Comments on: How solid is FOTA’s legal argument? A lawyer looks at the FIA-Ferrari letters

By: James G

James G — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:17:57 +0000

From Wikipedia:

“Ceauşescu’s second decade was characterized by an increasingly erratic personality cult and a deterioration in relations with Western powers. Ceauşescu’s government was overthrown in December 1989, and he was shot following a televised two-hour session by a military court.”

Swap ‘Ceausescu’ for ‘Mosley’, ‘Western Powers’ with ‘Fota’ and ’1989′ with ’2009′. History does repeat itself!

By: pride

pride — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:26 +0000

Although is hard to draw a conclusion without reading all the contracts, I think now Bernie an max are against the wall. Probably Ferrari may decide to compete in both series if they have the slightest chance of loosing the case. They will apply the 40 million budget cap, spend no money on that silly f1 series just to follow the contract and on the other hand put his best drivers, technology and millionaire budget on the FOTA championship. Because I do not think that in the contract with FOM an FIA they are not allowed to race in another open wheel series.

So I think that the FOTA teams are in a really strong positions to negotiate two things:
get rid of the budget caps
more percentage of the revenue to FOTA Teams.

Really the disccussion arises on the matter that FIA and FOM believes the manufactures should search ways of spending less money to make it a more viable sport, while the manufacturers think it is Bernie that should give them more share of the cake to them so that they can continue on the fundamentals of the sport which is, technological development, and competition at the highest level.

In the end, it is the F1 teams who do the show and takes the risk, while Bernie is the owner of the circus and receives all the money.

By: Brawn

Brawn — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:57:59 +0000

I also had that donkey car idea, racing the horse in the new series.

Good article but Im also interested in the other teams standpoint. Are they all able to leave and race together? Nearly all Ive read is Ferrari related. And if Ferrari are forced to race next year would the other teams follow suit?

Why has it come to this

By: CJD

CJD — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:43:53 +0000

The FIA is a private club that has abrogated to itself a number of powers that may relate to it’s own series of races but cannot relate to those series that it does not control. FOTA has more than enough credibility to issue it’s own competition licences. Is there anyone at FIA with F1 driving experience?

None of the cost reductions proposed by Mosley has any credibility if not affecting the overall costs of the series. There is no evidence that he has asked FOM to reduce their fees.

The new regs propose that each team gets $10m from FOM, much less than they do now. Is that why FOM/etc has not sought to control Mosley until now? (why did the dog not bark in the night)

By: HounslowBusGarage

HounslowBusGarage — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:51:19 +0000

Completely different question.
The FIA controls Licences and Superlicences, doesn’t it? A new FOTA-administered series would not have to require superlicences would it? The FIA might not grant a superlicence to a driver participating in the FOTA series. Indeed, the FIA might threaten to revoke all licences from any driver that participated in a FOTA series, which would mean FOTA drivers could not even race at events like Le Mans . . . and there would be little prospect of racing in any other series once their FOTA series careers had finished.
Problem?

By: Woodgoat

Woodgoat — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:21:39 +0000

Ah!, you’re pathetic.

By: al_amana

al_amana — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:12:14 +0000

Just to clarify. You are commenting on the concorde agreement GB2009? Because my point is in relation to any contract (if any) that may are may not be disputed. I am purely saying that there seems to be a case that the FIA has to answer for. That being the regulations that were agreed to when contracts were signed. I can’t imagine there not being a “get out” clause if regulation changes become unacceptable or the team/s can prove that they will cost them. I think these types of clauses stand up in court?

By: GB2009

GB2009 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:33:27 +0000

The concorde agreement is currently not applicable. It expired at the end of 06 (I think), and teams have either been sticking to an ‘in principle’ agreement with FOM, or sigingi individual contracts (ala Ferrari and Red Bull, and reading ebtween the lines, they got more money for doing so)…

So this argument (unfortunately) wouldn’t stand up in court.

By: Prisoner Monkeys

Prisoner Monkeys — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:28:48 +0000

Only because they argued they were in financial troubles, not we-think-you’re-running-the-sport-like-Ceausescu-did-Romania.

By: Prisoner Monkeys

Prisoner Monkeys — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:25:01 +0000

There’s probably rules against that.