Ferrari commit to F1 until 2012

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by Asa

Also, if the 9 other teams sign with GPWC, then the Ferrari - Bernie deal will be worth nothing because there will be no race.

That won't happen IMO. Love him or loathe him, what BE will offer is real cash, he can physically write a cheque out for it there and then - and he is offering up front payments.

What the GPWC offer (as far as we have heard) is revenue potentially above what FOM bring in, with as much as 80% going back to the teams. They say they will be pitching out to the teams and 'we must stick together', etc - but there is no cake to cut up yet - Bernie has the cake on the table and the knife in his hand ready to start serving....

The GPWC was dealt a serious blow when it lost Ford, it blew their credibilty out of the water and only gave power to the argument that manufacturers were not to be trusted with F1.

We will see bluster I'm sure, however another factor is that of the remaining GPWC members, only Renault has a team - BMW and Mercedes do not own teams outright. It would costs millions for the GPWC to set up a series, much of which would be upfront costs. On top of this two of the major players would have to buy teams or establish new ones - all to gain literally a few milion more per year in TV income - it doesn't add up, it's never added up.

[joe rossi]

I'm sticking with my original opinion on this. I think Ferrari have sold out all the others, especially the smaller "minnows". They will now have to take what Bernie offers, rather than holding out for a better deal as a group. The fact that Hubbert has come out today in defence of the GPWC has convinced me that Ferrari were acting alone, in their best interests as always and have screwed the sport over yet again. We will be again faced with years and years of under-funded teams (if they survive) and a one sided red coloured world championship . I hated them before, and I hate them even more now!

[Kicking-back]

I think the comments from Jurgen Hubbert are an irrelevance.

Although Mercedes have some equity in McLaren, they are essentially just the engine supplier.

You won't hear Ron Dennis or Frank Williams criticise what's happened now.

[oziengineer]

This is pretty bad news for the other teams, because now they will have no bargaining power as long as they stay with the GPWC. Ferrari will probably get a pay increase now, as well as the money the other teams pay them and will win the championships all the way to 2015! If this occurs, hopefully F1s death will be undignified.

[Marbot]

If the other teams stick together they will have bargaining power,but BE knows this is not likely to happen,but if they do, Ferrari may have to build a few more cars for 2008 season.

[oziengineer]

Indeed, if the GPWC goes ahead, F1 will become the Ferrari Grand Prix series or something bogus. Wish those greedy oppurtunists at Ferrari would look at the bigger picture and have a little care for the sport that used to be soo good before Bernie got involved.

[Rick]

For all the "F1 can't survive without Ferrari" people, what do you think would happen if the company decided to pull out on economic grounds - not an entirely impossible scenario I would have thought. Surely you don't think F1 would cease to exist?

[Adam43]

Isn't this panned out how we all expected it to and how everyone intended it too.

None of the teams want to leave the FIA World Championship, they just want to help shape it how they want it. The GPWC was a barganing tool, the ideal situation for everyone (teams included) was that they didn't race in it.

As we have seen the GPWC ebbs and flows as the need to get something done in FIA F1 championship changes. The new 2008 Concorde agreement is being thought, if it turns out a good one then they will all be back together. I think the theat of GPWC is real and they would do it, but ultimately if they have to the teams haven't won they have lost.

[Glen]

Some of you guys are such outrageous paranoia merchants! Before you spout all that guff about FIA and Ferrari collusion, and Ferrari winning indefinately because "all the other teamns have to pay them" (hey - here's an idea; why not actually READ how the payments work before you express an opinion... all the teams get paid - whinging Aussie PS's team get paid, not that he's about to admit that) why not stop for a second and ask yourselves how come Ferrari managed twenty years in the wilderness despite the fact that the teams were paying them to win, supposedly.

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

None of the teams want to leave the FIA World Championship, they just want to help shape it how they want it. The GPWC was a barganing tool, the ideal situation for everyone (teams included) was that they didn't race in it.

Yes , but what power will the other teams now have in shaping a new Concorde agreement? They have lost the power they had within the GPWC of starting another series, so in effect all they can do is accept whatever terms Bernie gives them, or pull out all together. My understanding of the wording of the statement was that Ferrari had signed up to an EXTENSION of the concorde agreement, which leads me to believe that all of the terms of the existing agreement stand, ie, virtually no revenue going to the teams, except the extra "signing on" fees that Bernie decides to give them now to sign up.

If I have mis-understood this somebody please clarify how this is a good idea, not a very bad one.

[Marbot]

It wasn't like they didn't have the money,they just didn't make the car!,and i think i can guess that Ferrari got more than anyone else right from the beginning of the original Concorde agreement.

[Kicking-back]

If Ferrari hadn't won the last five world championships, this issue wouldn't be getting so much anger.

People don't like Ferrari because they win. A lot.

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

If Ferrari hadn't won the last five world championships, this issue wouldn't be getting so much anger.

People don't like Ferrari because they win. A lot.

It's got nothing to do with that (for me).

Its about the administration of the sport, and the fairness of how all 10 teams are treated. Each team needs to get enough money out of the sport to be able to comfortably compete in it. Teams like Jordan and Minardi shouldn't have to face the end of every year in near bankruptcy, when the sport is awash with money. The sport of F1 is made up of 10 teams, and each of those teams should know that they can go into the following year with enough basic budget from the FOM (or whoever) to compete for the season. If other teams then top that up with massive sponsorship, fair enough, but at least the others will have enough to get on the grid. We have all had the discussions recently about what will happen if there are no small teams left...3 or 4 car manufacturer teams, certain manufacturers always losing, then leaving, then no more F1 as we know it.

Deals that give teams extra budget based on success will always keep the small teams at the bottom of the food chain, with no possibility of improving themselves, and the "sport" becomes more and more top heavy and one sided.

[Kicking-back]

Where's the incentive to spend money on improving the car, if you want to pay my team an equal share of revenue for being out there trundling round? What if I just banked it and got rich?

[Asa]

One problem I see is that, will Bernie disclose to all other teams about how much exactly he is paying Ferrari to sign the extension?

If the other teams cannot compare their own offer to that of Ferrari, then how would they know that they are getting a fair deal?

If Ferrari is getting a lot more, then why bother signing on? The other 9 teams could start something anew with GPWC and take it from there. Nobody will watch? What else is there to watch?

People say Ferrari is the most important team in F1. Some years ago people also said that about Lotus and I haven't heard anyone talk about missing Lotus. Yes, people talk about Lotus' glory days but nobody actually said they wish Lotus was still around.

[Marbot]

I don't get it,we can have success payments but not success ballast,perhaps each team should be made to carry the equivellant weight of it's budget around in the car.

[Adam43]

The two are completely opposite ends of the philosophy, rather than the same. Should success be rewarded or punished? Should you get paid more because you are better at your job or worse? Should a win be 10 points more than the coming 8th, or ten points less.

[Red]

GPWC is a bargaining tool. There's others too, like Concorde agreement and supporting it after 2008. I wonder why noone saw it this way.

I can't stop thinking of a 'hypotethical' situation like this: official rules changed because Ferrari was succesfull; several teams (also members of GPWC or maybe not), with a puppy as spokeperson (let's call him Saul Ptoddard) try to force Ferrari into some 'gentlemen agreement' rules that they don't like (like test limits per team, for example) on one hand, on the other working hard to get a GPWC 'we all love each other' agreement. Now, why am I not surprised about all that?

[Kicking-back]

But Stoddard isn't a mouthpiece for the manufacturers - he's saying he's happy and believes the GPWC is dead.

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by AdamAshmore

The two are completely opposite ends of the philosophy, rather than the same. Should success be rewarded or punished? Should you get paid more because you are better at your job or worse? Should a win be 10 points more than the coming 8th, or ten points less.

regardless of the "success" payments or ballast theories, each team should be given an amount that will allow them to compete comfortably each year. I'm not saying it should be enough for yachts for everyone, but it should be enough to pay for whatever engine deal is in place, and to be able to test for, say, 20 days a year for car improvements through the season. Even Sauber can't afford to run a third car although they are entitled to, so whats the point of having rules, such as the third Friday car, if the teams can't even afford to capitalise on them?

[Kicking-back]

Ok then, joe.

I've no money, but I'll enter a team for F1.

Can I have an amount to allow me to compete fpr the year, thanks Mr FIA?

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Ok then, joe.

I've no money, but I'll enter a team for F1.

Can I have an amount to allow me to compete fpr the year, thanks Mr FIA?

You know that's not what I meant. The same way that new teams don't get a share of the TV revenue..why not, they are still competing in the championship and appearing on tv screens, and so I believe that any team that can make it to the grid should be allowed to share in the revenue from the championship. I will add though, to keep it realistic, it should be retrospective, ie paid the following year, to stop teams like "kicking back racing" creaming the money out!

Also if you had no money you couldn't pay the $48 million dollar bond, could you?

[Gt_R]

Quote:"Its about the administration of the sport, and the fairness of how all 10 teams are treated."

BAHh..i could just switch off and go to sleep...

You want to talk about fairness? Then how is it that, teams outside the top 4 get to run 3rd cars and more mileage? ah..its fair isn't it?

KB and AA have pointed out where the problem lies with your opinions. Why should Ferrari not be awarded more for doing a better job? Fairness? That depends on how you look at fairness.

Does your boss pay you the same as the cleaner downstairs? Afterall, all of you are part of the company... does teachers give all students the same grades for projects? Do Doctors get the same pay as nurses?? The money is an award for good performance of that year...not given to help rich teams.

Then m.bott...you talk about success ballast.. i couldn't believe that any fans of F1 would even suggest it. Why should success be punished?

You know..interestingly, many people, mostly critics of Ferrari, raise the point of how important small teams are, and how manufacturer-teams would leave if they din't win.

I'm glad to tell you that Ferrari spent 21 years in F1 without winning the WDC. Did they leave the sports? Did they abandon F1? Now..who says that they shouldn't be rewarded for their commitment to F1? Shouldn't they, and any other teams who commit to F1 thru ups and downs, be recognised?

you see..contradictions everywhere. Sometimes i wonder if the objections are raised only because it's aimed at one team - Ferrari.

[joe rossi]

Originally Posted by Gt_R

Quote:"Its about the administration of the sport, and the fairness of how all 10 teams are treated."

BAHh..i could just switch off and go to sleep...

You want to talk about fairness? Then how is it that, teams outside the top 4 get to run 3rd cars and more mileage? ah..its fair isn't it?

KB and AA have pointed out where the problem lies with your opinions. Why should Ferrari not be awarded more for doing a better job? Fairness? That depends on how you look at fairness.


You know..interestingly, many people, mostly critics of Ferrari, raise the point of how important small teams are, and how manufacturer-teams would leave if they din't win.

I'm glad to tell you that Ferrari spent 21 years in F1 without winning the WDC. Did they leave the sports? Did they abandon F1? Now..who says that they shouldn't be rewarded for their commitment to F1? Shouldn't they, and any other teams who commit to F1 thru ups and downs, be recognised?

you see..contradictions everywhere. Sometimes i wonder if the objections are raised only because it's aimed at one team - Ferrari.

Ok, shall I explain it again?

I'm not suggesting that Ferrari are "unfairly penalised" by not giving them more money than everyone else. 21 years without a championship win? So What? what about Minardi in that case, they must qualify under your "long service" rules.

My point (again) isn't that Ferrari don't get more cash than everyone else, although I don't see why they should..they are supposedly a "sporting" (ha ha) team, not a bunch of cleaners (stupid analogy). Even if they are the biggest commercial draw in F1, they still need other teams to compete against, and those other teams need to survive to compete.

So once again, my point was, sure, pay Ferrari millions, just make sure you pay the others enough to survive as well. The championship is 10 teams, or ideally 12. Alternately, give Ferrari all the money and let Michael run around the tracks on his own to the roar of his adoring fans

[Marbot]

Ferrari would be worth every bit of the extra money they get if they'd stop trying to pass off RB as a decent driver,if they'd put 2 top drivers in the best cars and let them race we may have got value for money,but no, that would mean they could take points off each other and that would never do,sure the other teams have only themselves to blame for being behind,but surely in the meantime Ferrari could have provided a little more entertainment and not the farces we saw at Indianapolis and Austria,for all the time Ferrari has been in F1 surely that must have made even the most hardened Tifosi cringe with embarressment,and in the meantime Ferrari will run with all it's success ballast in the 2 car,about 70KG,s of it.