Did Ferrari deliberately lose the WDC in '99?

[Yoong Montoya]

I don't believe they did. Even Ferrari, who hadn't won a WDC since 1979 wouldn't lose the '99 one on purpose just because Michael Schumacher was injured. What do you think?

[Damon]

I think you're scraping the barrel a bit for thread topics YM.

[Spudgun]

Nope. Eddie was just useless driving the car as much as he was useless at assisting the development. All the other teams improved their cars and gobbled them up, even though the 1999 car wasn't a world beater to start with.

[Inigo Montoya]

The Ferrari goes as TGF goes. Take TGF out of the equation, and presto... you have a Williams

[NiceGuyEddie]

I've argued that exact same point.

In a nutshell my point of view:

Marlboro (plus Shell, I dont really know) is believed to pickup the salarychecks for both drivers. Schumachers salary was about 400% that of Irvine.

Why was Schumacher paid that huge amount of money? Because Ferrari convinced the paying partners that if any driver could get that title within a reasonable amount of time, it would be him and him only. And that wanted that title bad, really bad.

What would happen if Irvine snatched that title back in 1999? The paying partners would witness a driver paid only a quarter of Schumachers fee, but accomplishing the exact goal Schumacher was paid to accomplish. The same effect for 25% of the money. No, that is value for money.

Why would they continue to pay Schumachers enormous salary, after that first title since 1979 was reached by a driver paid four times less than Schumacher? No title after 1999 would be as important as that first title in 20 years. So Schumachers salary (which is a huge investment for every sponsor) would probably be re-considered. And we all know how sensitive drivers are to that kind of thing, especially when they enjoy a huge pay (can you say Jacques Villeneuve?). Schumachers position within Ferrari would come under threat, possibly resulting in him leaving to another team that isnt willing to pay whatever he was making, but still more than any paying partner would pay after the goal he was hired to accomplish, was reached by a driver costing a quarter of that investment.

At the end of the line though Ferrari would have their driverstitle, but no driver capable of stringing those WC's together. Irvine's WC would be one of circumstance, not one of performance. So Ferrari, thinking on the long term, had absolutly no interest in Irvine snatching that long waited title.

And thus we saw Irvine being denied the new undertray for Suzuka, Schumacher displaying a rather lacklustre performance (especially in comparison to Malaysia two weeks earlier) and Ferrari not really minding that the title went to McLaren.

I wouldn't say it was done deliberatedly, but they surely didn't mind that either.

(Wasn't Schumacher spotted partying in the McLaren camp that evening?)

[mac]

They didn't deliberately lose it, but I'm not convinced the same effort was there as there would have been with Michael at the helm.

[Valve Bounce]

I hope Liz get's to post a reply to this - it will be worth reading.

Valve

[Adam43]

Did Ferrari deliberately lose the WDC in '99?

No

[Jordi]

Ditto, mac.

With Irvine as #1, it seemed as if Ferrari just had a slim chance of winning the title, even if they were leading the Drivers championship.

Schumacher comes back and beats everyone... yeah sure, so easily.

[DNQ]

No a chance, Ferrari just wasn't good enough that day. No, no way, certainly not. Infact, stupid question really. But keep em coming Yoong Montoya

[f1manoz]

No. Hakkinen drove better than both Ferrari drivers at Suzuka and won fair and square. Irvine proved at Suzuka that he wasn't in the same class as Hakkinen and TGF.

[Wrex]

As far as silly threads go, this one has made my top 10.

Point 1: Marlboro do not pay drivers salaries. They pay for advertising space on the car and team. They could care less who is driving as long as the car is at the front and is getting good TV exposure. Also, what would this sponsore think knowing the team ditched the championship?

Point 2: As for the teams lack of effort, I think it was a reflection of Irvines effort. Sepang clearly showed why the team has been, and always should be centered around the best driver. Irvine lost because he was'nt good enough. Period.

Are we really this desperate to talk about something?

[DavidStHubbins]

If Ferrari wanted to lose the title why did they appeal against the bargeboard controversy? The FIA had handed Hakkinen the title as a result only for Ferrari to twist the FIAs arm and get their points back setting up a finale in Suzuka with Irvine ahead on points and Hakkinen losing the title if his car didnt finish(which the McLaren was very prone to as always).

I hope I am getting my years correct here as I am enjoying a whoppping hangover at present.

[Guy Goddard2]

Originally posted by mac
They didn't deliberately lose it, but I'm not convinced the same effort was there as there would have been with Michael at the helm.

I think this comment sums it up well, no team would delibertly loose a title especially after chasing it for so long.
Its almost like starting a thread that TGF delibertly broke his leg because he wanted some time off!.




Guy

[Red]

In addition to what Wrex said:

Point 3: Schumacher missing from the Championship did not break the morale and focus of Ferrari only. McLaren too. Does anyone here believes that McMercedes would've displayed such proofs of amateurism and lack of concentration if Ferrari and Irvine really could improve something that season?

PS: NiceGuy, "lacklustre performance" at Suzuka? If I'm not mistaking he finished second, right in Mika's tail and both of them almost lapping the Championship Contender in the process.....

PS2:

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
(Wasn't Schumacher spotted partying in the McLaren camp that evening?)

Yes he was. So? They are enemies on track, not in the paddock. Besides, altough not friends but Michael and Mika respected each other much and got along well. In the same note, did anyone spotted a certain Herr Haug, next year, same place, same party but this time the theme was red? Actually as the rumor goes, due to various circumstances he was noticed using his pants instead of a wig (perhaps Brawn couldn't find one of those nice red-wigs)

[Tye]

Again...we have the issue of team orders.

It is simple.Had Ferrari not enforced team and drivers orders in '99,Irvine would/could have been WDC for sure,no question.

I think Ferrari made sure that Irvine wouldn't steal Michael's thunder,afterall,didn't the team lose one of Irvine's tyres during a pivotal pit-stop during the European GP?

I would have loved to have seen the reaction at Ferrari had Irvine won the title.As far as team orders go...Schumacher has a lot to be thankful for.

Tye

[Red]

Had Ferrari not imposed team orders in 1999 Mika Salo would have had a win. And Michael Schumacher 64.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by mac
They didn't deliberately lose it, but I'm not convinced the same effort was there as there would have been with Michael at the helm.

Agreed here, but i don't think the second half of the season lost Eddie the WDC, apart from the Nurburgring pitstop of course, but the first half also helped him lose it, people tend to forget that Eddie was a genuine title contender, dispite spending the first half of the season dedicated to TGF's championship cause!

[NiceGuyEddie]

Point 1: Marlboro do not pay drivers salaries. They pay for advertising space on the car and team. They could care less who is driving as long as the car is at the front and is getting good TV exposure. Also, what would this sponsore think knowing the team ditched the championship?

How do you know they dont pay the salaries? Its widely believed they do. Besides that, youre completly missing the point. Of course Marlboro wouldnt mind Irvine getting them the exposure, but at the end of the day, they return to their boardroom and ask themselves: "why are we paying Schumacher 40 milion dollar again?" or "Why are we accomplishing a long hard hunted goal with a driver costing a mere quarter of our initial investment?" Somebody is paying Schumacher 40 million dollars a year to get that title. Believe me, no one pays that amount of money for Schumacher just to try very hard. You'd have to be very sure he gets you what you want before you are signing that cheque. If Irvine wouldve accomplished that feat, the investmentgoal wouldve been reached, not by paying 40 million dollars, but by paying 10 million. It simply no good PR. Maybe not sportingwise, but businesswise it would mean a helluva lot if not Schumacher but Irvine wouldve snatched that title. Enough to reconsider the investments made.

[Red]

Eddie, nice guy, why would Marlboro bother how do Ferrari spend the money? Marlboro, as Wrex pointed out, is NOT Michael's personal sponsor (the next thing I expect from you would be that actually Michael PAYS for his seat )! They pay for that advertising space on a Ferrari car. (Actually they pay for 2 cars + overalls but that's not important right now).

[NiceGuyEddie]

Maybe if you'd replace the word 'sponsor' for 'investor', maybe then you'd understand what I am saying. A sponsor exactly that, an investor.

Anyway, where am I saying that Marlboro is Michaels personal sponsor? I am not saying that at all. Why can't you conceive the sponsordeal wherein Marlboro declares itself willingly to 'sponsor' (or, 'invest') by picking up the salaries of both (!) drivers.

To simplify it even further:

Given the choice between a WDC bij paying the driver 10 million dollars, or by paying him 40 million, what would you choose? Correct, not so difficult ey? Well, how would you feel iy you'd already spend 40 million a year for 4 years, to actually find that the 10 milliondollar drivers does the job the 40milliondollar driver was send out to do?

Surely, Schumacher isnt to blame at all, and if Silverstone went ok, he wouldve snatched that title, but the reality of business is that their goal was reached with a much lesser investment, and that always hurts when youve already spent the money.

Yes, simply business. Ive always found the adagium: "its called motorsport and not motorbusiness" highly naive, of not incorrect.

Snatching the WDC might seem a sporting goal to you and me, but in the Philip Morris-boardroom its simply a businessgoal, and if neither Ferrari nor Marlboro were convinced that only Schumacher could get them that title, they werent payinh him that much. If Irvine wouldve walked away with that title, he would have proven them wrong.

Ok, granted: You could argue that Ferrari isnt paying him that much to get the worldtitle, but rather to keep another team from 'exploiting' him. Because if we take Schumacher out of the equation, Rubens wouldve probably snatched the title in 2002. He only needs to come in second behind Schumi.

But than again: history shows us that Schumacher + Brawn + Byrne + a little time = WDC's all around.

Good for sport and good for business, and I think Marlboro is in it for the business, not for the sport.

So no, I don't think that Ferrari was bummed out for missing it in 1999. Especially being confident enough for 2000. Schumacher taking that long awaited title, and everybody is happy. Businessmission accomplished.

[Red]

All quotes originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
Anyway, where am I saying that Marlboro is Michaels personal sponsor?

Here:

Marlboro (plus Shell, I dont really know) is believed to pickup the salarychecks for both drivers

And here:

[...]they return to their boardroom and ask themselves: "why are we paying Schumacher 40 milion dollar again?"

--------------------

Given the choice between a WDC bij paying the driver 10 million dollars, or by paying him 40 million, what would you choose?

I didn't read any further, I stopped right here. YOU miss the point; by miles. You, as Marlboro CEO, are NOT given any choice. (Oh yes, you are: to chose whether to pay for advertising space or not. But certainly not something involving winning the WDC. Ferrari have that option indeed and they chose that paying big bucks to Schumacher is a good deal. What exactly is the problem? :confused: )

[racer69]

Irvine wasn't fast enough, but at the time Schumacher could have won that race if he really wanted to.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Well, then you've misread it. Picking up the salarycheck has got nothing to do with being a personal sponsor. Any deal between Ferrari and Schumacher, is between Ferrari and Schumacher. read carefully hereThe condition that Marlboro picks up the salarycheck is a deal between Marlboro and Ferrari, not between Schumacher and Marlboro. I apologize and I hope you understand it now for its quite simple basic legalstuff.

Having said that, Ferrari wants Schumacher because they feel he is the one and only that can bring them the long awaited and very badly wanted WDC. But Schumacher comes with a pricetag. In order to concince Marlboro to invest in the team, the must convince them that he is going to bring the team that title. Ferrari sees both a businessgoal and a sportsgoal achieved, Marlboro sees a businessgoal achieved.

And beware: the sportinggoal is not to try as hard as you can to win that title. The sportinggoal is to get that title. If you fail, you fail. Translate it into a businessgoal (which is mostly the case for big investors, because those tend to want to profit from their investment, otherwise they simple wont invest (again, pretty basic stuff), than it is even more a question of taking that title, rather than try very hard.

Do or do not, there is no try.

If Schumacher was left trying without achieving, than his salary was a wasted investement for most part. Ten million dollar would have sufficed.

At the end of the line, a driversalary is simply related to the chance he gives a team to take the WDC and WCC. That relation you could call 'talent' in its most broad from. Surely Marlboro would have refused to pay that amount of money when Ferrari was as insecure about Michael winning that title (read: his talent) as they were about Irvine. In that case, Michael salary would be probably about the same as Irvine was making that year.

Sponsorbackings concerning those amounts of money go a little further than simply splashing your name on the car. With those amounts of money you know you only going to profit from that when that particular team takes titles. Winning titles means commercial attention, commercial attention means income. Income you desperatly need to gain from your investment. If Marlboro had any way of knowing in advance that not Ferrari but Mclaren was walking all over the WC's in the last few years, those Ron-cars would probably still be mostly orange/white. But then again, insider-trading is illegal.

[Red]

Eddie, all of your reasoning is almost good. Trouble is that you start from a premise that is false. (that's a good technique in literature and it's called Science Fiction). Read here carefully: Marlboro does not invest in "Ferrari winning the WDC" business. They invest in improving their own image. They couldn't care less whether Ferrari wins or not, and more important who wins it. As long as their TV coverage increases. Furthermore. Marlboro does not pay the salaries. They cover the sums and that's different. If for example Michael and Rubens would race for zero cash, what's the cash that do you suppose that Marlboro would pay? And please, you did that again: Michael Schumacher is a pay-driver? Sheese.

Now, just imagine that your theory "Ferrari could win for 25% of money" could, let's suppose, that it could hold some truth in it. Don't you actually think that Montezemolo and Todt would instantly cut 75% of Michael's money for 2000?

And one more important thing that you don't want to accept: even though Irvine would've won in 1999, that does NOT mean that Michael Schumacher's money were wasted since he had his important role in welding a succesfull team that build a good car.