<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: F1 links: A way in for Qadbak?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/</link> <description>F1 Fanatic - The Formula 1 Blog with F1 news, pictures, video, comment and analysis</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:31:49 +0000</lastBuildDate> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Prisoner Monkeys</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299754</link> <dc:creator>Prisoner Monkeys</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:27:11 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299754</guid> <description>Something interesting I&#039;ve found about this RRA deal:The RRA needs thirteen signatures to be declared valid. The ten current teams, plus the three equals that thirteen. However, the RRA was signed as a part of the Concorde Agreement, which BMW Sauber did not agree to. So there were technically only twelve teams when the RRA and the Concorde Agreement were signed. The FIA then ran the selection process again and gave the thirteenth slot to Lotus, with the possibility to a fourteenth for QADBK. As far as I know, Lotus have not yet signed the Concorde Agreement - I haven&#039;t seen any news aritcles saying they have - and so they&#039;ll probably be brought in at a later date.The point is not that Lotus are yet to sign on formally, but that the RRA required thirteen signatures when there were technially only twelve teams, which accoutns for the discrepancy.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something interesting I&#8217;ve found about this RRA deal:</p><p>The RRA needs thirteen signatures to be declared valid. The ten current teams, plus the three equals that thirteen. However, the RRA was signed as a part of the Concorde Agreement, which BMW Sauber did not agree to. So there were technically only twelve teams when the RRA and the Concorde Agreement were signed. The FIA then ran the selection process again and gave the thirteenth slot to Lotus, with the possibility to a fourteenth for QADBK. As far as I know, Lotus have not yet signed the Concorde Agreement &#8211; I haven&#8217;t seen any news aritcles saying they have &#8211; and so they&#8217;ll probably be brought in at a later date.</p><p>The point is not that Lotus are yet to sign on formally, but that the RRA required thirteen signatures when there were technially only twelve teams, which accoutns for the discrepancy.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: David A</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299392</link> <dc:creator>David A</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:09:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299392</guid> <description>I still don&#039;t think QADBAK will be back...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still don&#8217;t think QADBAK will be back&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Prisoner Monkeys</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299223</link> <dc:creator>Prisoner Monkeys</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:27:49 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299223</guid> <description>I&#039;ve heard the team that hasn&#039;t signed the RRA is Campos.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve heard the team that hasn&#8217;t signed the RRA is Campos.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Maksutov</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299144</link> <dc:creator>Maksutov</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:08:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299144</guid> <description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Or maybe it has to do with Mosley maintaining a remote grip on the tiller via the aegis of Todt from his seat in the FIA Senate.&lt;/blockquote&gt;that ^</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Or maybe it has to do with Mosley maintaining a remote grip on the tiller via the aegis of Todt from his seat in the FIA Senate.</p></blockquote><p>that ^</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: zomtec</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299138</link> <dc:creator>zomtec</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:38:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299138</guid> <description>The number of teams which would accept Qadbak is larger than the number of teams which are afraid to loose money.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The number of teams which would accept Qadbak is larger than the number of teams which are afraid to loose money.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Nitpicker</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-299122</link> <dc:creator>Nitpicker</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:55:40 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-299122</guid> <description>&lt;blockquote&gt; The teams have already moved to block their entry becuse they don’t like what they’re hearing about the group&lt;/blockquote&gt;
... plus some don&#039;t think 14 teams can be supported, as mentioned by Williams. And for midfield teams, it would mean more competition for points and therefore FOM money. It&#039;s not all about Qadbak&#039;s supposedly dodgy reputation.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p> The teams have already moved to block their entry becuse they don’t like what they’re hearing about the group</p></blockquote><p>&#8230; plus some don&#8217;t think 14 teams can be supported, as mentioned by Williams. And for midfield teams, it would mean more competition for points and therefore FOM money. It&#8217;s not all about Qadbak&#8217;s supposedly dodgy reputation.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Prisoner Monkeys</title><link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2009/10/22/f1-links-a-way-in-for-qadbak/comment-page-1/#comment-298921</link> <dc:creator>Prisoner Monkeys</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:54:18 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=26591#comment-298921</guid> <description>But if QADBAK get in, will they be accepted? The teams have already moved to block their entry becuse they don&#039;t like what they&#039;re hearing about the group; if QADBAK get in by default, FOTA may not be too happy.If I had to take a guess as to which team hasn&#039;t signed on yet, I&#039;d say it&#039;s Lotus since they were only just granted entry arond the time of the new Concorde and had to get sorted quickly.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But if QADBAK get in, will they be accepted? The teams have already moved to block their entry becuse they don&#8217;t like what they&#8217;re hearing about the group; if QADBAK get in by default, FOTA may not be too happy.</p><p>If I had to take a guess as to which team hasn&#8217;t signed on yet, I&#8217;d say it&#8217;s Lotus since they were only just granted entry arond the time of the new Concorde and had to get sorted quickly.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 7/16 queries in 0.026 seconds using apc

Served from: www.f1fanatic.co.uk @ 2010-03-21 19:36:32 -->