Red Bull sign the Concorde Agreement to 2012

Kicking-back · 18 Jul 2005, 17:04 (Ref:1357895)

Red Bull have become the second team to sign up.

Christian Horner says the decision was reached independently of their Ferrari engine deal.

Given that Christian has remained close to the other Michelin teams, I would not be surprised if more were announced as having signed up in the near future.

Marbot · 18 Jul 2005, 19:05 (Ref:1357972)

Surprised nobody else has posted here yet!

So they have signed up to the Concorde agreement and they didn't get any pressure to do so from Ferrari....Yeah right.

And all the other teams will now fall into line behind Ferrari and the aptly named RedBull Ferrari team.....Don't think so.

Only when the other teams are satisfied that they have got the right deal and regulations will they sign up.

At least now we have both tyre manufacturers in the same series (or do we).

Dutton · 18 Jul 2005, 20:38 (Ref:1358049)

Ah, yes, Ferrari forced them to sign a contract to use their engines and forced them to sign up to the CA against their will.

Naturally.

Red Bull haven't purely acted on what they perceive to be their best marketing interests at all.

No no. It is all down to Ferrari.

Anyway, in time the other teams will sign: of course, once the financial deals have been done that adequately satisfy all parties concerned.

Knowlesy · 18 Jul 2005, 20:57 (Ref:1358073)

Aren't Red Bull ready to sign up for Bridgestone tyres soon as well?

Hmm, how odd.

Dutton · 18 Jul 2005, 21:03 (Ref:1358084)

I had heard such things too.

It makes sense: if one is to take Ferrari engines designed for one series that they are dedicated to that you allign with that series, and if they focus such designs around one type of tyre then joining that tyre makes sense too.

It is clear that these decisions are taken with consideration of the product they are receiving, and Ferrari are the supplier, but this is very different to Ferrari forcing Red Bull to do anything. They don't have to sign anything, they just happen to figure their interests (and thus their marketing potential) is best suited by going this particular route.

I guess they could sign up for a different championship and run tyres that their engine is not designed in mind to. That makes much more sense.

It doesn't have to be inherently evil or abusive.

AH, hang on, yes it does. It must.

I forget.

BootsOntheSide · 18 Jul 2005, 21:37 (Ref:1358108)

There's clearly some political moving going on here. RBR were the last of the Mcihelin teams to decide to appeal the original USGP convictions, even though seemingly nobody other than Max thought they were justified. I'm not sure if there's any credence to the Bridgestone links, but that would appear to be a political rather than racing decision (although a few good results on any Michelin off-days, perhaps in the wet, might be a worthy swap for regularly being 10th-12th fastest and thus lucky to get points)

RBR are probably looking at the corporate kudos (considering the nature of their target demographic) of being tied in with Ferrari (in fact, there would surely be kudos for Ferrari in the same thing). For 2 1/2 years they'd probably get some advantage (tanglible or not) for beign on teh side of officialdom.

Dutton · 18 Jul 2005, 21:42 (Ref:1358114)

Oh, yeah, there is indeed every likelihood of poltical reasons (although I do think there are valid sporting sides to the decisions too) being part of the mix.

What I reject is the notion that somehow these things have been imposed upon an innocent, oppressed Red Bull team that have had no choice in the matter.

They have done what they have done becuase they want to.

Knowlesy · 18 Jul 2005, 21:45 (Ref:1358116)

Oh, nobody is saying Red Bull were given no choice....hell no.

Dutton · 18 Jul 2005, 21:52 (Ref:1358120)

Ah, OK.

As much as anything I wasn't so much responding directly to the posts in this thread.....more pre-empting what may well inevitably follow.

Bad form really, I know I shouldn't.

Gt_R · 19 Jul 2005, 06:45 (Ref:1358305)

I understand your point Dutton.

Many Ferrari-critics would take on this opportunity and claim again how Ferrari is bullying Red Bull into being a support team, etc etc...how Ferrari held a knife to threaten Red Bull with their engines.

What they conveniently forget is that the boss of Red Bull didn't succeed in today's harsh business world being timidly and easily pushed.

He's a smart man, and has been in F1 long enough. The fact that he chose to do what he did thus far would probably be simple good business from his point of view, and what's best for his team.

All we've heard of thus far are threats of teams leaving and starting an alternative series. Indeed, there are sufficient time and money. The manufacturers are capable of pulling it off. But would that be of benefits to them?

That F1 has reached a state of almost true global sports event, and has established itself as the pinnacle of motorsports (despite so many other series being just as competitive and high tech), isn't achevied overnight.

The manufacturers rich enough want to be seen in the glamour and name of F1. Starting a new series wouldn't give them that exposure.

There's only 2 ways they could effectively keep their name. One is to sign up after bargaining for a better deal. Another is to use the remaining years of the current agreement to tear down F1 and make it a failure series bugged with bad press, bad reputation before starting a brand new one.

It's obvious the former is the way to go... but if events similar to Indy keep repeating in the next few years..who knows, they might just succeed in the latter.

Swiss · 19 Jul 2005, 09:30 (Ref:1358415)

I do believe in another post I made that I mentioned the whole situation of the Ferrari engine deal with Red Bull to be a political move. We all know how much Ferrari want F! to stay how it is. There is a massively strong triangle of Max, Bernie and Ferrari which I think is now starting to hurt the sport. With that engine deal I was concerned that they would extend that influence and exert power over Red Bull, I thought it would start with a Bridgestone announcement but the Concorde agreement is even more interesting .....

N I Tram · 19 Jul 2005, 12:13 (Ref:1358534)

I think Red Bull are acting out of their own free will, but it could be that the Ferrari/Bridgestone/Concorde route is seen as the most profitable long term, and certainly Ferrari do need an ally.

mp356a · 19 Jul 2005, 12:51 (Ref:1358569)

The Ferrari junior team siding with Ferrari and signing the new Concorde Agreement? Shocking news!

Dutton · 19 Jul 2005, 15:43 (Ref:1358681)

Quote:

Originally Posted by N I Tram

I think Red Bull are acting out of their own free will, but it could be that the Ferrari/Bridgestone/Concorde route is seen as the most profitable long term, and certainly Ferrari do need an ally.

Absolutely this route is seen as the most profitable longterm (well, medium term is probably the furthest that would be looked to), otherwise it would not be taken.

josvandeperre · 20 Jul 2005, 11:43 (Ref:1359232)

According to f1-live

They were looking for an engine to replace Toyota - does that mean we get a six car Formula Ferrari Bridgestone ?

Marbot · 20 Jul 2005, 11:58 (Ref:1359254)

Quote:

Originally Posted by josvandeperre

According to f1-live

They were looking for an engine to replace Toyota - does that mean we get a six car Formula Ferrari Bridgestone ?

Six cars in a race....it'll never catch on.

If it does then it's European Champcars.

Chaynes321 · 20 Jul 2005, 13:01 (Ref:1359318)

So F1 in future will be Ferrari, Red Bull & Jordan (maybe Minardi?)

and the GPWC will consit of:

McLaren
Renault
Williams
BMW
BAR
Toyota
+ others

I know which one i would rather watch if it were to be like this

Kicking-back · 20 Jul 2005, 14:03 (Ref:1359358)

There won't be two series.

Max says so.

Bernie says so.

The teams say so.

Chaynes321 · 20 Jul 2005, 14:12 (Ref:1359364)

damn

Kicking-back · 20 Jul 2005, 14:13 (Ref:1359366)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaynes321

damn

You seriously think a split would be a good idea?

Obviously not everyone's learned the lesson of the problems in the USA

Chaynes321 · 20 Jul 2005, 14:21 (Ref:1359372)

i was being sarcastic, next time i'll put some faces in

Marbot · 20 Jul 2005, 16:25 (Ref:1359462)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

There won't be two series.

Max says so.

Bernie says so.

The teams say so.

So why have 7 teams still not signed the Concorde agreement.

I don't think they'll be 2 series either.Question is,which teams will be running in it?

Max,Bernie and the teams say a lot of things.And i wouldn't buy a second hand car from any of them.

Dutton · 20 Jul 2005, 16:40 (Ref:1359477)

I think I would by a second hand car from Max is he is acting on behalf of the FIA when he is selling me it.

They haven't signed it because they are trying to haggle more money out of Bernie.

The teams won't have direct runnig of the series at all, there is no way that will be granted - more input mayhaps, but that would be the extent of it.

Snrub · 20 Jul 2005, 16:50 (Ref:1359487)

The reasons don't have to be blackmail. Like Midland, they came into F1 only this year because they want to be in F1. They likely don't have all the control concerns that the big manufacturers do. Ferrari got a sweet deal for signing on first, perhaps Red Bull received a good deal for breaking up the opposition group.

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
The New Concorde Agreement & Ferrari Bias (merged)	ActiveMS	Formula One	21	3 Mar 2005 10:24