forward. That wasn't my reason for posting the thread - I just found the idea interesting.

[Jag_Warrior]

Judging from the story, the teams like the concept, except for maybe A.J. and no one from AGR is quoted. How it shakes out in reality, time will tell. But it DOES promote consistency and every promoter on the circuit knows who he can promote at his race.

I wasn't aware that it's really been an issue in the IRL, but I agree that it promotes team consistency from race to race. But according to the linked piece, as long as a team fields an entry for the entire season, the team receives the $1.3 million, whether it employs one driver all season or five different ones. Maybe it lessens the need to rely on a ride-buyer if the team's finances are a little shakey as they start the season?

Whether one calls it "appearance/show money", a subsidy or "revenue sharing", I think you're correct: time will tell.

[indycool]

We're on the same page, Jag.....it doesn't sound like the plan is etched in granite yet and it doesn't sound like all the details are known.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Call it what you like, but it is a form of socialism that works in poorer series where the small teams need the help. Again, if AOW racing was healthy, such a measure would not be thought of.

I dont really see a down side to this. Proof once again that Tony maybe getting a bit wiser in his old age. Of course Ihave been wrong before....

[indycool]

Mark, the old franchise system in CART was similar in effect to keep the car count up.

[ZzZzZz]

Is there a limit on this? The CART system was limited to 24 cars.

This sounds like a good way to increase the car count. It makes sense the teams are paid for the service they offer the series. Sponsors will supplement this and offer the performance incentives. Drivers and teams want wins and championships.

As long a there's a check against teams just showing up to play the system, without really performing, this sounds okay.

AJ is always against change.

One point of concern is AGR. One article alleged the reason their 4-car business model works is because it benefits from a top-heavy prize fund. That would mean it's possible they might scale back. (Though I don't see them dropping the veteran, daddy's boy or revenue girl.) But, if they lose an AGR car or two, yet have a net gain of 6 entrants, it's probably a good thing.

[indycool]

Don't think the whole thing is finalized yet from what I read, Zz's. You make some very good points and questions, though. Time will tell.

[Easy Drifter]

It benifits all teams from a planning point of view. They know they will have X dollars coming and when. It will hurt the top teams that get the lions share of the prize money.
The mid field and lower runners will not have to enter races not knowing where their next dollar is coming from. Their drivers might even be more aggressive if they are not being constantly told to bring it home in one piece. That can easily backfire as a driver constantly worrying about the car tends to be overly cautious and therefore gets into trouble.
It is also a plus when they are chasing sponsors. They can tell potential sponsors that they have X dollars of their budget in place and not be going cap in hand looking for 100 % of the needed money. They can still ask for the moon but they will know they have part of their requirements before they start hunting.

[pits4me]

As much as I have an issue with TG, I suppose he is no worse than the cadre of people who led CART.....

I thought that cadre of people that ran CART into the ground found a new home. Now it seems they want to adopt a substitute "franchise" system the their new found home -- the IRL.

Tony - Just in case you didn't see this one coming.
"BEWARE THE SNAKE IN THE GRASS!"

[gofastandwynn]

I thought that cadre of people that ran CART into the ground found a new home. Now it seems they want to adopt a substitute "franchise" system the their new found home -- the IRL.

Tony - Just in case you didn't see this one coming.
"BEWARE THE SNAKE IN THE GRASS!"

Oh please, you guys have been preaching that for years. Let me ask you this, if TG did all of this just for power and control, what makes you think he will give it up now for a "franchise system" if he won't split it with KK or the amigos?

And Chris Pook isn't in the IRL...

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think personally that this will work in the IRL and here is why:

First off, it allows new teams to get in the door with some sort of financial footing that will allow them to succeed. Second of all, racers being racers, they will still race to win. Thirdly, although the big teams might be taking a bit less, they will be able to budget for it, and they still can get sponsor money to top things up because in the end, sponsors like to be with winning teams, so the teams that do things right, the Penske's, AGR's and Ganassi's will still succeed over the others. Teams having off years but professional management and ownership like Panther and Rahal/Letterman will still benefit because they will have a baseline no matter how bad the year goes for them and will be able to bounce back based on their reputation. New teams will be building from a base of stability.

The only fly in the ointment is if the money isn't enough to do much with vs the costs. Look, NASCAR in reality had worked this way in the past. You look at purses for teams in NASCAR, and while the winners get a lot of money, basically 10th through 43rd get similar amounts, and with contingencys in there, everyone is making enough money to at least have a place to start. It is the sponsors that are fueling the spending races in NASCAR, but in the IRL, it will work better in the short term. Eventually, no system is perfect, but I think this will work. The fact they are publicizing this is refreshing also......