Michiba wrote:Sure, it's a business, but you're putting pretty much all your capital into improving performance, so theoretically, you shouldn't be operating at a profit.
Not at all true, and no successful business would follow that model for long. Take any other industry and you could be tempted into saying the same thing - they should be reinvesting ever last penny of profit in improving their products and offerings. But that doesn't make for a successful business, and the same is true for F1. You invest as little as you can get away with to reach your goals. If your goal is to win the F1 world championship then you invest just enough to build a car capable of doing so. Spend any more than that and you have a poor business model.
Michiba wrote:
as for those two examples, Williams are relatively poorly funded so have had to take on a pay driver from toyota whic his quite a comprimise. As for mclaren, they've had MB backing for years now. Would be interesting to see how they go once MB vests more interest in brawn.
Williams used to be well funded and highly successful, but historical issues with engine supply and subsequent poor performance have diminished their star somewhat. However they are still very well funded for an independent and have historically turned a profit.
Likewise with McLaren - Ron Dennis and his team are amazingly good negotiators, and have done fantastically well out of Mercedes, but they have been well funded and successful for far longer than their MB deal. McLaren have always turned a profit, and I would expect them to continue to do so even if they part with Mercedes.
Whilst MB have served them well I would love to see them become a fully independent team like Ferrari and manufacture their own engines, and they appear to have the perfect opportunity to do so at the moment.
