It leaves F1 reflecting on a business model which seems unsustainable for the
non-manufacturer teams who lack a billionaire owner.
In Marussia’s case, the Russian billionaire Andrey Cheglakov, the money behind
their venture, lost interest. It is thought he gave just enough to get the
team through his home race in Sochi, before turning off the taps. As Graeme
Lowdon, Marussia’s sporting director, put it in recent weeks: “The current
recipe, in terms of sporting and technical regulations, has produced a
sport that nobody can afford.”
Bob Fernley, deputy team principal at Force India, another independent team
under threat, said: “The writing was on the wall from the beginning. Only
five teams have a say in the running of Formula One – we’ll lose more teams
if we carry on like this. If there had been cost control and more equitable
distribution of the prize money maybe Caterham and Marussia wouldn’t have
failed.”
In 2010, under promises of a £40 million cost cap from then FIA president Max
Mosley, later abandoned, three teams eagerly joined what they saw as a land
of opportunity. HRT, Marussia and Caterham struggled from the outset.
HRT went bust at the end of 2012 never having troubled the competitive end of
the grid. Caterham have gone through an acrimonious row of ownership in
recent weeks and have been a basket case all season.
Mosley, the original architect of the ill-fated cost cap, fears more teams
will follow Marussia and Caterham if nothing is done. “It’s not a fair
competition anymore,” Mosley told BBC Radio 5 live. “The big problem is that
the big teams have so much more money than teams like Caterham and Marussia.
In the end, they were bound to drop off – and they may not be the last.
“From a sporting point of view, the sport should split the money equally and
then let the teams get as much sponsorship as they can. A team like Ferrari
will always get more sponsorship than Marussia, but if they all get the same
basic money, then they all start on a level-playing field, particularly if
you have a cost cap where you limit the amount of money each team is allowed
to spend.”
The misfortune of the news on Monday is that Marussia are a well-run outfit.
Operating on between £60 million and £70 million a year, easily the lowest
budget on the grid, they have clawed themselves into a respectable position,
scoring their first points at the Monaco Grand Prix in May. They have
outperformed Sauber, a veteran team of more than 20 years, and have steadily
made progress each season.
The prospect of a £40 million windfall if they hold on to ninth in the
constructors’ championship makes them a far more attractive proposition than
Caterham, which is why they have more chance of finding a buyer. As revealed
by Telegraph Sport, the British-Indian pair Baljinder Sohi and Sonny Kaushal
were in talks with Marussia over the weekend, but their offer was not enough
to stop the administrators being called in. They will now negotiate with FRP
Advisory directly, still some distance off the administrators’ valuation.
Given the situation, Marussia’s leadership have gone to ground, simply hoping
for a positive outcome. Lowdon spent the weekend with John Booth, the team
principal, but neither they or the team have commented on the saga. Both
have visited their stricken driver, Jules Bianchi, in hospital in Japan,
which makes the timing of Marussia’s demise all the unhappier.
Their absence in Austin leaves the FIA, motorsport’s governing body, with a
serious headache for Saturday qualifying. They will be down five cars in the
first segment: four from the beleaguered teams and Sebastian Vettel, of Red
Bull, who has confirmed that he will sit it out because of an engine
penalty. It would mean just one car is eliminated in the first shootout. The
most likely solution is four cars will go out in Q1 and Q2.