F1 links: FIA responds, FOTA does not

Here’s a round-up of F1 news and other interesting links I’ve found today.

If you’ve spotted a hot news story, interesting new website or just something funny from the world of F1, please share your links in the comments below.

ACEA (FIA press release)

"The FIA's objective is to enable manufacturers in Formula One to participate as economically as possible, while maintaining the sporting, technical and marketing benefits that the sport offers. By reducing their costs of competition in Formula One, ACEA's members will be able to apply the much-needed savings to their core business, to finance payroll, working capital, capital investments, marketing programmes and dealer support. This will also reduce the industry's need to seek funding from taxpayers or shareholders." ACEA did not raise any points about cost-cutting in their release – they said they were supporting FOTA’s drive to change how F1 is governed.

FOTA (FIA press release)

"Last Thursday, the President of the FIA met a delegation from FOTA consisting of Ross Brawn (Brawn GP), Stefano Domenicali (Ferrari), Christian Horner (Red Bull), John Howett (Toyota) and Simone Perillo (FOTA). [...] The FIA believed it had participated in a very constructive meeting with a large measure of agreement. The FIA was therefore astonished to learn that certain FOTA members not present at the meeting have falsely claimed that nothing was agreed and that the meeting had been a waste of time. There is clearly an element in FOTA which is determined to prevent any agreement being reached regardless of the damage this may cause to the sport." So Mosley is presumably unhappy with a person or persons from McLaren, Renault or BMW?

FOTA: No comment on FIA statement

"FOTA, whilst reserving its position on the specific issues, does not intend to comment the FIA press release issued on the 15th of June and to be involved in a prolonged series of polemical statements that generate confusion and does not help create a positive environment for the ongoing contacts."

The lie of the land

"By standing firm Mosley’s position at the FIA is perhaps stronger now than at any point in the last decade. He is the man who has stood up for the FIA’s authority against the might of the manufacturers. To the FIA he’s a hero, and one whose re-election is now in little doubt. If FOTA wanted to make this about governance, all they have done is cement Mosley’s Presidency."

N.Technology baffled by FIA’s F1 snub

"Autosport understands, however, that the team is on the shortlist of reserve teams in case any of the current squads fails to enter."

FIA/FOTA debate is about control – Ecclestone

"Flavio Briatore wants to create a new series and decide everything. Luca di Montezemolo has a problem with the FIA President. With John Howett, I wonder: what does he want? I'm not even sure he knows himself."

Astounding fact about the Brawn GP team

"According to this document Honda is still the majority owner of the team." Spotted on Twitter by BritsOnPole and debunked.

Ferrari helps the research

Luca di Montezemolo is auctioning his own Ferrari 5999 GTB (thanks Persempre!)

Motor Cars at Bonhams Silverstone

List of the old BARs, Hondas and Super Aguris being sold by Brawn.

Is 2010 the time to invest in Formula One?

"If we suppose that the cap will remain at around the €45m mark, the TV revenues and prize money from FOM will cover the majority of the associated costs. What necessity then for sponsors of the participating teams? Virgin has proven this year, even without a cost cap, that smart sponsors can invest in Formula One at a relatively low cost."

3 minutes with…Ross Brawn

“We have new front wing endplates for Silverstone and new rear wing, some different chassis settings again which have come from rig work we have done. We’ve got some upgrades over the next few races which should help again.”

Crash warning for Grand Prix company

"According to a report by business credit risk and information firm Dun & Bradstreet, DVL [Donington Ventures Limited] has a “greater than average risk of business failure” and is more likely to go under than 66 per cent of all British businesses."

Jenson Button and Lewis Hamilton unite in support for British Grand Prix

"Neither Hamilton nor Button have anything against Donington per se, but neither driver can fathom why the race should be leaving Silverstone in the first place or why the track should not be offered the chance to pick up the slack if Donington hits the buffers."

These are links I’ve bookmarked using Delicious. You can see my Delicious profile here.

Advert | Go Ad-free

57 comments on F1 links: FIA responds, FOTA does not

  1. Prisoner Monkeys said on 16th June 2009, 6:20

    *sigh*

    The FIA and FOTA should just get themselves some scalpels and settle this like surgeons. This has gone on long enough, and I’m tired of it. For better or for worse, I just want the war to end, and I don’t much care if the end result means all ten teams leave the championship.

    As for N.Technology not getting a place on the grid, were they really that surprised? Going by Wikipedia, they were set up to oversee Fiat’s motorsport activities; I don’t know if that still holds true, but Ferrari is owned by the Fiat Group. Can anyone else see Mosley picking a team that will be closely allied with Ferrari from the outset? The selection of the new teams shouldn’t have been a political decision, but it was.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 11:21

      The FIA and FOTA should just get themselves some scalpels and settle this like surgeons. This has gone on long enough, and I’m tired of it. For better or for worse, I just want the war to end, and I don’t much care if the end result means all ten teams leave the championship.

      I think most of us would agree with that, Prisoner Monkeys.

      To a degree, too, I go along with your view on N-Technology. I`d take it further, though.
      The choice of who’s in & who’s not as far as new teams go looks to me to have been decided on political grounds. Not good.
      The common thread behind many of the names left out is they have large organisations behind them. That rather smells of the FIA & Max choosing on the basis of who they can more easily control than on pure merit of who should be there.

  2. DGR-F1 said on 16th June 2009, 8:23

    Hmmmm, so Honda still own the majority stake of Brawn GP? Theres a surprise! NOT. So all that happened is they withdrew funding from the actual front-line racing team, and engine development, but not overall support.
    Isn’t that what Max wants all the other manufacturers to do? In an article on the BBC website Ross says they are already developing next years car. What happens if they spend close to £40M on it this year? Will the new rules be stopping them from racing next year?
    I agree with N.Technology though, I think all the ‘new’ teams are being used as pawns in the FIA/FOTA feud. Its about time the FOTA 8 called Max’s bluff and just left.

    • Prisoner Monkeys said on 16th June 2009, 8:37

      Its about time the FOTA 8 called Max’s bluff and just left.

      Except that they have nowhere to go. A FOTA-backed series will not survive because they have no circuits, no sponsors, no commercial or broadcasting agreements and at most they’d be able to field a grid of sixteen comapred to the FIA who will be able to run twenty-six. And they won’t be able to get anyone else because it’s too expensive to build a team from the ground up when the FIA and FOM can offer financial support where FOTA can’t.

      There’s a very good article over at Autosport about N.Technology’s reactions to missing the final cut that explains how the teams were chosen. It says that while Mosley had the final vote, he only chose from a shortlist of five teams and had not been involved until that point. US-F1 might be political because it’s a bid to get American interest going (but that can only be a good thing) and they’ve been in development for years, Campos have experience in the lower formulae and know what it takes to win, while Manor have had success in other open-wheeled categories like F3 and WSR. Even if all three were chosen for purely political purposes, they’re not going to b astounding failures.

      • Rabi said on 19th June 2009, 12:14

        I think you need to check some facts PM
        1) There are plenty of circuits still available for FOTA to race on, places like Montreal, Silverstone, Imola, and NA track, Zolder, Zaandvoort, MagnyCours and I could go on all day here
        2) Sponsors? Last time I checked they were all signed up with the teams. Sponsors like Santander, Vodafone, Marlboro, Panasonic. And if they aren’t associated with the teams they are with the track with companies like Fosters. So the sponsors will go where the greatest show will go and drivers will go
        3) Do you seriously think that for companies such as Fiat, Renault, BMW, Mercedes and Toyota that selling commercial rights to their own motorsports would be a problem? Collectively they have more marketing ability and capacity and budget available to them than CVC and Bernie. They also have more marketable outlets compared to CVC and Bernie. PLUS they being car manufacturers would have just as many – if not more, links in the media and governments that Bernie does.
        4) If FOTA have any sense they will field a larger grid. It’s F1 that will be hurting because all of the expertise, electronics, gearboxes and engines will leave with FOTA. And also remember the only team that prevented Prodrive from entering due to customer cars was Williams – take a guess which series they are in! All the other manufacturers wanted customer cars and if they are going to govern their own rules then they will get customer cars which means lots of privateers.

    • There is no ‘smoking gun’ in the Companies House paperwork to prove that Honda still owns the majority stake in Brawn.

      All we can say for sure is that in Nov 2008, before Brawn GP was dreamed of, Honda’s holding company owned 111 shares in the team. Also that, in March this year, Ross Brawn bought a further 89.

      What we *don’t* have is a clear idea of the fate of those 111 shares – whether they were sold to RB, or bought back by the company, for example.

      We probably have to wait another six months for the next annual return to know for sure. But Honda have stated quite plainly that all shares were sold to Brawn – a statement that will eventually become checkable. So lying would seem to be rather counter-productive.

  3. > Astounding fact about the Brawn GP team

    “According to this document Honda is still the majority owner of the team.” Spotted on Twitter by BritsOnPole and debunked.

    To be absolutely fair and ethical, and to promote other such unfashionable notions such as giving credit where it’s properly due, we must point out that this was at least as much Brawn GP Fanblog as us:

    http://twitter.com/brawngp_fanblog

    But thanks for the shout-out :D

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 11:06

      To be honest I`m a bit mystified as to why the Honda/Brawn thing is causing such debate.
      We know Brawn inherited a great car from Honda. We know, too, that Brawn had help (in different ways) from McLaren, Mercedes & Ferrari to make it to the grid.
      Personally, I don`t have a problem with that.

      I wonder whether there’s just a wish to have a David & Goliath, little man makes good, story? As if in some way small has to be better?

      I don’t think Ross has ever claimed to be a small independent team in the “I did all this alone” vein.
      It doesn’t detract from the good job the Brawn team have done this year, though.

  4. persempre said on 16th June 2009, 10:23

    So Mosley is presumably unhappy with a person or persons from McLaren, Renault or BMW?

    Or possibly Luca di Montezemolo, Keith? ;)

  5. Tom Watson said on 16th June 2009, 11:20

    Autosport is reporting that the FIA planto go ahead with the 40 million cap because talks with fora failed to reach a compromise yesterday.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 11:36

      No big surprise there then, Tom.:(
      I think this has always been about control. The cap is just one way to enforce that.
      The day the FIA is truly worried about team expenditure will be the day they stop changing regs willy-nilly & collecting enormous fees & fines.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 11:45

      From the FIA statement:

      “As agreed at the meeting of 11 June, FIA financial experts met yesterday with financial experts from FOTA.

      “Unfortunately, the FOTA representatives announced that they had no mandate to discuss the FIA’s 2010 financial regulations. Indeed, they were not prepared to discuss regulation at all.

      Oh, come on now.
      If you request the money men to attend a meeting do you really expect them to take on the role of regulation making?
      It`s not in their remit.

  6. PJA said on 16th June 2009, 11:56

    If Mosley is a hero to the FIA then it does not reflect well on the FIA.

    He may have stood up to the Manufacturers but it is an argument which he seems to have made worse, and he has shown he does not car about Formula 1, as long as he is in charge and has the power.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 13:08

      From the FIA Statement linked below:
      “Setting the record straight

      The FIA and FOM have together spent decades building the FIA Formula One World Championship into the most watched motor sport competition in history.

      In light of the success of the FIA’s Championship, FOTA – made up of participants who come and go as it suits them – has set itself two clear objectives: to take over the regulation of Formula One from the FIA and to expropriate the commercial rights for itself. These are not objectives which the FIA can accept.”

      So finally, we get what many of us have thought this was about from the beginning. Not the money, the power.
      Personally, I don`t think FOTA want to take control of all sides, I think they just want to have a fair say & a fair share.

      • Patrickl said on 17th June 2009, 7:54

        Apparently FOTA wanted a veto over the regulations for all (FOTA?) teams. I’m not entirely sure how they would have wanted to apply that, but that’s hardly a “fair say”.

      • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 1:58

        I couldn’t agree with you more Persempre. Very well assessed and put into persepctive.

  7. persempre said on 16th June 2009, 12:55

    It`s getting outof hand now. The releases are coming like ….. OK, better not. Alright, Keith? ;)

    http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2009/Pages/fia_fota.aspx

  8. Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 14:41

    I’m bored with all this now, and have always sided with the FIA… and have seen nothing from FOTA that makes me trust them at all.

    So its goodbye and good luck to FOTA in whatever you choose to do… and hello and welcome to a new F1 that will prove in the next 10 years that the new F1 is more entertaining that the last 10 years.

    Brawn, McLaren & Red Bull, and probably Flav, will return because they know it makes sense… and probably Ferrari with their tail between their legs.

    • Bigbadderboom said on 16th June 2009, 14:52

      As you are aware Dougie you are in a minority, the patronising language in these FIA releases demonstrate their purpose (to gain some fans support) but in my opinion by blowing a smoke screen like this, they, (the FIA) will only strengthen support for FOTA. The sport and its governance has to evolve, so do the economics behind F1. Just like english football had to evolve it’s management (from FA divisions) into Premiership etc, F1 must also return more finance and governance to the teams.

      This argument, which I might add I am very tired of, is about the FIA maintaining control, not only of the governance but also the revenue streams. It’s time to change, the majority of fans recognise this, the manufacturers realise this, ACEA has requested it (With abstence from Porsche). The FIA should negotiate the best deal for Formula 1 and cease their self serving attitudes.

      • Adrian said on 16th June 2009, 15:10

        Here’s the thing. In principle I’m all for the budget cap;

        Give the small teams a chance, get some new blood in, open up the technical regs so once again a clever engineer can make a difference.

        All good, yes?

        However, the way the FiA conducts itself means that I find myself siding with FOTA on this one.

        Seems to me that the best solution to all this would be to lock representatives from FOTA and the FiA in a room with an independant mediator and not let them out until they reach an agreement. Only I can’t see either party agreeing to that can you?

    • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 2:03

      Can you explain why you are dead against FOTA and seem to be a big supporter of FIA please?

  9. Mark Webber summed it up beautifully.

    “It’s got to a point where £80m is paid for one footballer but you’re asked to run a whole F1 team and travel the world for £40m”

    I’ve been an F1 fan for 40 years, yes I was just 4 years old sitting on Graham Hills tyre, in the paddock at Silverstone, Frank Williams drove in his Ford Luton Van, car inside. The point is: F1 won’t be F1 with the potential line up of F3 teams. Yes it’s a power issue, but making f1 into f3 isn’t the way ahead.

    I actually support the idea of a breakaway.

  10. Prisoner Monkeys said on 16th June 2009, 15:26

    I actually support the idea of a breakaway.

    It’ll never work. FOTA simply won’t have enough teams; at most, they’ll be able to field sixteen cmpared to the FIA’s twenty-six. Given the economic situation, no manufacturer is going to want to build a team from the ground up, which is about the most expensive undertaking one can … undertake. And they won’t be able to get any of the teams who applied to the FIA because they’ll already be filling up the rank and file of the 2010 grid. The FIA can promise new teams a future in the shape of the budget cap and FOM is giving them financial support in their debut season. What can FOTA promise them, or anyone else?

    • Bigbadderboom said on 16th June 2009, 16:02

      I wouldnt be so dismissive, the contracts protecting FOM from using certain tracks do not stop the tracks approaching the teams. Also they can field a 20 plus grid as there will be plenty of potential runners as FOTA have already expressed a wish to assist new teams with technical support. There is also the point of sponsorships, FOTA have enormous clout in this area, Sentander, Shell, Vodaphone to name a few, a breakaway series is more likely than you may think.
      Although I don’t want to see F1 broken up, there are many reasons why it is commercially viable. It is about balance of power, F1 would lose a tremendous amount of it’s attraction to fans and thus supporters should FOTA break away. And do not dismiss Williams and FI joining th party when their contracts expire in 2012.

    • Gerdoner said on 16th June 2009, 16:30

      I for one wouldn’t mind 2 similar racing series. Sure, it could go horribly wrong (IRL & Champcar anyone?) but it could also encourage each series to be more fan-friendly and exiting as the other.
      And as we have seen, there are enough of “smaller” teams to step up, so the FIA championship would be full pretty fast.
      Also, why can’t FOTA promise new teams in a FOTA series financial support, too? Or sell cars to smaller teams, something McLaren always wanted to do? They also could run like 3 or 4 cars per team increasing the grid size in the first 1 or 2 seasons to fill up the grid.

      • Gerdoner said on 16th June 2009, 16:32

        My comment was a reply to Prisoner Monkey’s post btw ;)

      • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 19:51

        Theoretically there would be nothing to stop a new series selling customer cars as long as all teams agreed & the financial side was sorted out in such a way as it was not reliant on the present Constructors points system.
        In fact, as long as there was agreement they could have any rules they wish, I believe.
        There are real problems involved in starting a new series but the regulations need not be one of them.

    • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 2:08

      I guess we’ll just have to wait and see . If there is a neeed for a breakaway, only time will tell if it was the right thing to do. And poeple keep giving the cart/irl split as a reason not to breakaway, but maybe The fota teams along with some others can take the faults and problems witht he american split to avoid such things

      • Dougie said on 18th June 2009, 15:12

        Part of me hopes the manufacturers will start a breakaway series, and am sure it will be successful… in the beginning.

        But, what then when the losing manufacturers get fed up, or the board decide they cannot afford to continue through declining sales etc, and start to pull out.

        Any breakaway series run by a bunch of commercial businesses does not stand a chance. They will just end up in the same mess as F1 is now… as F1 was in the late 70′s with FISA/FOCA.

        This time is no different, lets not take a step backwards with a breakaway series, lets move forwards with a new F1, where we hope to finally see overtaking once more on track and edge of the seat racing we once knew and loved.

  11. Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 15:32

    It’s got to a point where £80m is paid for one footballer

    I guess it’s just me then that thinks £80mill for a single footballer is the world gone crazy!!

    A world where millions of billions is spent on warfare, while hospitals are closing everywhere. A world where individuals are offered tens of millions of pounds for kicking a lump of pigskin, or even driving a fast car with the most advanced safety systems, while all around the world thousands if not millions of people are suffering and will suffer every day of their lives. Where car manufacturers spend hundreds of millions of pounds to show how good/crap they are, rather than through intelligent use of resource/money.

    Formula 1 was always about non-manufacturer teams showing what they could do with their limited resources and about the drivers talent shining through. That was what generated an enourmous fanbase and a sport we grew to love. Only in the last 15 years has it turned into success through the size of your wallet, much like football, and the heritage of both is suffering.

    How can anybody justify supporting a local football team, when the players are from every corner of the globe bar the actual town they represent?

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 16:08

      I can see your point, Dougie, & on many things can agree but for different reasons.
      However, we can`t go back. What Max & the FIA are suggesting will not result in a return to what some see as the F1 glory days.

      One thing leapt out at me (well, there were several but I`ll stick to this one ;) ) in the “FIA & FOTA” release. I`ve highlighted it in italics:

      When Honda announced their withdrawal from Formula One in December 2008, they had already entered the 2009 Championship and were contractually bound to compete. Two things were then clear to the FIA. First, any of the manufacturers could stop at any moment. The FIA would have no recourse against the main company, only against the team which would have no assets in excess of its debts. Secondly, it was quite possible that other manufacturers would stop before 2010.

      “Recourse?”
      The FIA has no recourse against the main companies but what recourse has it had against the many independents which have come & gone?
      Does this not seem to you a very odd thing to say?
      It will leave people wondering whether the Cap is just a way of the FIA having access to team accounts to ensure they can gain monetary ‘recourse’ than for any benefit to the sport itself.

      • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 16:10

        Doh – forgot to /quote again!

      • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 2:13

        I can’t help but agree with such a big Ferrari fan like you presempre, but people like Dougie are allowed their opinions, even if others think they are blinkered.

        Time will tell which of us was right.

    • Bartholomew said on 16th June 2009, 16:13

      Yes, this a good reasoning from Dougie.

      In general, I think a great reduction of costs must be implemented, so that it is not the richest teams that can always win, but new teams with talent can enjoy a level playing field.
      At the same time, teams like Ferrari or McLaren have huge staffs and a lot of pride in their technological expertise.

      Could the technical rules be created in a way that they allow both possibilities ?

      — a car should not have such a small ” sweet spot”, meaning that there is only a unique , diificult way of setting it up, and if you do not succeed, you are half a second off the pace, as happens now.
      — a car should be relatively easy to develop, so that a small team with talent can develop a winning car. There should be no incentive to having a 400 million budget, since spending a lot of money will not neccesarily bring you a winning car, as happens now.
      — maybe the emphasis then should be on the mechanical side, and practically ban all aerodinamic possibilities ? whatever …

      I have not explained myself well, in any case what I think is that technical rules could be created so as to have teams with a small budget and teams with unlimited budgets, and it will make so little difference that there will be a level playing field in practice.
      In this way everyone would be content ? Teams could exhibit their great technology for marketing and prestige purposes, but not to make races a procession.

      Im sure the FIA and FOTA could sit at a table and figure this out. Mosley is an intelligent man, and so are the team directors.

      If Bernie were not present, I am sure things could be worked out. This is the difficult part !
      Best luck to all in any case !

      • scunnyman said on 18th June 2009, 2:26

        Does anyone anywhere actually believe that in the 59 years of the F1 World Championship that it hasn’t had the biggest teams winning the races and championships ?
        Maybe the likes of Ferrari and Maserati may be much bigger entities now than they were in the 50′s, but that is not to say that those teams were tiny little groups when the championship started. I’m sure the bigger teams were winning over smaller outfits even in the heyday of formula one.

        Fangio moved to the best teams to win his 5 championships, he did not move and make them better.

        • Dougie said on 18th June 2009, 14:41

          Williams weren’t exactly a big team when they took their first championship, and neither for that matter was Tyrrell… or Lotus… or Cooper.

  12. I like potatoes said on 16th June 2009, 16:24

    Hey guys.

    GPWeek’s Editor Will Buxton’s just blogged on the latest FIA release…

    http://willthef1journo.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/the-fia-makes-its-case/

    Makes interesting reading.

  13. Chaz said on 16th June 2009, 16:31

    Maybe the executives at honda are quietly drinking glasses of champayne after each Brawn win…

  14. Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 16:32

    With regards to “Recourse” presempre… I feel the FIA is more referring to Manufacturers pulling out and breaking contracts… it’s a bit different to the smaller teams pulling out because they have gone bankrupt, can’t raise the necessary hundred million billion sponsorship.

    The only way forward is to level the playing field for all, free up the regulations and restrict the money spent. Like that we get innovation with a tight resource.

    With regards to protecting Big teams. I disagree, they should play to the same rules and will have to make staff redundant… oh no! I hear everyone cry, oh dear all the families… you know thousands of people are made redundant every single day and eventually find themselves in new jobs or take career changes, people adapt, its no different for this handful (in comparison) of staff… If Max succeeds and brings more teams into a stable F1 environment, then there will be more jobs available than were lost in the first place.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 16:41

      The Breach of Contract Laws have always been there, though, Dougie.
      That`s precisely what the FIA (& Bernie) are threatening Ferrari with now.
      My question was more “What does the FIA mean by recourse & why are the new regulations necessary for it?”

      • Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 16:52

        Well looking at the definition of recourse it seems they are talking about some comeback obviously, and while the team may have no comeback the manufacturer can easily sidestep its liability.

        The rules are written in such a way that teams can enter and be competitive, and that the financial restrictions make it easier for said team to get sponsorship and remain competitive. Like that the stability of F1 is assured and the teams survival also.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 16:50

      But is it right that the FIA should force companies (which the big teams are) into a position where they have to find millions of pounds of redundancy payments, Dougie?
      They can`t just sack the staff & say”Sorry, the new regs make it necessary” because that would be unfair dismissal. It will cost everyone having to make redundancies an enormous amount of money when, to them, it is unnecessary.
      Natural wasteage could help overcome the problem but you can`t naturally waste hundreds of jobs in a few months.
      I can`t see hundreds of staff moving themselves around the world to work for different factories. Maybe some of the higher paid ones (but they may well just go outside F1) but what about the orinary workers involved?
      I think the point about the staff is entirely valid & that we have to look beyond this just being a sporting issue.
      The FIA really can have no right to tell a successful company how many staff it should employ or what it should pay them.

      • Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 17:01

        Well here is a solution that was used in my company and really upset those who missed out on their redundancy payment which they had worked hard for all their lives, only so the fat company directors didn’t have to make the payments as you say.

        Each big team has an agreement with one or more new teams to hand over a portion of their staff on their existing T&Cs, but after a year that staff now works on the new teams T&Cs and they subsequently lose their length of service and accumulated redundancy payment. Oh, by the way, actually taking redundancy is not an option for the staff.

        Which way do you want it??

        Manufacturers are making redundancies anyway, factories are closing, towns are being turned into ghost towns. Unemployment in some areas is ridiculous and there is no work. These guys are very skilled and experienced at what they do, and will get new work in the motorsport field, probably even in the new F1.

        I would rather a manufacturer cut down its F1 team than close another factory.

        • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 17:25

          I see what you are thinking.

          But I think, when it`s peoples` livelihoods, what type of car they make (F1 or road) should make no difference.
          What happens if the company with the hundreds of staff actually values them whatever capacity they work in & doesn`t want to unnecessarily lay them off?
          If Ferrari employs over 900 people in the Gestione Sportiva & the other large teams also have several hundred of jobs to lose. The new, capped, teams are not going to be able to pick up all the excess even among those families willing or able to up sticks & move (or even have to migrate).
          I don`t know the situation around all the factories but, taking Maranello, as an example. It is quite a small place. The whole economy seems to pretty much rely on Ferrari. Husbands & wives, fathers & sons all work for the company. They spend their money in the local shops, restaurants & bars etc.
          Should a sporting regulatory body have the right to deal an unnecessary blow to the entire community?
          It would be rather like the Food Safety Authority telling Tesco`s it had to cut half it`s staff because corner shops can`t compete. That would be outside the FSA`s jurisdiction &, IMO, should be outside the FIA`s.
          We really can`t treat decent working people as pawns in a power game.

  15. Dougie said on 16th June 2009, 17:43

    I noticed you say…

    If Ferrari employs over 900 people in the Gestione Sportiva

    and…

    other large teams also have several hundred of jobs to lose

    We don’t actually know how many staff there are at risk here… Brawn was short of 300 jobs lost and that was a fat Honda company, so I don’t imagine the other teams will be much worst if at all… therefore we are talking about in total maybe 1200 jobs tops. Most of which are in the UK, and will find new teams mostly in the UK. Maranello mostly supplies the road division, the F1 team comes from all over Italy and the UK. So its just Cologne and Hinwell, again probably most have already moved home to there already.

    The numbers we are actually talking about here is small fry, in compare to total redundancies worldwide, and these guys are significantly skilled in an industry that will outlive all of us. Most people who are made redundant have to re-skill or really move home and family (for the first time and against their desire) or live unemployment.

    Its not like a whole town is suddenly without work, as has happened in the past. Redundancy is now a part of life and you need to be flexible and able to deal with that more than ever, these guys definitely are, I don’t see how they should be treated any different than anyone else just to protect a sport that has got financially out of hand.

    • persempre said on 16th June 2009, 18:05

      No, as I said I can only use Maranello as an example of which I have first hand experience. Yes, the Gestione Sportiva comes predominately from UK, France & Italy but other countries, too.
      It’s the Gestione Industriale which produces the road cars. That also employs people from all over the world but mainly Italians.

      I don`t want this to go downhill into heated debate, Dougie.
      Maybe it`s because I can put faces & names to some of these people that I feel more strongly?
      Even so, I wouldn`t put any lower value on the workers & families of the other teams involved.
      In a bad economic climate to make unnecessary job cuts to satisfy a sporting body seems more obscene than the sums of money involved.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.