Ferrari commit to F1 until 2012 - Page 2

Kicking-back · 20 Jan 2005, 11:46 (Ref:1205511)

People seem to be so sceptical of everything (I know I often am) - but this is GOOD news!

DougK · 20 Jan 2005, 13:49 (Ref:1205612)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

People seem to be so sceptical of everything (I know I often am) - but this is GOOD news!

Its only GOOD news if the concorde agreement is re-written!

That's one stupid agreement that is inflexible and provides power to a single person. Personally I think the next agreement should only apply for a period of 3 years or so or have review processes in place. F1 is a fast changing world and the agreements need to change as well (i.e. sharing out the wealth etc)

If I were the other teams now (i.e. those except Ferrari) I would be grouping together and demanding the same deal (or better!) than Ferrari have.

You cannot run a championship with one single team.

Glen · 20 Jan 2005, 14:02 (Ref:1205628)

Yes, but you can't have F1 without Ferrari.

I don't see why you assume that the Ferrari deal is better then the other teams would get?

Also, the Concorde agreement spreads power across the competing teams - which individual do you think it gives power to?

DougK · 20 Jan 2005, 14:15 (Ref:1205647)

Mr BE of course... the concorde agreement favours him , did he not put it in place?

It also favours a single team who does not agree with what the others want - its undemocratic requiring 100% support.

IMO this needs to be a majority decision so say 60% or more enables a change or better still the FIA should be able to change the rules and regulations when they see fit as long as reasonable notice is given - the teams should not be able to prevent this.

Glen · 20 Jan 2005, 14:22 (Ref:1205659)

BE doesn't have extra power to do things within the sport - he gets a lot of money out of it, for sure, but he can't snap his fingers and change stuff without the teams agreeing.

DougK · 20 Jan 2005, 14:26 (Ref:1205663)

Money is power!

Inigo Montoya · 20 Jan 2005, 20:16 (Ref:1205879)

So is the general concensus here that all the major players will sign on, or not? By season's start, I think (apart from the mickey mouse teams) they will all be signed on.

Kicking-back · 20 Jan 2005, 20:29 (Ref:1205893)

All ten teams will have signed by then, I believe.

joe rossi · 21 Jan 2005, 01:15 (Ref:1206038)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inigo Montoya

So is the general concensus here that all the major players will sign on, or not? By season's start, I think (apart from the mickey mouse teams) they will all be signed on.

I think it all depends on Williams and McLaren, and what deals they get. They historically seem to stick together and I assume Bernie will offer them a deal just below what Ferrari are getting. (as usual). I don't see Renault, Toyota or BAR having any political muscle, and the others will all fall into line. If Williams and Mclaren are unhappy it would serve them all to stick together. It is true that you can't have a one team series, even if that team is Ferrari. Then again, the teams have never stuck together over anything, have they?

Also, does this mean that the concord agreement is extended in it's present form? if so that is very bad news isn't it? another 7 years of poor decision making, and no majority rule.

josvandeperre · 21 Jan 2005, 09:49 (Ref:1206214)

Bernie is quoted somewhere as admitting to have not told the other teams about his negotiating with Ferrari and is happy to give them an ultimatum to sign the new agreement - possibly before the first race - in other words there could only be two cars on the grid in Adelaide.....

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=74786

Glen · 21 Jan 2005, 09:52 (Ref:1206221)

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe rossi

Also, does this mean that the concord agreement is extended in it's present form? if so that is very bad news isn't it? another 7 years of poor decision making, and no majority rule.

The Concorde agreement IS majority rule - that is one of its failings when it comes to making decisions for the sport.

Edit: or did you mean that the "veto" would still effectively be in place, in that any team declining to sign up to any particular legislation can throw a big spanner in the works?

DougK · 21 Jan 2005, 13:29 (Ref:1206382)

I would think he meant vito - that has to go in fact i would say in the current climate in favour of a majority as in 60% to 40%. For example the testing fiasco was 90% for new rule so that would be passed. There is no place for vitos in such a sport...whoops i mean business!

But the teams do not need to sign anything now... the concorde agreement is in place for this and next season so BE can do nothing about that (though he will try his threats).

If I were Williams, BAR etc , I would just say I'll tell you what i decide in 18 months time!

Kicking-back · 21 Jan 2005, 13:30 (Ref:1206386)

Concorde agreement is unanimous rule rather than majority.

joe rossi · 21 Jan 2005, 13:42 (Ref:1206401)

my understanding was that it was unanimous as well, not a majority vote. All 10 teams have to agree. If one holds out, they block the rest

Kicking-back · 21 Jan 2005, 13:43 (Ref:1206406)

Quote:

Originally Posted by josvandeperre

- in other words there could only be two cars on the grid in Adelaide.....

Because everyone else will be in Melbourne

ActiveMS · 21 Jan 2005, 14:51 (Ref:1206461)

Unfortunately along with the single tyre rule and limited testing suddenly being forgotten and the fact that Stoddart has admitted all the teams pay Ferrari for being in F1 (see F1 Racing Magazine), it seems that it is Ferrari that has the upperhand in all things F1.

What a pile or crock. If I worked in another F1 team I would ask myself the following:

Why should WE compete in a championship where the rules and regulations have to be ratified the competition without any say from ourselves and we have to pay them a huge amount of money to sit next to them on the grid.......... and then if we are VERY lucky get a smaller amount cash back at the end of the season than the same said competition, even is WE finish first??

A1 is looking much more attractive......

Marbot · 21 Jan 2005, 15:39 (Ref:1206495)

Apparantly PS is meeting MM this afternoon,read at www.grandprix.com ,interesting.

Kicking-back · 21 Jan 2005, 17:30 (Ref:1206554)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ActiveMS

first??

A1 is looking much more attractive......

A totally different kettle of fish.

F1 is for constructor teams, A1 is for smaller racing teams running a centrally-supplied car.

Glen · 21 Jan 2005, 18:00 (Ref:1206584)

ActiveMS - the money allocated to teams for their heritage and previous success in F1 is only a fraction of the total prize money - if a team wins, they get the most money. All the teams do not pay Ferrari - or rather not just Ferrari... all the teams pay all the other teams, with some weighting according to F1 pedigrree and success.

Also - why are you so easily pulled-in by the stories about Ferrari writing the rules? what evidence have you ever seen? None.

If you think a single car series like A1 is more attractive than the real thing then I'm afraid you may have missed the point of the real thing.

Asa · 22 Jan 2005, 12:39 (Ref:1207082)

Haug has said Ferrari signing with Bernie is not the end of the GPWC.

Remember the other 8 or 9 teams (I am not too sure about where BAR is) are still in disagreement with Ferrari over cost cutting measures. And now you have Bernie probably giving Ferrari more money in a new agreement. Are the other teams prepared to race till 2012 while struggling to match Ferrari every time because they have to work on a smaller budget?

Or would they prefer to race without Ferrari and everybody gets a smaller but similar deal? Without Ferrari the deal would have to be smaller from sponsors and TVs but it just might work out better.

Kicking-back · 22 Jan 2005, 12:41 (Ref:1207087)

The meeting with Max Mosely on Friday this coming week will get everything thrashed out.

The FIA, Bernie and the teams probably realise the dispute's gone on long enough.

Inigo Montoya · 22 Jan 2005, 14:31 (Ref:1207147)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asa

Or would they prefer to race without Ferrari and everybody gets a smaller but similar deal? Without Ferrari the deal would have to be smaller from sponsors and TVs but it just might work out better.

In this case:
"Click" - the sound of tv sets worldwide tuning out.
Its the most popular team in the world. Even some Brits cheer for them, for crying out loud. F1 cannot survive without them. And for those who do not like Ferrari, who will be the villian?

Asa · 22 Jan 2005, 14:42 (Ref:1207150)

Mika Hakkinen, Damon Hill, Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, Nigel Mansell and Team Lotus were all crowd pullers in F1 sometime ago. Some (including myself) thought F1 couldn't do without them.

I believe F1 is bigger than anyone or any team that participates in or controls it, including Ferrari and Schumacher.

Asa · 22 Jan 2005, 14:56 (Ref:1207154)

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

Kicking-back · 22 Jan 2005, 18:31 (Ref:1207285)

But the other teams want to be in the series with Ferrari - the kudos of ending their winning run will be immense.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Renault commit to 2008	Marbot	Formula One	22	21 Apr 2006 11:15
Jordan sign the Concorde Agreement to 2012	Kicking-back	Formula One	21	20 Jul 2005 23:29
forum facts,,check before commit to!!!!	spa-eau rouge	Australasian Touring Cars.	27	11 Aug 2004 06:40
Vauxhall Commit To 2004 BTCC	Jonny Apex	Touring Car Racing	11	16 Oct 2003 16:52