The New Concorde Agreement & Ferrari Bias (merged)

ActiveMS · 2 Mar 2005, 11:43 (Ref:1239951)

Not sure if any other the other websites have quoted parts of the deal that BE, FIA and Ferrari signed earlier this year for post 2008, but the BBC have posted the following article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/4292545.stm

Stating that:

"Among the issues concerning the rival teams and manufacturers are:

Ferrari are guaranteed $67m (£34.8m) every year - an estimated 15-20% of their budget - before any money is distributed to the other teams.

Ferrari have absolute veto over all changes agreed by the other teams, even if the other teams agree unanimously.

Ferrari would get more of F1's commercial revenue if they finished last than any other team would if they won the world championship. "

and BE, Ferrari et al think this is fair???

ASCII Man · 2 Mar 2005, 11:52 (Ref:1239957)

Quote:

Ferrari would get more of F1's commercial revenue if they finished last than any other team would if they won the world championship.

What's the point of competing then if one team get's more than everyone else, even when coming dead last in the championship??

**Adam43** · 2 Mar 2005, 11:56 (Ref:1239960)

Sounds like the current one. All teams have a veto, because decisions have to be unanimous. Is there a change there then, or is it the same with spin on it? Does anyone actually know what is in the new Concorde?

Try Hard · 2 Mar 2005, 11:57 (Ref:1239961)

I would like to have seen what people would have said about this in the early 90's.... "get out of here" probably being apt

And that is just pure arrogance. Yes Ferrari is a special case... but does it deserve to be treated differently to any other team? No... or is that just to idealistic of me?

**Adam43** · 2 Mar 2005, 11:58 (Ref:1239964)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Try Hard

I would like to have seen what people would have said about this in the early 90's.... "get out of here" probably being apt

Well we have known about how the current Concorde agreement works since then. Especially the other teams and they all signed it.

Rossi # 46 · 2 Mar 2005, 12:04 (Ref:1239968)

Ferrari, BE and Max all stink

Bring on the GPWC!

Super Tourer · 2 Mar 2005, 12:19 (Ref:1239985)

I don't think anyone outside the teams and BE/MM knows what is in the the new CA - if the decision making process is going to be along the same lines as the 'old' one, I suggest they tear it up now, as it will only be storing up more trouble for the future.

Inigo Montoya · 2 Mar 2005, 12:23 (Ref:1239990)

As Adam pointed out, this is the way its always been. When Ferrari wins, they are evil, when the lose, they still make money for everyone else

Dixie Flatline · 2 Mar 2005, 13:03 (Ref:1240021)

Williams and Tyrrell held out signing the last Concorde Agreement.

Anyone up for a bet that perchance Williams and possibly Minardi might have a few problems with this version?!

Gt_R · 2 Mar 2005, 13:08 (Ref:1240026)

I see that some people have an insider look to the "agreement".

Com'on..even GPWC offered Ferrari an increased and superior package over the other members to woo Ferrari's support... just because they failed and Ferrari took FIA's offer...they now complain?

freud · 2 Mar 2005, 13:32 (Ref:1240041)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gt_R

GPWC offered Ferrari an increased and superior package over the other members to woo Ferrari's support

C'mmon.. Get a life. Being a Ferrari fan doesnt mean that you never criticize Ferrari. The single most important reason of why the question of GPWC ever arose was equal share of dough. Period.

I am with FW on this.. Bring Max down and take it from there.

**Adam43** · 2 Mar 2005, 13:39 (Ref:1240049)

Lets drop the personal insults. This off-season has been a long and hard one.

RWC · 2 Mar 2005, 13:51 (Ref:1240060)

Ferrari do kind of deserve more than other teams and the GPWC has allways acknowledged that.
The problem now is that bernie and ferrari have maybe shot themselves in the feet by being so selfish and arrogant in demanding so much of the pie.They are seriously risking alienating all the other teams and having a worthless championship where no one else will turn up.

And the voting system of the current concord agreement must go.

Two related points-
1) I wonder how much ferrari really is worth to f1 these days with all the no-compromise ,cynical ,win-at-all-costs attitude they've shown the last 5 or so years?
a LOT of people are thoroughly sick of them.

2) How about ferrari simply live off their so called reputation and brand name? Surely sponsers will be willing to pay more to apear on the ferraris than other cars?
No it's not the ultimate solution but someone should probably suggest it out loud -it might pull a few ego's back into line

*edit*

Oops,looks like i got merged while writing : )
.Most of it still fits though i think

Glen · 2 Mar 2005, 14:12 (Ref:1240088)

All of you are just falling over yourselves to get to the same conclusion as you've already formed!

- Ferrari get a veto - do other teams get a veto? If they do, this is just a question of spin.

Ferrari get more money than the others because they are Ferrari? Not true - they get more money because they are the longest serving and most successful. By the same mechanism McLaren will get more than Toyota - is that fair?

Why not find out the facts, or at least make a teeny tiny effort to see things from another perspective?

BootsOntheSide · 2 Mar 2005, 15:11 (Ref:1240148)

Those two points RWC makes are extremely valid. Formula 1 has probably lost popularity and marketability due to Ferrari in recent years - not jsut their success making things 'boring', but also the amount of legal wrangles they've been involved in (not always their fault, but more often than not). As for the second point, they'd've never got Michael/Rory/Ross et al to join if they weren't Ferrari, so they gain enough from being Ferrari without deserving extra money.

I know all the other teams have a veto, but they haven't used it for their own gains quite so often. The majority want changes, but Ferrari are trying to trap F1 in the same situation as it's been for years. Whether it's tyres, testing, car regulations or whatever, the bulk of their decisions have been self-serving. No other team, except maybe Minardi, have been close to that, and they need (and, frankly, deserve) more help.

Red · 2 Mar 2005, 15:22 (Ref:1240154)

Of course, any other's teams decissions weren't self-serving, but complete altruism.. Rrrrright.

PS: Minardi needs help, I concur. Not Paul Stoddard though. All he has done for Minardi was to turn a loveable team image into a whining and obnoxious one. Minardi deserves more than that.

Super Tourer · 2 Mar 2005, 16:01 (Ref:1240179)

A bit harsh Red.

Maybe Minardi was more 'loveable' when it existed on good humour and expresso, but without PS buying it, they probably wouldn't be here.

You could say the same about Jordan, EJ ran the team on a diet of showbiz and rock n roll and look where it ended up.

I think obnoxious is a bit strong, fighting his corner maybe and the other teams (not Ferrari) don't seem to mind him arguing for change in F1 on their 'behalf'.

Red · 2 Mar 2005, 16:11 (Ref:1240187)

But Eddie never had that 'gimme gimme or I'll bite you' attitude that Stoddard has. As for "without PS buying it, they probably wouldn't be here" that's debateable. Oh wait, they surely wouldn't be where they are now, but that doesn't necessarily means worse

PS: Hmm, "the other teams don't seem to mind him arguing"...

I do vaguelly remember a certain press conference when someone naughty put Stoddard and Dennis in same room... That was a fun read

ralf fan · 2 Mar 2005, 16:51 (Ref:1240239)

I agree that Ferrari probably deserve a larger share... They are the marketing power of F1...in a way these days Ferrari is almost an identity of f1...
but to give them 20% and leave the other teams to share 80% between them (less than 8% per team) is ludicrous and asking for trouble...and if you consider that Williams and Mac would probably get a larger share than the rest...the teams like Minardi who really need the extra dough.... get next to nothing...

Knowlesy · 2 Mar 2005, 17:13 (Ref:1240266)

It does seem a bit lopsided this commercial distribution, to say the least...

Gt_R · 3 Mar 2005, 09:50 (Ref:1240920)

I'd only say that Formula One ought to just reward, moderately, teams for their loyalty to F1. If a team quits and rejoins again..they start from year 1 again.

It's the only way to entice teams not to come and go as they please.

But also the key is to balance that payment, and not make it too "lopsided". I think Ferrari, and a few teams such as Mclaren etc, should be rewarded for their contributions fairly. not a huge percentage, but rather as a token of appreciation.

Marbot · 3 Mar 2005, 10:24 (Ref:1240960)

The payments are obviously "lopsided",otherwise the other teams would have signed up.They've obviously been offered something that wasn't acceptable.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Concorde Agreement leaked onto the web...	Sodemo	Formula One	1	16 Dec 2005 22:47
Williams sign up to Concorde Agreement	Halsey	Formula One	24	9 Dec 2005 16:18
Jordan sign the Concorde Agreement to 2012	Kicking-back	Formula One	21	20 Jul 2005 23:29
Red Bull sign the Concorde Agreement to 2012	Kicking-back	Formula One	23	20 Jul 2005 16:50