Ferrari to present case against FIA

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari has enjoyed much success since gaining its 'technical veto'
Ferrari has enjoyed much success since gaining its 'technical veto'

As revealed on Friday, Ferrari today are attempting to prosecute the FIA in the French courts for, they claim, breaking the terms of their now-infamous 2005 agreement.

The outcome of the trial could be crucial for the future of the sport, but most likely it will prove just another chapter in the latest F1 row – which has now transformed from a dispute over the rules into a conflict that asks fundamental questions about how F1 is run and governed.

The technical veto

The causes of the trial are remarkable enough to begin with. Last week Ferrari admitted to having had a ‘technical veto’ on the F1 rules since 1998 – seven years after Max Mosley was elected president of the FIA.

That the sport’s governing body was willing to grant such an unfair concession to one team is shocking even to the most cynical of fans, as it lends credence to allegations that the FIA has skewed the rules in Ferrari’s favour. By 1998 the team had gone 15 years without a championship. Since then they’ve won 14 out of 20.

Surely this revelation is just as likely to dissuade manufacturers from staying in or joining F1 as the recession is? If the playing field isn’t level there’s no point competing at any price.

Ten days to the deadline

Putting that matter aside, the somewhat ironic implication of Ferrari’s ‘technical veto’ is that they believe it can now be deployed to safeguard the interests of (several of) the teams. That is, to rebuff the FIA’s unilateral imposition of the two-tier budget cap rules.

Meanwhile Mosley is counting down the days until the teams have to submit their applications to compete in 2010. The deadline in May 29th, leaving ten days to go.

He has already issued the threat that, if Ferrari win their case today, the FIA will appeal. If the French courts cannot hear that appeal before the 29th, it could leave next year’s technical rules in disarray.

Ecclestone eager for solution

It’s not hard to read an increasing sense of desperation in Bernie Ecclestone’s words as the manufacturers and Mosley stare each other down. If he cannot avoid the FIA driving the manufacturers away his task of maintaining a sufficient level of income from F1 (to service the gigantic loan taken out by CVC to finance their purchase of it) will suddenly become extremely difficult.

Ecclestone is now adamant that the two-tier aspect of the rules will not go ahead. He told the BBC and the Daily Mail:

I think the most important thing that upset everybody, they didn’t like, was this two-tier technical system, so I think it has been agreed that we shouldn’t have that. We should have just one set of regulations.

Of course, it is not up to Ecclestone to decide F1’s regulations – that’s the FIA’s job. With fresh negotiations between all three parties scheduled for this weekend’s Monaco Grand Prix, the most compelling thing Ecclestone can do to improve the chances of the teams overcoming their opposition to budget capping is to offer them more money.

Now, how likely do you think that is?

Read more: Stalemate: Ferrari taking FIA to court but who is in the right? (Poll)

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

126 comments on “Ferrari to present case against FIA”

  1. By 1998 the team had gone 15 years without a championship. Since then they’ve won 14 out of 20 (championships).

    The whole veto thing is pretty funny but you insinuate that the veto led to Ferrari winning where as the only thing it could really bring about was/is technical stability.

    …it lends credence to allegations that the FIA has skewed the rules in Ferrari’s favour

    Out of interest which rules? I always thought the whole single lap qualifying thing was quite blatantly a ploy to stop Ferrari dominance. Also I think the rules governing driver aids and electronic devices ultimately got the better of Ferrari in the form of Tad Czapski and Renault.

    1. You are right, K.
      There`s a big jump from a veto against changing/ new rules & having preferential treatment on the track. Unfortunately, it`s a jump too many of the press (present company excluded, Keith) are ready & eager to make.
      What amuses me is that the reporters who are now putting these stories out as big news have regularly held themselves up as in-the-know experts, obviously they don`t know.
      Which begs the question how much can you rely on other issues (Max-gate, Spygate etc.) on which they have taken sides?

    2. Although the FIA introduced single lap qualifying to try to stop Schumacher’s and Ferrari’s dominance of F1 making it too dull, I always thought it was a strange way to go about things, (apart from the fact I have always preferred traditional qualifying), because if anyone would benefit from single lap qualifying it would be Schumacher.

      Before the change it was often mentioned in commentary that Michael Schumacher was the sort of driver who could put in one of his best laps on his first run, whereas some drivers such as David Coulthard preferred to put in a banker lap to start with before trying to set his ultimate lap.

    3. PJA

      Single lap qualifying required the winner of the last race to qualify first, on a dirty track, which meant they had no chance of pole.

    4. K

      I remember it the other way round, with the qualifying order being the reverse of the finishing order of the previous race.
      If you failed to finish a race you suffered for that the next race too.

    5. It was changed a few times mainly because it was ridiculous but that’s how it was to begin with, at least it’s gone now.

    6. You really think that one think has nothing to do with the other?… Eh eh…

      And there is still the ‘One Million Euros Question’ to answer – WHY ? Exactly what did Mosley won (tons of money for sure) and in witch areas was de facto Ferrari on top of the other teams, only because of their say in the regulations?

      That’s a topic for you!

    7. Win7Golf

      Do you know what a veto is? Ferrari couldn’t/can’t make new rules, and how do we know that no other team has a veto anyway?

  2. It’s disgusting enough that such a thing should exist in the first place. It’s time for Ferrari to leave F1 and never come back. They won’t be missed.

    F1 without Ferrari will still be F1, and it will be a better F1. They can go off and pollute some other racing series with their backhanders, cheating and lies.

    1. ajokay, F1 without Ferrari? You’re crazy. Ask any casual fan on the street, and ask them what comes to mind when you say F1. Chances are more than half will say Ferrari. Majority of them watch F1 BECAUSE of Ferrari. With no Ferrari, where does that leave F1?

      The sport will stay alive – maybe. But for sure, they will now have to compete for the affections of the fans against either a FOTA-led breakaway or a Le Mans Series with Ferrari in it…

    2. No, I’m still not getting it…I really can’t believe half of F1 fans watch F1 for Ferrari.

      F1 without Ferrari will work just fine. So F1 loses a load of Italian fans, and a few other glory hunters around the globe, oh well, they’ll follow their beloved red machines to whatever other racing series they go to.

      I would still watch F1 without Ferrari in it, I know many many other people who would.

      I’m sure plenty of people who loved Tyrrell still watch F1, or Jordan, etc.

      As a fan of F1 in general, I don’t really mind which teams are in it, as long as there are lots of them and it is still worthwhile watching. I’d still watch F1 without Ferrari easily, no problem, and so would many many others, like yourself, I’m sure.

    3. ajokay, just go to a race and look at the crowd. all you’ll see anywhere is red. with yellow and horses of course (cause almost all teams are red now).

    4. ajokay

      The biggest F1 fan base is for Ferrari, possibly the majority of fans. Many (but not all) watch F1 because of Ferrari which is something that benefits all areas of F1 including other teams with regards to revenue gained from sponsorship and advertising. F1 also trades on it’s history and Ferrari’s participation validates this by invoking it’s place at the sports inception.

      Ferrari, McLaren and others, all have been guilty of cheating, a veto on the technical regulations by itself is not really that much of an advantage if any and now Ferrari’s veto is being used in favour of at least 4 other teams.

      You might like to consider this:

      If Ferrari have a veto who gave it to them, who allowed them to have it and should they be allowed to run F1?

      If the other teams were offered a veto how many would turn it down?

      Do any other teams have a veto?

    5. F1 without Ferrari simply isn’t F1. Even Bernie Ecclestone says Ferrari is F1 and F1 is Ferrari.

      I am not a Ferrari fan, but who wouldn’t want to own one!? Ferrari = motor racing, thrills, excitement, glamorous girls, controversy = F1. :-)

  3. Its been really upsetting since knowing that Ferrari (the most dominant F1 team for the last decade) had owned a veto power on techs regulations.
    It just means tech regulations churned out by the FiA year-in year-out would have had to settle & fit in with the Scuderia team prior to its release!
    What an awful shame!

    1. If you look back, even across the Schumacher years there were times when the rule changes did not favour Ferrari. Changes to qualifying, points & various technical regulations were actually brought in to try to bring their domination to an end.
      Historically, Enzo Ferrari knew the importance of his team to the sport. Why do you think he used to threaten (& sometimes actually carry it through) not to attend races & why do you think the CA includes the clause that all teams must attend?
      Ferrari`s importance to the sport has been known for many, many years & the sport has recognised it in different ways.
      The F1 that everyone gets nostalgic over was no different in that respect to the F1 today.
      So why all the current outrage as though it`s something new?

  4. They just had veto Keith, not an exemption from the rules. So I don’t think that could be a reason for their winnings, sure they would have advantage, but they just set the field, not the winner.

    1. Arun, they set the field to suit themselves, it is a technical advantage non of the others enjoyed, were this any other team would it be acceptable?

  5. One question: How fair has all these championship years been?!!!!!!

  6. Finally, an answer to the hefty punishment ‘ALWAYS’ handed down to the Mac’s and little wonder they ‘ALWAYS’ escape the FiA’s wrath!

  7. I think F1 needs two people out:
    1. Ferrari
    2. Max Mosley

  8. Since then they’ve won 14 out of 20.

    Shouldn’t this be 8 out of 10? Or am I missing something?

    Before 1998 = 15 year of nothing, 1998 is 11 years ago?

    1. Counting both Drivers and Constructors Championships.

  9. With news of Ferrari’s technical veto I wonder what other secret deals have been done in F1?

    1. A great many, I`d think PJA, & in no way all with Ferrari!

  10. We finally know the “real cheats” in F1, not Mclaren and Hamilton, but Ferrari, Mosely and FIA.

    1. Did u forget the spy saga?

    2. Bernification
      19th May 2009, 23:54

      No Madurai, but did you forget Renault did the same, for longer, with more info, used Mac IP. and escaped without a fine? And Toyota did the same- no fine.

  11. People seem to forget its not only Ferrari leaving its 5 teams, that said they will quit, and 2 that will follow. What type of f1 championship will it be when we have brawn, lola, williams, usgp and force india. I will be a Joke. They will all run the same engine which is crap, and none of them apart from Williams is a world wide brand. People forget that f1 is a brand, that is advertised by the teams, the bigger the team the better the advertisment. Inturn more poeple watch f1 which attract the big dollars. Without these teams, goes the drivers, sponsers and the viewers. Spain will turn off, Germany, italy, half of the uk will disappear. When schumi retired ratings dropped 25%. What will happen when 3/4 of the grid disappears. F1 will be dead. BBC will sue bernie and all the tracks wont bother hosting a gp as no body will turn up. Countries host GP for people to visit, and advertising, inturn getting a return on tax dolalrs. If people turn off and dont travel no county will host a gp. Thats the risk the FIA is taking. Bernie knows this and he will end it before it blows up. I have no doubt every contract bernie has would mention Ferrari, Mclaren, and several other clauses relating to the teams. BBC contract would have Hamiltons name on it. As for the technical veto. Ferrari never wrote the rules. There reason for success was because of a team and one driver, schumi. The FIA changed the rules to restrict ferrari and they still adapted. It was the failure of other teams that made Ferrari’s success. As soon as Schumi moved to Ferrari in 96 he was winning races and in contention for the title. Alesi, Berger had nothin compared to Schumi. This veto was offered to them, not demanded.

    1. All merchandising will fall through the floor too. i collect models from minichamps and hotwheels and i cant see them bothering to make any if the demand falls. i agree with you entirely.

  12. @Keith .Winning because of veto is completely false.Even if your statement that FIA tweaked the rules for ferrari is true the rules would still be the same for all the others.Tweaking as u said doesnot mean that Ferrai were exempted from certain regulations .All the teams were given the same regulations.It is Just that ferrari did a superb job than others .You cannot take the victories from them just by interpreting the actual statements.

    1. @ Madurai.

      But Keith is not saying that Ferrari won because of their technical veto. His argument, and mine, is that the FIA gave Ferrari a huge concession, what other concessions would they be willing to give? And you can’t deny that a great many controversial decisions involving stewards have gone in Ferrari’s favour.

      I would miss Ferrari if they left Formula 1, although mainly because I enjoy watching them lose. There’s nothing better than a bunch of arrogant, preening primadonnas throwing their toys out of the pram because they don’t get what they want.

  13. I believe the May 29th date is a bit of red herring. According to Mosley in Autosport,

    “I think that we will probably get anywhere between three and six teams by the deadline, depending,”

    “After that they become a late entry and if there is a space they can take it, and if there isn’t space they cannot.”

    So there seems to be no reason why Ferrari and the other teams cannot join the party later.

    1. Ahh but I read a good point about that earlier somewhere – there are spaces for thirteen teams – assuming Williams, Brawn and Force India apply thats three spaces taken, and then add a number of new applicants, that wouldnt leave enough spaces for all the boycotting teams, so some maybe wouldnt be allowed to enter. I assume, and it is very much an assumption, that if say six or seven teams in total applied on the first deadline – all of them would be allowed in, as it is the original deadline. A later deadline would be set for any further entrants, to fill up the remaining slots. There are seven boycotting teams, or six who have been vocal about it – I am not too sure on Mclaren’s stance – for all of them to enter at a later date should something be agreed, would there have to be sufficient space left, or would they get priority over a new entrant, even if the new one applied at the original deadline?

      If all of that makes sense – I’m not always the best at explaining things sometimes!

    2. What i mean is in a nutshell, yes they would probably be allowed at a later date, but only if there is space – so if a whole bunch of new teams sign up, then the boycotting lot may or may not be able to race a team – depending on how many slots get filled up with the first wave of applicants. What if there is only say four or five slots remaining.

    3. As long as there is space and they pay an, as yet, undisclosed late entry fee to be paid to the FIA:

      See Article 13.1 of the Sporting Regs

      While you`re there you might want to look at what exactly the new budget cap rules are. They start from page 45 of the .pdf.

  14. I echo phil c, its not just Ferrari threatening this its the majority of the grid – Ferrari are just using their bargaining power (which is much stronger than any other of the teams) to try and get something agreed on behalf of themselves and all the others.

    Journeyer said how if you asked any casual fan on the street to name something connected with F1 more than half would say Ferrari – I tend to agree with this. Whilst they may not necessarily only watch because of Ferrari the connection is most definitely there – I defy anyone to find a casual fan that wouldnt mention Ferrari if they were asked to name say two or three things which came to mind when F1 was mentioned.

    If Ferrari left, there would be a knock on effect no doubt. Monza by many accounts is one of the more financially stable races on the calendar. Should Ferrari leave can you see them maintaining the crowds which the currently do? If Ferrari were to go I could see Monza following shortly after. They simply wouldnt get the crowds needed to keep the race a success. And to lose Monza would be huge. And Monza wouldnt be alone –

    Without these teams, goes the drivers, sponsers and the viewers. Spain will turn off, Germany, italy, half of the uk will disappear. When schumi retired ratings dropped 25%. What will happen when 3/4 of the grid disappears.

    Spain’s interest rocketed with Alonso’s success, to the point where they could justify hosting two races – I couldnt see that continuing should all the teams who are refusing to enter for next year actually go through with it. Germany are already struggling – it would be the final nail in the coffin for them.

    Should the teams threatening to actually pull out (which I dont know how sure is the case, we shall see)crowd levels would drop at the circuits considerably, as would tv audiences – and Part of the appeal for a lot of people is the history of a team, the connection a person may have had with that team over many years. I dont doubt that the racing will still be good, but GP2 racing is good, and without the prestige of some of the teams currently there, I fear it may be seen more along the lines of GP2 and A1GP etc. It would be like starting from scratch in a way, which will be very difficult to keep such high levels of interest.

    I dont particularly have a problem with Ferrari having a veto on the rules, its not like the are writing them they are just being included on the final decision process, something which after so many years in the sport is almost earned. I do however think that Mclaren and Williams should receive something similar, maybe on a sliding scale, for their length of time in the sport – but thats a whole different topic.

    All that said though, I do think something will be agreed by everyone eventually, even if it turns very ugly in the process. Bernie has been quoted as saying the two tier thing isnt likely to happen – he can see the need to appease the teams somehow, although as it is Bernie we cant predict exactly how this will be managed. Could be any number of random plucked from the air solutions!

    1. Clare
      Deep throat said follow the money and eventually Nixon went So who gets what if Max gets his way? FOG will cut the teams payments, perhaps to £10m each but who will get the rest.
      TGIT in 2 days

  15. Sorry! Page 43 not 45.

  16. Keith, this is no longer about matters of F1 detail, this has now become serious.

    Ferrari has been driven to a Court of Law by capricious negotiations to establish their rights under an improper agreement between a competitor and a regulatory authority. That regulatory authority has already threatened appeal if they lose on first instance. Where do the Courts stand on being asked to adjudicate such a contract?

    What is the elephant in the room supposed to think of akll this?. CVC Capital Partners legally bought an interest in the commercial rights of FIA formula One. They are entitled to take their returns which are being put at hazard. Where will they seek redress if their rights become worthless?

  17. Madurai, It’s not false at all. Ferrari could pick and choose which rules suited them. For instance, last season if a rule would have ended up decreasing tyre ware, they could veto it as the Mclaren was harder on it’s tyres than Ferarri. It gives them a very big, very unfair advantage.

    How many big teams have fallen by the wayside over the years? Lotus (IMO the greatest of them all), Brabham, Tyrell, etc, but F1 is still here. If Ferrari go, they go. Let them go if they’re going to throw their toys out of the pram.

    1. Actually, not true, Steve.
      Ferrari were at a disadvantage with the tyre compounds which Bridgestone said could not be made softer for safety reasons. Harder tyres favoured McLaren not Ferrari.

    2. Steve, many big teams have indeed gone, but none them had been around in the sport for sixty years, or were/are quite so synonymous with the sport in the same way Ferrari are.

      Ferrari are not the only team ‘throwing their toys out of the pram’ either – almost all of them are, its just Ferrari are using their influence to represent eveybody. Ferrari have a lot more strength in the argument than someone like Red Bull or Toyota who have only been around a few years – they simply dont have the same impact as Ferrari do. Thats why Ferrari are standing up and complaining the loudest – they know they have more sway than some of the other teams who are of the same view.

      My worry is not just Ferrari pulling out, although in my opinion that would be an awful thing to happen, its with many teams doing it at at once. it would be a disaster for the sport if we were to start next year without seven of this years teams. Whether or not there is a bunch to replace them it just wouldnt be the same.

  18. Many British fans would miss Ferrari but still stick with Formula 1; elsewhere in the world, I’m not sure that would be the case, especially if several other major teams left at the same time. The Ferrari brand really is that big.

    Leaving that aside, I’m flabbergasted by an article I’ve just read on the Autosport website, where Max Mosley claims Ferrari don’t have a case, firstly because they didn’t exercise their veto when the plans were first aired in March – and secondly because they chose to join FOTA!

    Genuine Mosley quote from this article: “Essentially they walked away by forming FOTA. They were always supposed to be loyal to the FIA, work with us and cooperate.”

    We knew and accepted that signing Ferrari up in principle to the new (still unsigned) Concorde Agreement in 2005 was a political move to ensure the breakaway series couldn’t really threaten Formula 1, but I’m stunned that the head of the FIA would make such a blatant public statement, and that he genuinely believes he has a right to Ferrari’s permanent loyalty.

  19. persempre, It was hypothetical. I don’t know if it happened or not, but I was just giving an example of how it could have helped Ferrari :)

    1. Many a time I have read in this site that FIA tried to stopped the dominance of ferrari

    2. :) I wasn`t having a go at you, Steve.

      The tyre issue definitely happened. Keith covered it here
      It`s unfortunate that it has to be Ferrari taking the forefront in this issue because it lays the whole thing open to the usual problems of pro or anti-Ferrari. In the UK, at least, mainly the latter. This is about the rights of all participating teams & it`s a great shame it`s descending to the usual fans yelling at each other over the wall level.

      This would be a good Forum topic if my password would actually work there. Any help, Keith?

  20. You have some good points Clare. I would still watch F1 if Ferrari weren’t there, but I wonder if ALMS and Le Mans with Ferrari would get more TV coverage?
    I have a suspicion that the ‘climb down’ over the two tier proposal is the first phase in Max’s strategy to get the teams to agree to something before the 29th. This is the normal Max bargaining tool anyway. This week we will see him utterly against whatever FOTA say on Friday, but next week they will agree with whatever he says before the 29th. Its the same old story.
    The variable timescale for entries next year is interesting. Does this mean that Max and Bernie might actually have to go hunting for teams to fill the grid? Would they consider lowering the fees to entice the stragglers?
    I also wonder what happens if Ferrari win the court case and Max appeals. Would they pull out of Monaco at the last minute? As I am sure Enzo would have…..

  21. I’m no ferrari fan by far, but FOTA need their help in form of the veto. We should leave the armuments about whether or not Ferrari should have it or not. I believe they should not, but they do have it.
    Without a court being involved, then Max Mosley could and probably would force the teams with Bernie’s backing back in line.

    Anyway going on past form where the courts are used in disputes with FIA Ferrari may win at first and the FIA win on appeal. So this saga could drag on for quite a while yet.

    Right as far as the veto is concerned when all this is over and done with are we going to find out in a few years time that FIA has bought off a different team and given them benefits that other teams don’t have.

    I personally feel that the help that Ferrari have had since 1998 does mean they have had an advantage, and it DOES call into question the validity of their championship wins and other penalties that have gone Ferrari’s way.

    As for Bernie giving the teams more money to stave off the revolt and a possible breakaway. He may well give in a bit to the teams because he is no fool and realises that a weakened championship with lesser teams will probably mean he loses a lot of money, so best to lose some of his money than a hell of a lot.

  22. Whether Ferrai have a legal case or not against the FIA is in some ways irrelevant to me. Ferrari just strike me as spoilt brats. If they don’t get their own way, they bully and threaten until they do. Ferrari need to be brought down several pegs or leave the sport. It is inconceivable that one team can have an over riding veto over every other team for any reason.

    Therefore I’m going to play devils advocate and stick my neck out in support of Max, yes that Max with all his faults and foibles. If Max brings the necessary changes and reforms to better the support and competition then good on him. You have to play hard ball and perhaps his methods rancour and confuse many, including me, but I think Max is the best of the worst people for this hard nose job in order to bring about much needed cost cutting.

    A huge question still remains. Why did FIA give Ferrari this veto and can it really be justified that Ferrari get such a much larger slice of the F1 money pie. This is appaulling. We need transparency…

    1. i agree that Ferrari are spoilt brats and need teaching a lesson.
      But i feel the time for that is after we have gotten this sage sorted.
      The trouble is that the Ferrari of 14-15 yrs plus ago is a totally different animal to what we see now. That old ferrari team i respected, but not the new one. Is there a chance the team could go back to how it once was is debatable. And even if they could, would anybody trust them. I think the worst thing that ever happened to Ferrari’s prestige was the likes of Jean Todt and Michael Schumacher and Ross Brawn joining them, because since that time they have really been seen as spoiled brats.

      This FOTA and FIA problem is bigger than that though and needs resolving before it tears formula one apart.

      I can live without ferrari no problem but i would not want to watch a crap version of F1, that is why i stopped watching indy car.

    2. HounslowBusGarage
      19th May 2009, 22:23

      FIA gave Ferrari the veto reluctantly in exchange for Ferrari’s support of the Concord agreement. They hoped that they would be able to say to the other teams “look Ferrari have signed up, you should do too” or words to that effect. Not sure that it worked so well for the FIA as their agreement with Ferrari is coming around to bite them in the bum.
      One of the most interesting things in reading the posts here, is the similarity between this argument and the argument over MP’s allowances in the UK Parliament. Words like ‘transparency’ and ‘reform’ recur frequently.
      I think this ine of the most exciting periods in F1’s history; we have a real possibility that one of the founder teams – the only surviving founder – will disappear. It’s like The Premiership without Manchester United; NFL without the Dallas Cowboys. Could the Premiership or NFL continue? Of course they could!
      And I still think that Toyota and Renault (possibly Red Bull/Torro Rosso as well) are looking for a face-saving reason to quit F1. They do not want to admit they can’t afford it, that would be bad for mainstream business and egos, so they would like to blame their withdrawl on Max.
      Max is a **** – don’t get me wrong – after all, he caused this problem all those years ago by agreeing to the Ferrari veto in an attempt to intimidate the rest of the teams, and now it’s biting him hard.
      These are exciting times – long live the revolution. Ha!

  23. ferrari without f1 would fare much better than f1 without ferrari. this is fact.

    walk down your average filth-strewn cobblestone street and ask a peasant to name 2 f1 teams. the answer will invariably be, “ferrari and….”

    1. But the peasants in the filth-strewn cobblestone street don’t care about F1, the F1 fans care about F1, and they’re far more likely to give a balenced answer.

  24. Just to agree with Keith and to say that I’m feeling cheated all these years, being forced to watch that odious man (MS) won all those things… with custom rules… no less… It’s funny that when I said anything about FIA being kind of “RED”, people laugh at me, calling it a conspiracy theory… After all it was not a theory. It was the cold hard naked shameful truth… And even those who stand by Ferrari can’t prevent to stop and wonder… If this ‘technical veto’ didn’t exist… will their last championship win, still by the one in 1979 ??? Very SAD news for FORMULA ONE FANS…!

  25. Been reading the site for a looong time, but its my first post.

    As Alonso said in an interview this week, The ingredient to make F1 work is the great team’s that have endured the most time in the sport, and as you know Ferrari have been there since the beginning. So saying F1 will be better without Ferrari is just crap.

    1. This statement would of course have nothing to do with his much speculated move to Ferrari would it…

  26. Let’s suppose there will be two formulas next year:
    – F1 with Mclaren, Brawn, Force India, Williams, USGP, Lola and someone else. Run 2/3 of the year in the new Herman Tilke circuits of the far and middle east. Max and Bernie on top.
    – Formula Whatever with Ferrari, Renault, Toyota, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Audi (?), Porsche (?), Pegeout (?) and so on. Racing in the old stile venues of Europe and America (North and South) like Monza, Spa, Mugelo, Brands Hatch, Silverstone, Sebring, Watckins Glen, Montreal, A-Ring (the old one), Monaco, Imola (pre-emasculation format), Zandvoord,the old Nurburgring, Interlagos….No Max, no Bernie.

    Which one would you watch?

    1. Did you notice the quick change of headline one blog had this morning? It started life as “Max & Bernie must go” & suddenly changed to “Ferrai must play fair or go” (complete with typo).
      Pandering to the masses or is his press accreditation under review? :)

    2. Hey man, do you really believe that, or are you just making it up for fun?…

      It’s completely unrealistic with the economic crisis, to have two competitions ALMOST alike…

    3. Which one would you watch?

      Non of them because TV rights will be on court with Bernie and the new formula representatives, litigating for a long time.

    4. Did you notice the quick change of headline one blog had this morning? It started life as “Max & Bernie must go” & suddenly changed to “Ferrai must play fair or go” (complete with typo).

      Oficially, Ed Gorman has said he is not in charge of the Heads The Times put in his articles…

    5. Yes… because of course Formula Whatever will race on the old nurburgring and pre-emasculation format Imola.

    6. errrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmm let’s see now i wonder which one i’d choose. Maybe the one that sounds like proper formula one.

      And proper formula one is anything without the Max and bernie dog and pony show.

    7. Bartholomew
      19th May 2009, 18:25

      The second one of course. The debate should be cars AND tracks.
      In a beautiful track it doesnt matter what tech details the cars have, and if the budget is 40 or 100

    8. HounslowBusGarage
      19th May 2009, 22:34

      This is not a realistic alternative.
      Formula Whatever will not attract Audi, Porsche (they are part of the same parent company and both are heavily involved in other racing classes), or even Peugeot. It’s not attractive for a new Manufacturer to compete against the existing teams.
      There is though another argument. There may be racing teams in other formulae who are thinking “We’d like to get involved with F1, but we could not compete with the likes of Ferrari, Toyota, Renault . . .”
      And so, if these manufacturer teams disappeared, might we see Dyson, WSR and half a dozen others decide to step up to F1?

    9. Well, Red Bull already races/sponsors teams in WRC, WTCC, DTM, NASCAR and many other series around the world, so I am sure it could back out of F1 quite easily if it wanted to.
      I see no reason why McLaren, Brawn and Williams couldn’t switch to racing in other series, and even running two or three teams around the world. Or joining with other engine manufacturers to develop LMP cars.
      Force India could downgrade and compete in GP2 Asia, and get much better coverage I’m sure. The remaining Manufacturers of Renault and Toyota could side step into WTCC or similar, which will be much cheaper for them, and BMW and Mercedes already have interests in other racing series. Not forgetting Renault building GP2 cars and Ferrari building A1GP cars.
      So you see, if they really wanted to leave F1, the actual teams could find a way to survive, and not have to deal much with Max or Bernie in the future….

  27. persempre, yes I saw it, and I guess thousands did as well. That’s why I don’t take seriously what these so call F1 journo’s say.

    1. Thank you, IDR.
      Maybe it`s just that Ferrari sells more papers/gets more hits than M & B then?

      @ Lynn.
      Very wise.

  28. Judgement apparently expected 2pm (Paris time) tomorrow.
    Unless it get leaked before, of course ;)

  29. tell me how many of you will quit watching F1 if ferrari quits? not even one i suppose. no team is bigger that the sport & certainly it includes ferrari. these matters shouldn’t have come into the public domain in the first place. i agree(for the 1st time) with max mosley when he says f1 will do well without ferrari. we’ve lost so many great f1 teams in the past & we the fans are still enthusiastic about the sport. ferrari or no ferrari the sport will continue.

    1. I think you misjudge the strength of feeling over this, mp4-19.
      I wouldn`t want to see the kind of series that the FIA are currently pushing for. I would stop watching.
      F1 is not the only motorsport series &, if the FIA win, it will definitely not be the pinnacle of motorsport that we have known.
      I think that applies to many people whatever team they may or may not follow.

  30. I might be mistaken, but there is no trial today. They are discussing the merits of an injunction which would put a halt on any changes until a court action can decide on the issues of the actual case.

    I would suspect the court would grant the injunction as the issues will be very complex and not readily fathomable.

  31. @Antifia
    +1 to Formula Whatever !! :D (Formula Antifia won’t be a bad name either)

    By 1998 the team had gone 15 years without a championship. Since then they’ve won 14 out of 20.

    If veto gave them all the technical/non-technical/etc/etc advantage, shouldn’t this stat be 20 out of 20 :O

    Stop hating Ferrari (temporarily) and wait for the Judgment Day.

  32. @mp4-19…I would leave, but it wouldn’t be just because Ferrari left. It would be because the changes to the sport that would force Ferrari to leave, would also force me to leave. The other teams that left F1 in the past did it only because they couldn’t afford it.

    Ferrari’s threat to leave (and Toyota, Red Bull, etc) is over massive changes to the sports fundamentals being administered within 1-year.

    Also, one of the reasons I love F1 is that the technology and the engineering is incredible and very advanced. Example, the paddle shifter that you can now get on many street cars…came from F1. I don’t see how F1 will be able to follow it’s natural evolution as the most technically advanced sport in the world with massive budget caps. I’m all for reduced spending and even a little bit more ‘fair’ spending, but the teams need more freedom. If you can’t afford, leave, like so many of the teams mentioned in this thread have done in the past.

  33. @Antifia

    Formula whatever for me! Sounds great…Audi, Porsche, BMW, Ferrari, Toyota, Peugeot, Renault….Sounds like better racing than Force India vs. Lola.

  34. I’ve got a question for someone, anyone?

    Now max mosley has been quoted as saying that if the teams want to breakaway and for their own series they can and that the FIA will sanction it and regulate if they want. Which to me means that if the teams don’t want the FIA to govern it they don’t have to.

    Now my question is…. If they don’t need the FIA for a breakaway series then they shouldn’t need them for Formula One, so why do they need the FIA to govern F1? Does having the FIA in charge make F1 better? And if not then is there a way that Formula One can extract themselves from the FIA. I know that F1 is Bernie Ecclestone, but even he must admit his close friend Max is ruining F1.

    1. Max also said beware Big Bad Bernie will be lurking behind the table of every promoter that teams want to deal with. He also said something to the effect that cruel television companies would take advantage of innocent teams. He also said that the teams would have to prepare their own safety code which would be checked by his crew. He also said previously:-

      “The FIA is a private organisation with no mandate to control all motorsport, domiciled in Europe but not governed by European law and I will take my teddy to Monaco if you dare question that”

      He seems to have said a lot other than “I resign”

    2. I would have thought the teams are contractually tied into the television deals in some way, so I’m wondering exactly how easy is it for them to form a breakaway series…

  35. Hey Keith, have you noticed that Joe Saward has an article on his blog about Innovation in British motorsport. The same story you linked 8 days ago.
    You reckon he’s being a bit slow to find these stories or that you are just more on the ball?

  36. Paint me as cynical, but are most of us aware what veto power actually is? It means that Ferrari had indisputable power in REJECTING any measure, rule, technicality, procedure, amendment, et al., that it wanted to. I don’t know if any other team had this power, but I’ll assume that they did not.

    Think about the UN Security Council. The five most powerful nations in the world (US, FR, GB, RU, CN), coincidentally the first five to gain access to nuclear weapons, can block ANY legislature with just a one nay vote. That’s what Ferrari could do. Could it write the FIA sporting or technical regulations? No. But it could reject anything it desired.

    Regardless of WHAT this meant, it was powerful.

  37. “Of course, it is not up to Ecclestone to decide F1’s regulations – that’s the FIA’s job.”

    With all due respect, Keith, I think you’ve missed the point of this whole exercise in resistance. It’s not the FIA’s job to decide F1’s regulations. It’s the FIA’s job to police the rules. It has been overstepping it’s bounds for years now, and the teams have finally said “Enough. We will decide the technical regulations, and while we’re at it, we want more money.”

    I believe Pitpass were the first to point this out. I can’t copy and paste from their page, but it was Ecclestone who pointed out that because of an EC ruling, the FIA cannot interfere with the commercial side of the business, and randomly changing the regs does that. Again, the FIA cannot legally change the rules and regs, and this is probably what the essence of Ferrari’s argument will be. I believe this is just the opening salvo in FOTA changing the face of F1.

    Well worth clicking through and reading the article:

    1. It’s a good read Arnet,and here it is.

      Friday’s announcement that Ferrari is seeking an injunction against the FIA to prevent it from introducing a two-tier structure to F1 puts a new light on comments made to Pitpass’ Chris Sylt late last year by Bernie Ecclestone. At that time, Ecclestone bluntly told Sylt that since F1’s regulations affect the commercial side of the sport, the FIA should not be writing them. FOTA, the association of F1 teams, may well have cottoned on just in time.

      “The sporting regulations basically are what generate the income and we run the commercial business. The FIA should just be the police looking at the rules,” said Ecclestone and the teams agree.

      “The international federation should simply be the referee. We should write the rules, not have them imposed by Max without speaking to anyone,” said Flavio Briatore, Renault F1 team principal, on Thursday and it looks like he has the law on his side.

      The reason for this is a European Commission ruling in 2001 that said the FIA must “have no influence over the commercial exploitation of the Formula One Championship.” Ecclestone’s comments echo this is as he told Sylt that “when we had this problem with the European Commission, they made it very clear that the FIA purely regulate the sport. Even to the extent that the teams and us should be writing the technical and sporting regulations.”

      But even before the EC ruling, Mosley acknowledged the FIA could not dictate on areas which interfere with the teams’ businesses.

      In 2000, at a UK government Select Committee meeting covering tobacco sponsorship of F1 teams, Mosley said “the difficulty is that we are dealing with commercial entities whom I have to persuade. If I could just say that is it and dictate, but I cannot. We can on the rules, on things like safety, but we cannot on things which would interfere with their commercial affairs.”

      ‘So how can the FIA make the cost-cutting regulations?’, you may well ask. Well the answer, according to Ecclestone, is: “They can’t really. The teams allow them.” He explains that the FIA has been writing the regulations because the teams haven’t opposed it. However, by suggesting the budget cap, Mosley looks to have tipped the balance and the teams are no longer playing ball.

      Pitpass understands that on 10 May FOTA Vice Chairman John Howett was reminded of Ecclestone’s comments that the FIA should not, under European law, be writing F1’s regulations. So even if Ferrari’s injunction fails, the FIA could face further action from the teams and this time its very powers of lawmaking could be at stake.

  38. In truth Max must have something up his sleeve. Just figure that as soon as he got talking about the budget cap Lola, Lightspeed and others dive in. I ask since when are Lola interested in F1 and why now and not before?

    I suspect that Max is interested in diluting the power the major manufactures have on F1. Haven’t anyone asked the question – If we want a low-cost series why not have an F40Cap then all interested parties can join.

    It seems that there are many talk about Ferrari dominance as of recent. In truth Mc Laren have had several runs and if F1 was BORING with Schumacher, why is nobody talking about the BORING F1 when Prost and Senna used to race against each other while the others watched. Incidentally the FIA did nothing then.

    1. My friend,

      First, McLaren, not like Ferrari, had two great drivers and gave them equal opportunities to win, so with a better car, they race each other.

      In the dark Schumacher times, we had ONE Ferrari and a mule painted like a Ferrari, backing up his boss, Schumacher. Like that, even I could be World Champion a few times… and if the mule started to kick… it got fired and then came another – Ervine, Barrichello (still waiting for the book about his time in Ferrari), Massa, none of them had any chance at all… Even when he broke his leg and returned on the last races to ‘help’ Ervine against Hakkinnen, we could see he didn’t really want to help – he couldn’t win, so f**k it, he didn’t care about the team… and the result was a Championship for McLaren…

      You can’t compare these two situations – the duels Prost/Senna were vibrating, thrilling! The races were shows!

      The dark Schumacher era – now that was BORING… just seeing the cars going around and around, knowing before the races started, who was going the win…

      Only I and others, that really love F1, even hating that man, never missed a race!

  39. As usual, Alianora la Canta provides the best analysis of the current situation. She covers all possible outcomes of Ferrari’s case.

    ‘Ferrari has applied to the French civil court to block the 2010 regulations because the FIA has broken Appendix 5 of the Sporting Regulations in applying the budget cap unilaterally. All regulation changes, according to the Sporting Regulations, must go via the Technical Working Group or the Sporting Working Group, according to which of the two primary rulebooks is being modified. Since the budget cap affects both Technical and Sporting Regulations, both the TWG and the SWG would have had to agree before the WMSC were permitted to decide on the matter.

    The FIA took the budget cap idea straight to the WMSC without going through the TWG or SWG. As a result, it is in clear breach of Appendix 5 of the Sporting Regulations. No penalty is specified for the offence, which means that Article 16 applies. Unfortunately none of the penalties in that Article (drive-through penalty, stop-and-go penalty, 25s time penalty, ten-place grid penalty) can sensibly be applied to a governing body. As a result, some other form of redress is necessary. Either the FIA has to be forced to comply with the contract or the teams (current and any who apply for a 2010 entry) have to be compensated for the wasted time and resources.”

    Read on here:

    1. This is not what I’ve read in “La gazzetta dello sport”. It seems Ferrari, has not applied because FIA has broken Appendix 5 of sporting regulations. He has claim his rights according to what was agreed with FIA in the Concorde Agreement signed in 2005.

    2. Clearly, the FIA needs to be given a stop and go penalty.

      That is, Max needs to stop fiddling with the regulations and go quietly into retirement.

  40. Hey, Formula Whatever seems to have some converts – amem! Let me, however, address the objections of those who couldn’t find their faith yet. In order to avoid battles with the TVs, they could give the first year for free (not having Bernie around to take all the money will provide plenty of chance to recoup the investment in the following years). When it comes to court battles, the teams could all move temporarily to Italy or Brazil – the legal processes in these countries are so bizantine that would be a century before anything would be stoped because of them. And if you need more encoragement, think of it: Planetf1 and F1Magazine would continue to be hooked to F1 (or so I pray)! And so would Jack Stweard – so we could have a proper proper measure of danger in the sport again(bring back the Woodcut!). For the Mclaren fans, there are no worries either. How long do you think it would take them to swap formulas? It will be a sad thing to race against the likes of Force India!, Thai Power!, Super Aguri!, Team Shazan! (and Lola, Brawn and USGP….)

  41. sunny stivala
    19th May 2009, 20:54

    How sure is Keith Collantine that the FIA are supposed to write the rules?did he checked with the EU?

    1. This goes back to the row between Mosley and the EU in the late ’90s/early ’00s – the upshot of which was that the FIA cannot run the commercial side of F1, which is FOM’s remit, and vice-versa.

      Of course that doesn’t mean that ‘informal’ arrangements don’t work around that – there are plenty of people who believe Ecclestone and Mosley work hand-in-hand…

  42. I am rooting for Ferrari in this spat with the FIA but it surprises me that people are not naming rulings and “rule clarifications” which clearly helped Ferrari – commensurate with Keith’s comments about Ferrari’s veto over the rules.

    Off the top of my head, and since 1998:

    – The banning of McLaren’s “brake-steer” system
    – The banning of the use of Beryllium alloys in engines
    – The banning of Michelin’s “assymetric groove” tyres
    – The allowance of “manufacturing tolerances” up to 10mm on aero devices (post Bargeboardgate, 1999)
    – The banning of Michelin’s 2003 tyre
    – The banning of mass dampers in 2006

    I’m sure there are more, and then there were all kinds of uses of drive-through and other penalties which added up to a pretty clear pattern.

    Extra “prize” money (not for winning but for being) aside, it beggars belief that there was a Ferrari technical veto at all and it casts an extremely long shadow over the last 11 years in F1.

    1. A veto right does not allows Ferrari (or any other that should have it) to interpret rules in his favor. A veto only gives the right holder the capacity to say no to a new proposal for changing technical regulations.

      All examples you have comented where banned because there were against the regulations at that time.

      Is not the same thing.

    2. @IDR

      All examples you have comented where banned because there were against the regulations at that time.

      I’m sorry, but that’s not the case. For example the mass damper was initially deemed legal to use by the FIA, until of course it was then turned into a ‘moveable aerodynamic device’ somehow because Renault were too quick for the Ferrari.

      Anyone who claims a mass damper is part of the aerodynamics is either mad or a liar (or both).

    3. Bernification
      20th May 2009, 0:23

      If the veto is not worth so much, why were Ferrari given it?

  43. It’s pretty close, dude. It’s an incredible power to give to any team, and it can significantly weigh the odds in their technical favor.

    1. Yes, it’s a big power, but is not the same, quite a lot different.

      If you have a veto right that could mean you can say no if somebody try to implement the capital punishment, but having this right, does not allow you to kill every person you may want to.

  44. HounslowBusGarage
    19th May 2009, 22:46

    @ Cahaz at 8.54 pm.
    The teams are not tied to the TV networks. It’s Bernie’s organisation that has the liabilty with the TV networks.
    I am informed by someone who works for him that Bernie is ‘feeling the pressure’ at the moment because he is exposed in every contract if he cannot provide a race with ‘n’ contestants. As I understand it, ‘n’ varies from TV contract to TV contract and it has nothing to do with the FIA minimum of twelve contestants to constitute a points earning event.
    Maybe ‘n’ is twenty, maybe 16 in another contract, but Mr Ecclestone is aware that he may struggle to satisfy every contract in the event of a Manufacturer secession.

  45. Sorry I can’t think of anything too constructive to say, but this is just one big mess.

    FIA and Mosley have mismanaged F1 for far too long and things are so ridiculous I almost want the sport to implode just so we can all start again without the FIA.

  46. Its really funny that Bernie is doing the Curly Shuffle trying to placate all parties involved in order to keep the manufacturers interested and thus the money train keeps rolling. After Maxgate Bernie seemed to want to ease Max towards the door. Now that Mosley’s issues have died down he has stated that he always thought that Max is the guy who should be in charge. (of FIA) Wonder what his thoughts about Maxie are right now?
    The teams do rightly need a stronger voice in the rules-making. I do believe if the teams get a stronger voice that maybe, just maybe, the political BS will go away and stay away. I want racing. I don’t want this drama every year! And it is something different EVERY year. Its getting to be like professional wrestling. This whole thing is a big cluster @#%!.

  47. Meh, Schumacher would still have beaten everyone regardless of any magical veto. Look at where Ferrari is now in the championship. Even Kimi hasnt won in over 1yr.
    As far as Ferrari vs FIA, my money is w/ Ferrari

  48. Bernification
    20th May 2009, 0:34

    Maybe, just maybe, and I hope this doesn’t sound too radical, the teams could start and run their own series, without the pervert and the poison dwarf.

    If the teams need more cash to finance themselves, why not get rid of the greedy little fool who takes more money than all of them= 50% more money to share.

    Get rid of the sadistic one, and you eliminate all of the cloak and dagger political B.S. and allegations of FIA(T) assistance.

    I’m quite sure now, more so than any time in the past, the teams see that they need each other and it’s in everyones interests to actually co-operate.
    Well lets hope Ferrari now seem to think it’s in their best interest. This could have all happened years ago when RD. threatened the same. Ho hum.

  49. Bernification
    20th May 2009, 0:37

    If the teams need more cash to finance themselves, why not get rid of the greedy little fool who takes more money than all of them= 50% more money to share.

    What I was trying to say is, would a budget cut be so immediately necessary if the teams got a 100% increase in revenue from tv rights? (Bernie does take 50%, right?).

  50. Why do people insist that having the power of veto doesn’t mean being able to write the regulations.

    To a certain extent it does. Every new rule could be formulated exactly as Ferrari desires it. Otherwise they could veto it.

    That could even mean they might have dictated rule changes under threat of vetoing the regulations if their changes weren’t accepted.

    1. Maybe every new rule could be queried to death by Ferrari to the point where they “molded” the new rules but how realistic is that? Have you seen how many technical regulations there are?

      Take ’99 when some bright spark at Illmor(?) proposed KERS. The FIA banned it not Ferrari. Ok it wasn’t in Ferrari’s interest to veto the rule but they weren’t the ones who banned it’s use. If Ferrari had thought of using KERS do you think they could have vetoed the banning of it? I don’t know.

      What about ’09? The rules are hardly tailor made to suit Ferrari now are they. Why didn’t they veto the ruling on two tier diffusers?

    2. Why didn’t they veto the ruling on two tier diffusers?

      because they weren’t clever enough to see it in the rules …

  51. 14 out of 20? if that is not domination i don’t know what is..with veto ferrari could design something and if the rules don’t favour their design they could juts veto it until they get what they want..that’s how they got their car to perform so that it could win all the time..patrickl put it in perspective correctly..

    so basically ferrari did cheat since 1998 at least, it was clear, their trophies were bought (bernie) or fixed (veto) schumacher is not that great after all..and they brought the sport into disrepute since action? don’t dream it..

    sometimes f1 would be better off without ferrari..

  52. Maybe the FIA could take the new set of restrictions applied to budget-capped teams and apply them to all the teams. That would satisfy me :D

    1. It’s all well and good having the new restrictions apply to all teams for 2010, and i agree i would like that too.
      But the problem is the amount of money the budget should be and how it could ever be policed properly and what penalties would be brought if a team over spent.

  53. So,the EU forbids the FIA from writing the rules…but as long as I can remember the FIA have done just that. So who then is supposed to be writing the rules? What gets me is why the teams have gone along with this arrangement for so long. Money?And who is the money man in F1? Bernie of course.

    Patrick said.

    Every new rule could be formulated exactly as Ferrari desires it. Otherwise they could veto it.

    Ok Ferrari has a “special veto” re: tech rules. But the way that I read it is that no team has to agree to rules written by the FIA, as the FIA is not the legal rules writing body of F1. Money?

    Bernei said.

    So how can the FIA make the cost-cutting regulations?’, you may well ask. Well the answer, according to Ecclestone, is: “They can’t really. The teams allow them.”

    Keith said.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that ‘informal’ arrangements don’t work around that – there are plenty of people who believe Ecclestone and Mosley work hand-in-hand…

    Me thinks Keith has nailed it!

    What a lovely mess…

    1. I think this goes a long way in explaining Ron Dennis’s untenable position in F1. My guess is he wanted things to run by the book, but he just couldn’t get the support, leading Max to label him dim. Ironic, then that t=now that he’s gone, Max, sweater thread is unwinding.

  54. Apologies for the posting errors…been up 30 hours….uggg!

  55. Against Mosley with this petition:

    I hope Ferrari will win today in Paris

  56. Bigbadderboom
    20th May 2009, 13:15

    Ferraris case has been dismissed by french court, just heard on Radio!!!

  57. ferrari claims were rejected by the court.

    not expected. fota need to review their fight and time surely is short. one week.

    possibly they should start their own series…

  58. ****NEWS FLASH*****

    Ferraris appeal has been rejected by the court of appeal! Good News in my opinion.

  59. Well i think if the news that Ferrari’s court case has been rejected is true then it is a bad day for F1 in my opinion.
    I am no Ferrari fan, but the FIA need to be shown they cannot push everyone around, and i mean Mosley.
    The teams now have to stand defiant even more so in my opinion.
    They cannot let this set back split them up.
    This is a very important issue, and one way or another could damage the sport for many many years to come.

    1. Agreed, scunnyman. As I`ve said elsewhere on here, now it`s time to see what other team(s) have the guts to stand up & take the flak & or which is the latest to have accepted an offer too good to refuse from M & B. Anyone want to place bets on the latter?
      Looks more & more like I`ll be watching other series, doesn`t it?

  60. Ferrari’s attempt to overrule FIA budget decision unsuccessful …… Nelson from the Simpsons would say ‘haa haa’

  61. this could be the end of ecclstone empire. he will have a lot of millionaire contracts in hand that worth a nearly zero in the near future.

    a new series is doubtful because of the money and time available – but it surely can still have a go only in europe in the first year – a change on racing series is definitely a go.

    don’t think ferrari will back of. nor renault, toyota – or germans bmw and mercedes – even red bull’s will pull out.

    bye bernie i suppose.
    and hope.

  62. Bigbadderboom
    20th May 2009, 14:06

    It certainly would be interesting to know the specifics of the FOM contracts with the tv rights holders, I have said before that Bernie could be the big looser in this debacle.
    Even if there were to be boycotts for a season I am sure this would effect the terms upon which these contracts were delivered.

    1. contracts with tv’s are done by fom with f1 in view.

      all other tv stations are free to deal with a new series.

  63. Ferrari lose cost cap injunction!
    FIA triumph in the Paris courts…

    The Italian team today claimed that a leaked entry list for the 2010 championship is more appropriate for a GP3 series than Formula One.

    “Wirth Research, Lola, USF1, Epsilon Euskadi, RML, Formtech, Campos, iSport: these are the names of the teams, which should compete in the two-tier Formula One wanted by Mosley,” the team said on its official website.

    “Can a World Championship with teams like them – with due respect – can have the same value as today’s Formula One, where Ferrari, the big car manufacturers and teams, who created the history of this sport, compete? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to call it Formula GP3?”

    Ferrari, along with Renault, Red Bull and Toyota are not expected to submit entries for the 2010 championship by the May 29th deadline.

    Formula One is so dead… and that joke of a man is still there… dictating rules and schedules… God damn it!

    1. Maybe we should take a leaf out of the teams book & form our own association
      The Formula 1 Fan Association.
      No, we`d confuse the football lot. Easily done, you know ;)

    2. Looking at that list you put up Win7Golf i’d have to say if you had a championship grid with those teams in and say a possible Mclaren and williams on the same grid without the other top teams it would be a shambles.

      We would end up with a Formula One just LIke Champcar was in America just after they split into champcar and IRL. Champcar had Newman Haas and a load of rubbish as far as i could accertain.

      I don’t want to watch a championship where all but 2 teams are lapped 20 times (exaggeration i know).

      This saga needs a suitable conclusion for all parties. And i am afraid in my opinion if max mosley is going to carry on being stubborn then that will never happen.

      Maybe Bernie will have to come along with sweeteners for the teams and Max. It would be a mistake to do a 2005 deal again because it would only delay the inevitable again. we would be back to this point in a few years time.

      Just grow up people and get it sorted.

  64. What they need to do is sit down and actually work how they can reduce the amount f1 teams spend! they spend too much its a fact, and nobody new can afford to enter the sport the way it is at the moment.

    They need to make it affordable so that if people drop out new teams can fill in, otherwise it will just dwindle and die as more and more teams can’t afford to stay in the sport!

    If ferrari have to leave to bring the cost down, then let them go. I think it is a mistake on their part though, instead of yeilding childish threats like “i dont like this so i’ll leave”, how about the go ” i dont like this so ill make it better!” If they all work together they can make it cheaper but still as fun. Look at the budgets they ran amazing teams on in the 90’s!

Comments are closed.