You can read elsewhere on the Internet what I consider to be absolute tosh in respect of third cars. This suggests that the big teams will supply the smaller teams with cars in the event of there not being enough teams to make up the numbers. As I have explained several times all the contractual details of F1 in these circumstances are confidential so no-one – Bernie Ecclestone included – is allowed to divulge details, except in very specific situations, which require written permission from the other signatories. Thus if the organ grinder has been giving details to his performing monkeys, he would be in breach of the agreements…
One does not imagine that Mr E would be doing such a thing. Having said that, the signatories are perfectly entitled to spin fantastic yarns about the future, as long as the truth is not included in the story, and if journalists are naive enough to take these stories at face value then they could easily end up with egg all over their faces.
The process of signing up all the teams to a new Concorde Agreement that runs from 2013 to 2020, with substantially the same deal going on until 2030, meant that the Formula One group (aka Bernie Ecclestone) did not really have the luxury to come up with all manner of exotic new solutions. The old Concorde Agreement (which took years to construct) covered all the necessary elements required and it was easier to use the same basic clauses to draw up the bilateral agreements with the teams. All of them, obviously, had to have the same basic terms, except when it came to money. There may have been some minor tweaks, but the idea of having big teams supply small teams with cars was very clearly not one of them. This would have stirred up untold opposition.
These contracts are legally-binding (for both sides) and so the Formula One group may now try to sway the smaller teams to agree to changes but one must remember that these teams took entire careers to build and they are not going to allow themselves to be destroyed because someone in the food chain decided that he needed more cars. Some of these teams would rather take the whole business down and see the Commercial Rights Holder lose his rights than agree to give up what they have built to date. The worst case scenario in such a situation would be that the FIA take over and exploit them, rather than the current bunch of golden goose stranglers.
Third cars are not going to happen this year. If they have to happen next year it will be on a random basis. Whatever the case, they will be bad news for the sport as they will weaken the manufacturing base and thus the strength of the sport. The irony, of course, is that there is plenty of money in the sport but it is going to the wrong places. Close to half is being sucked out by financiers who don’t care and the big teams are taking more than they should. The only answer is restructuring and the only people who can force this are the FIA. As guardians of the sport they need now to act. A cost cap has to be the first step. After that, there needs to be a new commercial structure. If it is allowed to drift on, further disaster awaits.
joeblogsf1 
You can see it. I can see it, but does the FIA? Or will Todt wait till the ship runs aground?
It depends what he wants in the future. If you think about it, getting the rights back and setting up a structure that benefits the FIA in the future would be a hell of a monument to leave behind him, wouldn’t it? It would be the final unpicking of the previous president’s embroidery and he would be declared Super President Emeritus in Perpetuity and awarded the Grand Cross of the Automobile with three bars, and oak leaves.
Joe
If that is M. Todt’s plan, to acquire Knight Grand Cross with oak leaves etc, how do you see the legal battle shaping up between the FIA, CVC and Ecclestone? Surely there would be one hell of a legal fight which would make Munich look like a parish tug-of-war?
Martin
As I suggested these agreements probably have arbitration written into them
Maybe its what F1 needs a good kicking.
Then the Phoenix rising from the ashes renewed a reinvigorated.
I read something yesterday about 3rd cars being ‘loaned’ to other teams and thought it makes no sense whatsoever. But apparently BE said it so it must be true. In other news, I’ve just seen a flying pig…
Consider the source.
But, but… I thought “no one gets you closer…” 😉
Excellent summing up of the current situation, do you think with the fresh management at Ferrari, the current political manoeuvring at McLaren, and the age of most of the current ‘original’ team owners and the last ditch attempts by Mr E and CVC to keep the ‘golden goose’ alive , we are coming to the end of an era in Formula One history? I think the big changes we need are just around the corner, the problem of all these ‘eras’, is they have to come to an end sometime, and for F1 to survive as a business it will ‘HAVE’ to change with the times.
I think that CVC must currently be laying less-than-golden eggs at the current situation, faced with the possibility of losing the whole thing. Not that they would lose, of course, they have sucked so much out already that they cannot lose, but they can lose several billions more if it all goes tits up
Todt has been hancluffed for 100 years by FIA Mosley/FOM BE and now CVC contract, so what can be done ?
He lets it die and when that happens he picked up the pieces and starts again
Looks like Bernie has positioned himself with added leverage over the CVC folk, didn’t he resign from various positions in preparation for his $100 million German holiday. Bernie with a little leverage usually ends up smelling like Roses. Who else to fix the crisis but indispensable Bernard who can once again prove his unparalleled abilities in F1 promotion?
Lots of people could sort this crisis. A new buyer could come in and agree to give the teams 85 percent of the cash and the promise of bigger revenues. Everyone would grab that, except perhaps Ferrari, but they need F1 as much as F1 needs Ferrari so they would follow suit. The condition of course, would have to be that everyone got fair shares and that Ferrari (and others) did not get absurd bonuses. The FIA could be controlled with more cash (as we have already seen). They get $5 million to introduce a cash cap. Job done.
These are the same folks that decided to disassemble the team owners association during negotiations with the promoter, so the risk to the sport is the stupid short term decisions made by what should be sophisticated business people. This group is conditioned by Bernie to fall inline for a quick buck and will do so habitually and out of desperation for any organ grinder.
The template you outine is the ‘ideal’ and would be healthy for the sport bringing it into the modern sports management era. Let’s hope there is someone with the vision to carry it out and that the teams can move above the infighting as a way of disadvantaging each other.
Joe, agree with your position on third cars. However, if there was wind that the smaller teams were to be bribed out of the competition, do you think an opportunist would buy the Caterham hulk and simply hold out for a cheque?
Not a good long term plan. Revenge is never far away
Chances of a Caterham-Marussia merger?
Joe you’re spot on as you have been all along on this. There’s hacks out there still proposing that teams ‘may have to bring a third car’ to the races in USA and Brazil.
Presumably that’s the inflatable £9.99 ‘guest car’ they keep in the spare room for when relatives are coming to stay. Do none of these tabloid journos even bother to think that there are humans, spares, and massive computing power required to run a costly third car for no gain whatsoever? F1 is mad, but not that mad.
Although of course I am prepared to be proved wrong!
Yes I’ve noticed that. I find it quite scary there are those out there who consider themselves experts that think F1 is that simple! If they can do something along those lines for 2015 I will be impressed!
Yes hire and train an entire new pit crew, support crew and telemetry crew in the next three days? Should be easy…
Alternatively hand over a fully outfitted car with all the spares from the main drivers and pass all that IP over to a smaller team free of charge.
I can see it now…
I can’t help noticing that a bunch of F1 field engineers are looking for jobs at the moment. 😉
Of course, it is unrealistic that any team runs a third car this season. If it is necessary, several teams would be able to provide a third car next year. The third car, which doesn’t earn points, is present for the sake of the show. Do the secret rules demand that it runs as effectively as the two points-winning cars?
F1 presents itself to the world as a “can do” environment. With reluctance, F1 might have to match words with action.
I’m sure the big teams will have show cars lying around the place that could be loaned out to the needy. They might lack one or two of the modern bits used at the sharp end of the grid, such as engines, but hey…
Back when I was a Penniless Student Oaf in the 1980s, we once spotted an apparent Lotus in a pit garage at Brands. Closer inspection revealed it to be a Ligier with a JPS paint job.
You need to read the posts on this blog
Fully agree with all you say, Joe, particularly in your final paragraph. Action is needed and now before the situation deteriorates further. Financial greed is spoiling the sport we all love.
Sadly driver fatalities are still experienced in UK club level racing virtually every year and go largely unnoticed by those fans who look no further than F1. The only good thing to come out of poor Jules’ dreadful freak accident at Suzuka is that it has acted as a high profile reminder that F1 can still be very dangerous. How many more teams do we need to see in financial trouble before reality sinks in on this front too?
Speaking of Jules, who’s paying for his hospital stay? I would think the teams would have insurance policies for that, but what do I know.
He should have his own insurance.
Funny thing that during the weekend there were “rumors” that Audi plans to quit WEC and DTM and enter F1 from 2016. Audi didn’t wait too long to deny those claims.
The whole story and its timing looks like, as you like to say Joe, monkeys with typewriters at their finest.
compliments Joe .. this is excelent .. in the midle of all this noise finaly a voice ..
brilant .. tanks
Frankly, I think the most damaging thing about third cars is audience confusion.
“Why does that team have three cars?”
“Why doesn’t that other team have three cars?”
“Which car doesn’t score points?”
“Why doesn’t that car score any points? He won the race…”
etc…
I can’t really imagine the Premier League allowing the big 5 clubs to have sister teams (E.g. Manchester City 2) and them not being able to score points. What’s the point of having competitors if they’re not competing for anything? It’s just filling up slots.
Hi Joe,
What is the likelihood of at least one of the two teams being saved?
I think Caterham can be revived
I laughed like crazy at the suggestion that big teams would hand-over their expensively-developed intellectual property to smaller teams. RB/TR aside it’s a ludicrous idea!
Perhaps part of the short sighted view for next season is some hope that there wlll be two new teams for 2016 (yes, yes, I know!) so all we have to do is get through next year and things will sort themselves out … Back to the status quo with two teams running around four seconds off the pace – but importantly the grid numbers will be fine.
If it should happen that the FIA regains control of F1, would that void:
* the Concorde Agreement
* extent contracts with race promoters
* extant TV contracts
I would think they are all with FOM, and if FOM no longer controls F1 then the continuance of existing contracts would be contingent on the FIA and the other parties agreeing to continue them. But I don’t really know.
What I’m really asking is whether such a development would permit F1 to start with a clean slate (or as much of a clean slate as the FIA desires).
On 2nd thought, don’t tell me, let me guess: All that depends on secret stuff few people know and nobody can talk about…
Any thoughts on this story? http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1095122_audi-to-enter-f1-in-2016-with-fernando-alonso-onboard
This is the 23rd Audi to F1 story I have read in the last 10 years. What is different to all the others?
Piech isn’t dead. BE isn’t dead. I’ve heard the quote that VW won’t enter F1 until one of these two is six feet under. Piech seems healthy…
I have heard it said.
Are there any real solutions to this? It seems to me as an outsider that the powers within F1 are willing to destroy it if they don’t get want. That includes a couple of manufactures.
If F1 does fall over it could be a good thing. But what could be done to stop the same crowd or same type of crowd doing the whole thing over again. Iv’e seen motor racing in Aus go to the dogs for the greed of a few.
Your last sentence reminds of,
Darling: I say, listen, our guns have stopped.
George: You don’t think …
Baldrick: Maybe the war’s over. Maybe it’s peace!
George: Well, hurrah! The big knobs have gone round the table and yanked the iron out of the fire!
Darling: Thank God! We lived through it! The Great War: 1914-1917….
This isn’t going to have a happy ending. Well, certainly not for F1. CVC on the other hand will have made out like bandits. F1 will crash and burn and what rises from those flames is anyone’s guess, maybe a beautiful beast.
Personally, if there were adjustments made to current agreements/rules, I think third cards would be a good idea. It would allow what seems like a current wealth of good drivers coming through a chance in a competitive car, and also make the competition closer.
I take the point that it will reduce the manufacturing depth, but if no one can afford to run the engineering companies behind the cars, that it is pointless.
To allow the smaller teams a chance, you could also only allow constructors that didn’t finish in the top 2 places (from the previous year) to field 3 cars, then it would at least allow the smaller teams a chunk of the points.
A cost cap is now badly needed as well.
I guess this is why Fernando Alonso haven’t announced his plans yet. He must be eyeing the 3rd car in the Mercedes stable. It’s so obvious if there are going to be 3 car teams on the grid…Just like he said -“It will be obvious when the announcement’s made”. If F1 remain 2 car teams – obviously Mclaren Honda. He also mentioned he wouldn’t be driving in a Mercedes customer team next year.
You obviously have not read the rules.
Joe, do you think its possible that (assuming his discussions with McLaren have come to nought), that Alonso is facing the prospect of either a sabbatical or a drive in a third car (which would at least maintain his profile and allow him to demonstrate his ability over his teammates, whoever they may end up being)? The end goal being eventually nailing a championship contending seat for 2016?
I may be really naive but why oh why don’t the teams get together with the FIA and demand better terms from CVC. Particulary if this is a breach scenario.
I guess the issue is Ferrari who consider themselves superior (and possibly a couple of others). I just don’t understand why they can’t see the benefits of creating a fairer formula also with more money if they take CVC out of the equation. They just need to look at the success of the EPL against La Liga or Serie A to realise how popular the sport is if the playing ground is fairer. Sometimes in life less is more.
They are contracted and signed their deals freely and in the knowledge of the possible implications.
This is one of those times when F1 really is as Kafkaesque as it seems. Does Bernie even know what’s happening?
CVC will be looking for the compartment marked “Parachutes”. One hopes that these have not been sold out the back door…
Not only dubious finances, but spur of the moment rule changes, gimmicks, high spectator costs ( for some races), restricted pay per view screening, lack of driver personalities outside one or two, predictable racing (back to schumi days) and a lack of randomness are combining to send F1 in the wrong direction as a sport worth spending time and money on as a fan. I have been watching for 30 odd years but it looks like extreme self interest is finally now killing the golden goose. Maybe I’m getting old but other forms of motor racing are beginning to look more interesting now.
Does Mr Todt have the desire, will or even the capacity for such a move, until now his reign has been very lacklusture and non commital at best
Such a shame. Put simply, there is plenty of money swilling about F1, but the people that work their socks off to compete aren’t getting their fair share. What a farcical and unsustainable situation.
There’s another rumour on the loose –
The main F1 agonists (prot-, deuter- and trit) will soon grace the cover of “Private Eye”
I don’t know whether to believe this or not.
I seek your wise counsel, Joe.
Nothing is impossible.
Maybe this has been covered before, but I just don’t see third cars making sense from a sponsorship perspective.
When you look at all the organizations in the world that have marketing budgets, relatively few can afford the level of sponsorship required for a modern day F1 team. For argument’s sake, say a team is spending $200 million a year for 2 cars, and all of that is supported by sponsorship. Adding a third car, even if it only adds 20-40% (that’s a wild guess – I have no idea) to the team’s total costs for the year, would now require more begging for sponsorship for a bigger amount. That is either going to reach the tipping point for some of those sponsors and force them out, force the need for more associate sponsorships, or cause those sponsors to take their marketing dollars from other programs. For even a company like Red Bull, who would potentially be sponsoring 6 cars, they might end up taking away from some of their many other sporting sponsorships/marketing. The question is then, “would they do that?” I doubt it – they can’t put all their eggs in one basket.
I’m probably not saying anything that hasn’t been said a million times here and elsewhere, but three car teams just makes zero sense to me on so many levels. It would price the teams out of the sponsorship market, making it even more difficult for teams to survive.
Maybe, but with a third car they are theoretically getting more coverage. Red Bull are seeing merit in 4 cars worth of sponsorship after all…
Right, I wouldn’t see the teams charging more for each sponsor (well maybe the big teams might) but they may be able to attract a greater number of sponsors who now see the proposition as better value (more cars = more billboards). The other way to go is to have completely different liveries for the third car, allowing a team to attract competitive sponsors (Petronas for cars 1 & 2, Total for car 3 – I’m sure a certain team in Black & Gold may find that scenario appealing.
I see your point, although more cars = more billboards for the same audience. Red Bull, for example, has many audiences they target. If they have X marketing dollars and would pull away from their snowboarding/BMX/skateboard crowd, for example, that’s a very different but possibly effective target group.
My question is whether they are willing to take marketing dollars from another one of their audiences to fund their marketing to this audience. What percentage of F1 fans drink Red Bull versus what percentage of snowboarding/BMX/skateboard fans drink Red Bull? If we were to study the demographics of these various target audiences, is F1 really that great of a marketing platform and subsequent return on investment, relative to their other markets?
Of course, I am just speculating, so I hope I am wrong!
There are at least three targets for sponsorship:
* Consumers, dealers, BMX riders and the like.
* Trade distribution, those who sell a product by the ton.
* Company owners who wish to be associated with a glamorous sport.
When Canon was an F1 sponsor, they took their distributors and high volume sellers to races. They didn’t invite consumers; some of their most loyal customers wore high visibility vests labelled Media and took photos around circuits.
Today when phone companies and financial organisations advertise trackside or on cars, they’re often promoting to lower tier firms who sell their services. Motor Sport magazine carries occasional adverts from private banks. Of the thousands of readers of Motor Sport, few have the millions to require private banking services; a few more work in the motor trade and thus meet potential customers who might need help to buy the car of their dreams.
One of the owners of Red Bull is an F1 enthusiast, hence two teams and support for drivers in junior categories. How would it all work out if he was run over by a bus?
You’re right, demographics and target audiences is very important. Which is why I think more technology oriented sponsors such as HP, EMC or Microsoft would find this more appealing (to be associated with leading edge F1 tech is a greater kudos to such organizations than for an energy drink).
The marketing folks would also be doing the calculations of “pounds spent per seconds of televised coverage”. Is it better to have one’s logo that’s seen on an F1 car for let’s say 15 minutes of a race (and possibly another 10 minutes pre/post race) as opposed to an hour on a BMX competition that is only viewed by 10% of the F1 audience?
“Which is why I think more technology oriented sponsors such as HP, EMC or Microsoft…”
The High Performance Computer array at your favourite team is sponsored by Dell or whoever. F1 regs specify how much computational power can be used to design the car. There isn’t much for a computer manufacturer to brag about when MIPs and horsepower are constrained. That is why computer firms earn a two inch sticker forward of the exhaust pipe.
—
In the pub, an old mate told me about a failed sales bid. He proffered a warehouse management project to an F1 team, and the team asked him how big his spending budget was, to put stickers on the cars. He told them to fly away.
Joe, I find your blog immensely interesting and informative. But by now even you must be seeing the ghostly writing appearing on the wall.
Mr Ecclestone – for all his faults – virtually single-handedly moulded F1 for the past 30+ years. It’s been hugely successful. A brand to be envied the world over. Yet now it’s starting to fall apart. There’s no point in me restating the problems F1 currently faces; you understand them better than I.
Why would a man who possess the commercial expertise of someone who created this empire suddenly appear to be making irrational or inexplicable choices? Has he suddenly lost all sense of perspective? Doesn’t he realise he’s watching the sport balance precariously on the edge of an abyss? It’s completely illogical to suspect a man of his intelligence and natural cunning doesn’t know precisely what he’s doing, even at his advanced age.
Someone elsewhere (was it you? I can’t be bothered to dig it out…) suggested that he’d never let F1 fail because it would destroy his legacy. Let me offer an alternative scenario. He’s going to let the sport fail PRECISELY because he wants to cement his place in history.
He’s not stupid. At his age he knows he doesn’t have long left. What better than to see the empire he constructed, guided and developed fail as soon as he leaves the stage? Then EVERYONE realises that it really was ‘all about him’, and that, without him, all that remained was a squabbling set of greedy ex-garagistas, a few manufacturers with more money than sense and an egocentric billionaire or two.
Bernie Ecclestone has been one step ahead of everyone for most of his professional life. He’s hasn’t suddenly lost that ability. I firmly believe he’s preparing the ground for his retiral, knowing full well that the second he steps away the sport will implode simply because he’s engineered that outcome.
It’s a masterstroke. The final play in a life led out-thinking some very smart people. F1 will forever be remembered as the premier world motor sports series developed and masterminded by one man. And when he left, the series collapsed.
His place in history is assured. Bernie Ecclestone WAS Formula 1. And, truth to tell, it’s probably a fair epitaph.
Bernie Ecclestone does not own Formula 1. He has leased the commercial rights to the sport for 100 years, if he fulfils certain criteria. If he fails, the sport will go back to the FIA. They can then build a new structure and they can accept whatever teams they require. They can also build a new commercial structure.
When history is written Bernie Ecclestone will be a passing phase and I suspect that history will not look kindly upon him or CVC Capital Partners.
You misinterpret. I’m no fan of Mr Ecclestone, yet F1 would not be what it is without him – an immensely successful, internationally renown, business-come-sporting empire.
My point was simple. If you look logically at his recent actions they do not suggest someone focusing on the long term. Quite the opposite. They suggest someone priming fuses in all sorts of places.
Yes, the FIA may come to inherit the sport. But they (currently) have no one with the personal ability to control the herd of cats that comprise the current players in F1, nor do they have the commercial nous or contacts built up by BE over 30+ years. Besides, they have other formula which seem to be attracting teams / sponsors / media interest. F1 may simply be too troublesome for them to manage.
Besides, F1 only has the value it’s perceived to possess, and that value is carefully constructed around the personality of one man – whether you like to admit it or not.
Time will tell whether I’ve read the tea leaves correctly. But prepare a nice slice of humble pie for me in case you’re right and I’m wrong 🙂
I am sure that you will do the same.
Destructive dictators and sociopaths always have people who are happy to congratulate them on their power and/or wealth grabbing despite all the negative consequences… it’s a shame, but it’s true anyway…
“The graveyards are full of indispensable men.” – General Charles De Gaulle
True. But many took their empires with them when they left.
Not really… just a few… most just died without the sky falling…
I tend to agree with you Peter Davis, and the thing is even if the FIA regain F1, what would they have? Well the rights to run 20 F1 races, a year, mostly at Circuits that cannot afford to have them, and in countries that have little interest in them. They would have currently 9 teams entered, of whom probably only 4-5 are actually financially viable, and they would have no Management structure going forward, to run this series? One would assume, given all that, that the FIA might find the best short term solution to be placing GP2 as the Premier Series and making it F1 for say 2 seasons, so that a New F1 could be created….this has been done in the dim and distant past.
Top analysis, enjoyable read on this one Joe – as ever, keep it up.
When Coca-Cola wish to change the secret ingredients of their eponymous drink, the company has to go though a fresh assessment of kosher status. Coca-Cola submit a list of real ingredients plus some some plausible extra ones (known to be kosher) to a committee of rabbis for approval. The committee which makes the decision can not know what Coca-Cola comprises, but it knows that there are no non-kosher ingredients.
Bernie Ecclestone appears to use a variant of this ploy when discussing secret contracts in public. He’ll float ideas which are in accord with contracts and F1 regulations, and throw in a few extra-legal ones which seem vaguely credible. Wider opinion about realistic options can thus be assessed without disclosing secrets. F1 is trapped in a corner and Bernie has to be seen to say something to business partners outside the Concorde Agreement or other contracts.
F1 fans and their dogs will ventilate their contempt for this bizarre third car proposition. Team management, sponsor representatives, race organisers and lawyers will be considering F1 rules and the contracts they have signed.
I don’t think this third car thing is ‘bizarre’. In fact, pre-1982, I believe it was officially allowed – there were plenty of customer cars etc.
In the 60’s and 70’s there were also times when Ferrari ran 3 cars…amongst others.
Done properly, it might be workable. It may even give a chance for fans to see more drivers side by side in equal machinery.
I would relish the prospect of Hamilton vs Alonso vs Vettel in the same car. Not going to happen, but it would be interesting even if they were running mid-field.
I am a sufficiently old codger to recall the multi-car BRM team (three or four or five cars, depending on how many engines worked). I remember Gilles Villeneuve as third driver for McLaren.
As they stand, F1 rules are designed around two car teams. It would make sense for a new entrant to sample F1 with a single car, but the rules do not allow this progression. Nor do the “rules” (or what we are told) make sense with regard to third cars. Joe and commenters here have written enough about “points blocking” by a third car under a two car rule system to convince me.
I’d love a world where teams could enter one, two or more cars at a GP. “Done properly”, as you say, Andy.
I agree with you totally Phil Beesley, however it would need a revamp of the rules on the cars/engines etc, as it would be too costly for a Privateer to even run 1 car. RD recently said that it was not remotely possible for even a team like McLaren to be competitive without a Works Engine deal, and currently only Ferrari, Merc & RedBull are in that zone, of course Mac will be with Honda but it means the other 5 teams are just competing for places from 9th down to 18th on most weekends.
Brilliant post Joe. I take from what you saying, that the big teams and players are incapable of putting the long term interests of the sport ahead of their short term monetary gains. If that is the case, then surely the possibility that the FIA might let things implode, would seem to make better sense in the long term.On another point you said that the Cateram team had a better chance of surviving, but not the Marussia team. Surly with the extra money they get, up to £80 million (if Eddie Jordan is to be believed) from Bianchi Monaco result, is sufficient to secure their future?
This is a risk issue. Joe is **probably** right in believing that the sport will survive this crisis as it has others. But right now there’s a non-trivial risk of a death spiral. Smart people on Boards of big companies involved in F1 will have realised this and may allocate their money accordingly…
Joe, as I understand it from what you have written previously, there is no central Concorde-like agreement, just a series of bilateral agreements with individual teams. Is that right? If so, then there is absolutely no requirement that all the agreements are even substantially similar. There could be some very large differences, but as each agreement is secret then nobody else would know. These differences can of course relate to money, but could be linked to the larger teams being allowed to run third cars if the entry falls short of 20, and for the promoter to either pay fees similar to the prize money that would have been generated had the cars been eligible for points, or perhaps just on a costs-plus-x% basis.
Yes, this is just speculation as you point out that all the agreements are secret. But then, if they are secret, how do you know this isn’t the case?
They have to the same procedurally, not financially. You cannot have different rules for one team
That’s fair enough. I also just had a quick refresher skim through the Sporting Regs, and it appears to me that the combination of articles 13.6, 28.1 and Appendix 6 do fairly firmly rule out third cars.