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

Posted on Author Keith Collantine

The FIA is being taken to court by Ferrari over the 2010 rules
The FIA is being taken to court by Ferrari over the 2010 rules

Today’s meeting between the F1 teams representatives, the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone failed to resolve the row over the 2010 regulations.

Two hours into the meeting Max Mosley received a text message from his lawyer informing him that Ferrari were beginning legal action in France to block the new rules. The proceedings came to a halt. The case will be heard on Tuesday next week and already Mosley is vowing to appeal if Ferrari win their case.

Both sides are engaged in brinkmanship. Ferrari’s resort to legal action is its response to Mosley’s demand that entries for the championship be received within two weeks – and that current teams who do not enter may lose their place. Toyota has said it is backing Ferrari in the action.

With this, the row has moved beyond the immediate need to sort the regulations out for next year, and onto the question of how F1 is governed. The recent history of F1 is littered with bitter disputes over the regulations. Whenever one agreement is reached a fresh argument springs up within weeks.

If it takes a messy legal row to halt the destructive cycle of bitter wrangling over the rules then perhaps F1 can emerge from this looking stronger. But at the moment it’s difficult to be optimistic.

Who do you think has F1’s best interests at heart? Are Ferrari misguidedly endeavouring to protect the teams’ right to spend themselves out of the sport? Or are they correctly to go to court against a governing body that imposes rule changes arbitrarily and without consultation?

Or is this just a clash of egos in which the sport is ultimately the loser?

Who do you most support in the rules row?

  • Ferrari and the other teams (79%)
  • Max Mosley and the FIA (9%)
  • Neither (12%)

Total Voters: 1,459

Loading ... Loading ...

Read more

110 comments on “Stalemate: Ferrari taking FIA to court but who is in the right? (Poll)”

  1. I voted neither. The FIA should respect the wishes of the teams, because they are Formula One, carry the history and deliver every other week. However, FOTA should respect the FIA as the governing body, and its view on lowering budgets and getting new teams in. If either party remains as stubbern as they now appear, Formula One will fall apart. Power play needs to stop.

    1. I voted neither too.

      They will have to strike some sort of deal soon.

      Actually now I’m starting to get a bit concerned that F1 might just disappear….

      Now we have the situation where those new races, (India, South Korea, Rome, etc…) possibly might never see an F1 race.

      I hope it doesn’t come to that.

      This power struggle needs to stop.

      The budget cap needs to be done but it has to be brought in over a period of time.

      As Jake says below, too many jobs would be lost far too quickly by going down that road, and this isn’t the time to be doing that.

      Has Max thought of the consequences of hundreds of jobs being lost?? There is far, far too many jobs being lost at the moment!!

    2. You two should have voted for the teams because they do recognise that spending needs to decrease, but in an agreed fashion and not in a 2 tier way. The teams ARE being reasonable. Shame you voted as you did because I think if you knew all the facts, you would have voted against Max and FIA.

    3. My thoughts exactly S Hughes. The teams are not against budget capping, thay are against a two tier catagorie. There approch to this debarcle is spot, either everyone is the same or noone is there to race.

      Good on you F1 teams.

  2. The sport doesn’t need Ferrari. Who misses two red cars that fail to finish/run out of fuel?

    There’s far too much money in this sport, £40m is A MASSIVE amount of money, I applaud the efforts of the FIA to bring all the spending under control.

    If Ferrari can’t go motor racing for £40m there’s serious management problems.

    1. Err, yes the sport does need Ferrari? You’re acting like Ferrari aren’t the most successful and famous team in the history of the sport.

      It is far better to cut costs in the agreed ways that have been implemented rather than force a strict budget down the team’s throats.

    2. £40 million is nothing. How many people in GB have that sitting in the bank? If they wanted to, F1 could have 500 new applications just from GB alone.

      F1 should be more prestigious than this. Its all about the image, otherwise youre worth nothing. i.e GP2

    3. Arun...india
      16th May 2009, 17:32

      Even if people are not a ferrari fan.If ferrari are not there then which team would these people hate.It was like how the micheal haters felt once he left f1.They didn’t know whom to end and hence didn’t know whom to support.

    4. Sasquatsch
      18th May 2009, 9:15

      @David A.

      Ferrari is the most successful only because of the 60 years. McLaren and Williams are more successful if you also look at the number of years in the sport.

      And going back in history, do you remember Lotus and Brabham, two successful teams of the 60’s 70’s and 80’s. Who misses them now?

  3. Rob, because you know how to run a formula 1 team?!
    Ferrari, toyota etc can’t get down to the 40 million because they are currently spending 500 million. How many jobs do you think that would result in loosing in one big blow. They need to stagger it, they can’t make a huge jump from 500million to paying 8% of that the next year.

    I voted teams as they know where they stand in getting down to the 40 million cap and can compromise and eventually over some years reach the goal.

    1. Robert McKay
      15th May 2009, 21:45

      The teams aren’t spending £500 million. They’re spending in the region of £140-150 million.

      You’re probably confused between pounds and dollars, but even then still only $250 million USD.

    2. A few months ago there was an article on F1 budgets and Toyota was reported to have a #445 milion budget for 2008.

  4. Robert McKay
    15th May 2009, 21:42

    It depends on what you percieve as “right”.

    If you believe the stories Ferrari were offered a clause that allows them to veto any particular technical rule changes (along with a lot of money), in order to break them from the other teams last time and sign them up to the championship again. No matter on the right or wrongs of how this situation could come to pass that one team could have such influence in the rule making that the others don’t, if true then in essence the FIA are in the wrong if this clause exists and they’ve went over Ferrari’s heads. Thus Ferrari are right to in effect enforce their contract.

    However if you mean in the sense that are the FIA right to push through new rules through – regardless of what the teams (who never like new rules anyway, especially ones they didn’t suggest) feel about it, then that’s a separate issue.

    Both are complex problems. Both have areas of considerable grey.

    It seems apparent that its not really the rules that are in question so much now, as the process of who decides them and how they are implemented. Should the teams make the rules and simply have the FIA as the ref? Or do you need a completely independent body (ignoring the fact Ferrari apparently thus legally have a say in the matter) to make the rules in order to stop chaos? Is there some sort of middle ground that has to be found?

    There’s probably a dissertation in there somewhere, but really all most folk care about is the upcoming Monaco Grand Prix and stuff the internecine politics.

  5. I’m in total support of the teams. As has been said before, they ARE the sport. Although important, Max and Bernie are just support staff. But the reality is this: There’s a long way to go…and a short time to get there (props to the late Jerry Reed). Should be a most interesting couple of weeks.

  6. HounslowBusGarage
    15th May 2009, 22:03

    Nice reasoning, Robert.

  7. A budget cut is necessary, the sport will die if the large teams continue to spend – but not seperate rules, this will also destroy the sport and make it harder for new people to get into it.

    F1 really needs CVC to walk away, Bernie and Max to retire and a new, dynamic team of individuals to run it.

  8. I think that most people agree with the idea of a budget cap (so long as it brings technical freedom at the same time). However, Max’s way of implementing it has been a disgrace. He could have got his way if he had been less extreme – for example a £140m cap in 2010 which was reduced by £20m a season.

    But instead he sets it at £40m, brings it in next season, gives the capped teams ridiculous advantages (effectivley making the cap compulsory) and causes this huge argument with the teams which could see F1 eith break up or lose some of its biggest and most famous teams.

    Max needs to go (or at the very, very least back down from the £40m cap) before irreversible damage is done to F1 over this issue.

    1. Right on the button! This is max and bernie needlessly forcing the issue. Engines lasting longer, Transmissions are starting next year. There are countless ways to implement spending cuts without being a dick about it! This is a sign that max needs togo. If money cutbacks are such an issue, is bernie going to reduce his fee (30 mil I believe)? I would like to see factory ferrari at Lemans though.

  9. I find it funny and sad that the “greatest motor sport in the world” is also the only one that I have seen in my 6 years of watching racing that has courts and appeals and all this political BS. Go to any sight other site other than and click on f1 and what to you see this stuff. There is more news on F1 and its power fight than on the drivers and teams and what they are doing on off time or preping or heck anything. I have been watching F1 for only a few years (05) but is this how it is every year? This stuff takes the fun out of the racing. My 2 cents

    1. Well said jess, all this rubbish that goes on really does my head in and alienates fans.

  10. i think the point Ferrari is making is valid

    if the rules are still to be fully decided, why they have to agree to take part of a series they don’t know how it will end up like?

    i mean, research and development of cars and their technology has to be started pretty much soon… if they decide to enter a series which has no clear rules yet, they might put themselve into problems they didn’t wanted to take into account…

    i don’t see why i have to step into a tennis court, already payed the ticket, and suddenly realizing they decided to put Tommy Robredo against Mardy Fish instead of the Federer-Nadal i was supposed to watch…

    it’s not fair, it’s not clear and above all, the money the manufacturers spend isn’t that tiny to be playing that much…

  11. Just checked how much British Football teams spend before they even start the championship. The big boys spend on average £40 Million.

    Well what Mosley wants is to downgrade F1. Should it be allowed? If we really like what F1 is all about – the ultimate in Motorsport – then what Max did should be undone; otherwise I’m afraid we would lose.

    I hate seeing comments directed at Ferrari – out of spite. In truth no team has persisted in F1 more than they did. For F1 to lose Ferrari = great loss.

    Obviously to the Ferrari fans I will only say. If Ferrari moves to Le Mans then we will switch from F1 to Le Mans.

    1. sasbus, is that 40mill before or after player salaries?

  12. Why will the sport die if the big teams keep spending 2007&2008 were brilliant season’s both coming down to the last race to decide the championship.It only get’s boring when one team dominates and is perceived to have an unfair advantage over the other team’s.Oh yeah that’s this season.

    1. don’t count Red Bull and Sebastien Vettel out yet.

  13. I`ve heard that Force India spent GBP80m last season. That gives an idea of the quality the new regs will encourage.

    All new regs are supposed to be given the all clear by the Formula One Commission, I hear.
    I`m guessing, although I could be wrong, that at the time Ferrari signed their extension to the CA (Jan 2005) they had the foresight to see that this veto was necessary as no other team had signed &, therefore, there may be trouble forming a Commission.
    As it is I don`t think the Commission has sat in ages. Do you know the last date, Keith?

    Whatever the reason, if the veto stops the FIA from arbitarily enforcing ever-changing rules then I`m very pleased that veto exists.

    I voted with the teams.

    15th May 2009, 22:40

    …well…i opted not to vote on this poll but i did view the result so far!…:0…no surprise there then! it seems m&b are in for some opposition yetagain! oh dear…yet ifind myself stillmysteriously happyat 49!:)

  15. Why should Ferrari have a technical veto. In fact, if anything it throws into perspective the quality of their Constructor’s championships and Schumacher’s driver’s titles. Williams front tyres, Renault mass dampers, Ferrari barge boards in 1999.

    F1 does not exist solely for Ferrari’s benefit. manufacturer participation always has been transitory and dependent on marketing budget – Honda, Ford/Jaguar, Renault, BMW, Porsche have all dipped in and out.

    As long as the rules give me close competitive racing it doesn’t matter at all.

  16. Come on, Max Mosley, your time is UP! Just get out of the sport you are killing. How can anyone be reasonable with this deluded old *******? The word starts with p and ends in t! Of course spending needs to decrease, but in a gradual way agreed by all the teams not by one bleeding lunatic of a man! How can ONE man dictate the rules to such a massive sport? If I didn’t know better, I would think I had tripped into Wonderland and was about to have tea with the Mad Hatter for all the reality and sense this situation has. As you can see from the poll, an overwhelming majority of fans just want shot of Mosley (and Bernie) especially now the teams seems to be working together so well (most of the time). WHAT A FARCE! It is just embarrassing for the sport! (Excuse all the exclamation marks but I think this situation warrants them!!)

  17. I think all the teams should done that, not only Ferrari – I believe they think they have some special clause in dealing with FIA that allows them to veto ant proposal… ridiculous… but if that’s true, then all other teams must make sure there is an equal treatment for them… It’s not enough FIA takes pleasure on making up sanctions for McLaren, now to have such a clause (and I’m heard this before…) it’s plain simply outrageous!
    I hope the courts rule against FIA, but, unfortunately, in these times we live… Justice is just a name given to a system that always rules in favor of the more powerful… So let’s hope and see what’s coming out of this mess…

    1. The Mcclaren sanctions was so obviously hatred for Ron Dennis it was laughable. I believe this is another sign that Mosley has lost the faculties to run this sport. I was cheering for the new ferrari drivers at the time. and even I thought 100 mil?! thats absolutely ridiculous! Especially since the docs were given by a Ferrari employee.

  18. Well Keith i think you’re wrong in your appraisal of Ferrari’s approach. I really couldn’t believe i voted to back Ferrari.
    For one thing i wanted to vote all 3 options. And secondly has Ferrari ever said it is against a CAP? so saying they are sticking up for those who want to spend their way out of trouble is a bit misleading.
    As far as the veto that Ferrari have against any rule changes is concerned it is the FIA’s fault and Bernie’s for letting them have it in the first place.
    They let themselves in for this trouble by favouring them years ago when Schumacher joined the team. They should have known it would come back to bite them in the ass eventually. So i have no simpathy with FIA.

    I have to back the teams, because without them there is no F1. And it’s no good Max saying their will be other teams to take over. Does anyone want to watch a watered down championship with a grid made up of junior series cars and drivers?

    It looks like this is going to drag on for months and months and guess who is going to suffer the most, us fans of course.

    1. i’ll agree with what you’ve said here. i voted “neither” because like real-life, there don’t seem to be any good choices sometimes. with umpteen billions on the line, among other things, i would have thought common sense would intrude on our F1 world just this one time.

      i haven’t seen any team come out against a cap, exactly. brawn, williams and force india have quietly come out “for”. ferrari’s language has deliberately left some ambiguity there.

      i think the way ferrari dropped the bomb was a double escalation in this conflict. and rather distasteful, imo.

      don’t think for a minute that ferrari is some white (or red) knight bravely putting themselves between the helpless teams and an evil tyrant. ferrari’s goal in this is to compete in f1, and to wield ever more influence in the sport. they alone have their way with bernie, and many have said they have had their way with fia.

      strange, i cannot recall a sigle scandal or legal battle in le mans.

  19. Lord knows, we’re no fans of Max Mosley.


    If the status quo was preserved, how long before Toyota and then Renault pulled out, because they could no longer make the case in the boardroom that the obscenely large spend was worth it?

    How would you have felt watching a grid of 18 or 16 cars?

    Would that have been the critical number beyond which BMW and Mercedes felt involvement could no longer be justified?

    And, when the big teams were asked to run a third car to make up the numbers, wouldn’t that have been a two-tier championship in all but name?

    How long could Williams, to name one team, have stayed in business with budgets as they were?

    And wasn’t it notable that every single outfit that was mulling over the possibility of an entry refused to move before the budget cap was talked about but took a flying leap at the bandwagon as soon as it was in place?

    There is powerful evidence that Formula One was taking on water very fast, and long before this particular row blew up seemingly out of nowhere.

    Things may have been woefully mishandled by all sorts of people – Bernie, Max, the teams, pick your villain of choice and picture them twirling their moustaches in an evil fashion. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking it was an either/or.

    Formula One simply could not go on asking entrants and sponsors to spend the fantasy sums that it has demanded recently, often for them to drive round at the back of a field dominated by those who could effectively pay for victories. Action was needed and badly, and at least Mosley tried to do something.

    Of course, his judgement about what would work has hardly been borne out by recent events…

    1. well said, sir! my favorite part was the “twirling moustaches”.

    2. HounslowBusGarage
      16th May 2009, 9:08

      I think you (all) have it about right, Brits on Pole.
      NB: I m not defending Max either.

    3. How would you have felt watching a grid of 18 or 16 cars?

      But this is what many fans have been saying for years: F1 car numbers plunged to a little over 20 in the mid-nineties and the FIA kept them that low by requiring teams to lodge a £48m bond just to enter.

      Thus for over a decade F1 has been vulnerable to teams leaving at short notice. Only a recession of enormous scale has prompted the FIA hem to tackle the problem.

      Yes, the likes of Andrea Moda never deserved a place in F1 – but when historic outfits like Tyrrell and Lotus went to the wall perhaps they should have twigged that things had gone too far.

      This isn’t simply a question of being wise after the event. If your floor starts making creaking noises you don’t wait for it to give way before you get the builders in.

    4. If the status quo was preserved, how long before Toyota and then Renault pulled out, because they could no longer make the case in the boardroom that the obscenely large spend was worth it?

      Renault spend a lot less than Toyota and Toyota have just started to produce faster cars so they might well argue that it’s worth it. But that’s beside the point the team recognize the need for cost cutting they’re just not happy with the manor in which the FIA want to go about it.

      How would you have felt watching a grid of 18 or 16 cars?

      Depending on the technological quality and competitiveness of he cars I would be fine with 16. 20 cars hasn’t exactly been a disaster.

      Would that have been the critical number beyond which BMW and Mercedes felt involvement could no longer be justified?

      I doubt it, at least their sponsors would get more coverage.

      And, when the big teams were asked to run a third car to make up the numbers, wouldn’t that have been a two-tier championship in all but name?

      No because the teams would all adhere to the same set of rules. Redbull already run 4 cars anyway.

      How long could Williams, to name one team, have stayed in business with budgets as they were?

      Williams weren’t/aren’t spending £400M.

      And wasn’t it notable that every single outfit that was mulling over the possibility of an entry refused to move before the budget cap was talked about but took a flying leap at the bandwagon as soon as it was in place?

      Where is the evidence for this? Nothing is in place yet.

      There is powerful evidence that Formula One was taking on water very fast

      Show me the powerful evidence?

      Formula One simply could not go on asking entrants and sponsors to spend the fantasy sums that it has demanded recently, often for them to drive round at the back of a field dominated by those who could effectively pay for victories.

      They aren’t fantasy sums of money they are real but F1 didn’t demand them and you can’t just spend to win as Toyota know all too well. Renault won back to back titles on half as much as Toyota spent to win nothing. And another thing the existence of vast sums of money is nothing new.

      Yes, the likes of Andrea Moda never deserved a place in F1 – but when historic outfits like Tyrrell and Lotus went to the wall perhaps they should have twigged that things had gone too far.

      Privateer teams come and go, Ferrari are the only team who have been there from the start. Williams had their chance with BMW and they blew it, not because of money but because of incompetence. McLaren had their chance with Mercedes and they made it work. Look at the differing fortunes of the teams once run by Peter Sauber and Eddie Jordan. Well run teams will succeed and poorly run teams will not.

  20. Raceaddict
    16th May 2009, 0:11

    Not me scunnyman. The last time we had a comparable (watered-down) scenario was the “Jim Clark Trophy”. As you remember this was the “B” trophy for non-turbo cars; schizophrenic at best.

    This is precisely the reason the Le Mans form holds less attraction to me; time-sharing on the track. It goes against the purity that F1 has been able to achieve, and makes it less understandable and therefore less enjoyable to all but the hard-core.

    May I suggest a team-backed impeachment of MM’s throne in favor of Ron Dennis/

  21. 77% backing the teams so that’s a pretty big margin over the other two options.

    I completely agree with what Ferrari are doing, the FIA technical regulations are a joke, they keep changing their goalposts every year and make the teams spend more than they need to.

    Out of interest as I wasn’t around in the 80’s to follow F1 but how stable were the technical regulations in that era compared to Mosley’s era?

    1. regulation changes were spaced out over a few years. the rules in any motorsport always get more loosey-goosey the farther back in time you look.

  22. Bah, it’s all just one big publicity stunt to keep F1 on the front page as well as the back page.
    It’ll all just carry on as normal by the start of next season…

  23. William Wilgus
    16th May 2009, 0:56

    Really, folks, it’s very easy for F1 teams to get down to 40 million—just switch to running go-karts!

  24. Bigbadderboom
    16th May 2009, 1:52

    Why do so many people buy into this unsustainable future outlook?? The sponsors and the boards of directors ultimatley decide a teams budget and it’s future expenditure. These are not stupid people throwing good money after bad, and they know the risks and associated gains that F1 can bring. To believe they need their hands held by some out of touch bigwig from the FIA is an insult, the indusrty should remain self regulating as it is both the teams and the fans that the people putting up the money know they have to look after.
    I’m not sure this is a commercial argument, or even in the best interests of F1, this is about Mosley and his incestance an making his name through fighting battles simply to make a name for himself. Bernie as we all know is simply chasing the buck, but Max is more about power and his own position. The outcome will be more what the teams want than what Max wants, but undoubtadly Max will put a spin on the outcome, and try and make it look a positive for the FIA.

    1. These are not stupid people throwing good money after bad

      Honda were spending a nine-figure sum on a racing car conceived by a motorcycle designer with no sponsorship on it. I beg to differ…

    2. Honda became an exercise in marketing not racing and you have to judge their success by those criteria not in terms of racing.

  25. The FIA have already introduced a huge number of cost cutting regulations, and I feel that the continued use of these are fair, and make more sense than a budget cap. I voted for the teams like so many of us.

  26. It’s been said already, but it’s worth repeating

    The teams are Formula One

    The sport wouldn’t miss mosely or ecclestone

    1. not really. Teams are interchangeable, expendable. Go back 10 years and the teams which were on the grid look very different to today. Go back 10 years before that and they’re different again. Back 10, again. 10 more, again. The team changes, the category remains.

      I’m not saying this is right, or a good situation. And I’m not using it to push any one point of view. But its the reality of the situation.

    2. Teams are interchangeable, expendable.

      Which F1 would get more viewers: one with Ferrari and McLaren, or one with Litespeed and iSport?

    3. I would also like to point out that for me, the tracks are formula one. Silverstone is gone, Spa is every other year at best. They skip North America entirely. All epic tracks with hugh history in f1. But unlike teams running out of money, this was done by FIA management fees! Wow I get to watch two races in the desert and one in China where the stands are empty on RACE DAY!! But they forked over huge $30 mil to Bernie. This is not about the lack of money but who’s hands its going too!!

  27. Jonesracing82
    16th May 2009, 2:49

    shock horror that ferrari has taken something to court!

    1. No not really. When Ferrari wrote the letter to MM a few months back, they reminded him of their agreement with the FIA.

      The media latched onto this to report that Ferrari were seeking to keep the extra money (with an implication of greed), but really it was a shot across MM’s bows that he was in breach of contract (and now as it turns out, over making unilateral changes to the regulations).

      It was obvious at the time that the reason for the letter was a breach of contract and not the money, but no-one in the media made that connection. They just used it to bash Ferrari over the head (again).

      The court prodeedings are just the next step in that process. No-one should be surprised that Ferrari have gone to court over this, least of all MM.

      At stake is the enforcement of a written agreement with the FIA. Ferrari are obliged to try to enforce their legal rights over this.

  28. YES its all about the teams they are all fighting together it’s just that FERRARI have taken the lead against the FIA because they are in the stronger position due to the veto clause.People are forgetting what one man has done to this sport over the last 15 years he and he alone has introduced all the reg changes that have blown all these budgets out from grooved tyres right up to the diffuser row all can be placed at one man’s feet. I think people’s personal opinions or dislikes of certain teams should be put aside on this issue and realise that if the idiot is left in power how long before he changes the rules again at a whim and the remaining teams are crippled by what he believes to be in the best interest of the sport.

    1. well said Sean. Add to that the tracks we get or don’t get to see now. Spa sometimes no North America, Silverstone gone. Traded for boring deserts and empty grandstands. MM and Bernie are ruining this sport.

  29. Peter Boyle
    16th May 2009, 3:04

    This idea that F1 will die if the teams continue to spend
    is ridiculous.

    Providing the teams run balanced books, unlike our
    banks, the money flow in income will automatically limit
    their spending.

    As the market bites, so will the budgets and the teams will reign in their spending on their own. Just as when the market was favourable the teams ramped their spending.


    1. yes it’s the supply and demand basis .Loss in sales loss in income loss in spend basic business 101.

    2. HounslowBusGarage
      16th May 2009, 9:33

      In the wider economic world, Peter, we have all seen what happens when the markets operate unfettered and unrestricted over the past eighteen months or so. Hasn’t been good has it?
      The ‘market bites’ effect you mention will be brought into sharp relief towards the end of this season when some of the major financial sponsors (ING, RBS etc) cut back or withdraw completely. Sponsorship contracts are written seasons ahead. Tranches of agreed money are paid over at signing, commencement of display and also through the season. There is a huge lag between the success or failure of the sponsor’s business activities, and the paying of money to the teams. And if a sponsor company finds itself in difficulties, their immediate reaction is going to be to put all unnecessary expenditure (inc sponsorship) on hold. It won’t be a slow down or gentle decline; it will be a stop. Just like bank lending or the property market. And that’s not going to be good for any team.
      The time to address the problem of next season is this season. And not when some of the teams announce bankruptcy and/or immediate withdrawl.
      Like him or loathe him, Max is trying to address these problems. But, in typical Max style he has managed to enrage the very people who should be on his side.

    3. I agree with you Peter – if theres less sponsors willing to spend big bucks the teams will down grade as necessary, and budgets will shrink.

      I think the FIA should be encouraging cost cutting but not down to £40million – teams currently could spend half of that on wages alone so how on earth are they expected to get down to that level in 6 months?

      If the FIA hadnt brought in KERS then the teams would have spent considerably less money this year..

  30. When everything is put into perspective, what we are witnessing is not something that has suddenly just come about by the demise of Honda F1 and the global depression.
    These factors are just part of the equation, a catalyst in many ways, to where the sport finds itself. For way too many years, decades infact, Formula One has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and has been able to get away with it.
    The envitable ‘crunch’ was always just around the corner. When the big corporations, with their cheque books overflowing with cash, entered the sport as teams, the powers at be rejoiced.
    Nobody, except the fans, gave two hoots about the small independant teams that fell by the wayside, unable to keep up with the big boys. The likes of Tyrell, Brabham, Jordan, Ligier, Sauber, are all consigned to history. The very soul of the sport, sold to the highest bidder, all in the name of revenue and publicity.
    Make no mistake. Not one of the so called ‘teams’ cried when Jordan collapsed, or any other independant. Just another rival eliminated, too bad!
    The likes of Ferrari, BMW Sauber, Toyota, McLaren, etc etc care about one thing and one thing only. Their own interests! This battle has nothing to do with the sports ‘future’, and everything to do with blind ambition and political spin.
    Racked against them, is an FIA president whose credibility was all but destroyed by a sex scandal, and an F1 boss who would sell his mother for an extra $100 million that he neither needs nor would miss!
    Yes the current rules are open for exploitation, as Brawn Gp and their difusers have proved. Whatever rules are put into place, there will always be those who find ways around them.
    For Luca DeMontezemolo or anyone else to claim that all this is for the sports benefit spits in the face of us fans, as it is a complete lie. When Ferrari were winning championship after championship, some years as early as the now defunct French Gp, did Maranello protest?
    When McLaren stole Ferrari documents to enhance their own cars, did the boys at Woking consider the effect their deceit would have on the sport of F1? I could go on and on.
    So lets just remember that all parties involved have had more than a negative part to play in F1’s recent shortcomings. No one here is whiter than white.
    The teams are vitally important, but so is the introduction of fresh teams and fresh drivers. The sport needs an injection of change, starting from the very grass roots of the grid.
    F1 is a very unique sport. Spending $3 billion over six years does not buy you success, as Toyota have found to their considerable discomfort.
    On a positive note though, Ferrari’s actions, may well be a step in the right direction. With so many teams now showing alliances against Max Mosley, the FIA may very quickly find themselves boxed in with only one
    realistic alternative. To find another president!
    I cannot see, even in a man as ruthless and as single minded as Bernie Ecclestone, a reason in allowing any more teams a reason to depart Formula One. He would lose too much money, and he knows it.
    Max Mosley is a loose cannon, as his remarks about Ferrari have proved. He has ruffled feathers before by comments made about Jackie Stewart in the past, when criticised about his policies. In Mosley, you have a man so used to power, after sixteen long years incharge, that he has become totally paranoid and totally dictatorial.
    All around him he sees threats, to his power and his prestige, that he simply cannot stand to see go. His greatest threat, if this ‘war’ persists, is that his power and prestige will be sacrificed in order to maintain the sports existance.
    And, in truth, I do not suspect for one moment that I am alone in the hope that this will be the case.

  31. I just wonder what in the eaqrth those other 20 people in FIA WMSC are thinking? mas Mosley is jsut one man so how he can make rest of them do what ever he wants?

    Well country representing is very ntresting…Tazmania, Sweden, Venezuela, China, Czech Republic, Portugal etc. How many F1 drivers those countries have? Lol.

    It seems that FIA really dont need 20 other people in WMSC when they just say Yes what ever Max says.

    Hearing Max saying that cutting cost has to happens its strange that same time he made KERS rule which has incrised cost and if cost now has to cut that much it means incresing employment rates as well.

    I, as auditor can not understand his ideas. there is no way in the world that somebody can control that cost cut and there is no way that companies let somebody from FIA come and see cashbooks…it against all business life rules.

    I start feell more and more that this is all about power. Max want big teams out and small in so he can controll them better. If he things that teams can cut cost 100 Dollars by over night when next year car is under design allready, he really has lost his mind.

    Other thing is that if Ferrari has VETO rights FIA have broken rule and laws and i dont understand how he thought he can get out from it.

    Maybe he is getting bored when Ron Dennis is not there anymore so he has to start fight with somebody else…

  32. I did mean 100 milj. dollars lol

  33. F1Yankee

    Ferrari may technically oppose a budget cap, but they say they are not opposed to reducing the costs in Formula One.

    1. they have the deepest pockets of all, especially with their arab backing. obviously, that is an advantage they are bent on keeping.

      if they, or any team, were to promise to limit themselves, only a fool could believe them. right? or am i bananas?

  34. Prisoner Monkeys
    16th May 2009, 4:52

    I voted ‘neither’, because I actually think both are being pretty reasonable; the FIA wants to safeguard the future of the sport by expanding it, while FOTA want to see that the sport remains consistent. I think the big problem here is the egos and tensions have led to what amounts to a game of chicken, which both the FIA an FOTA looking to see who will back down first.

  35. The crux of the matter is this – the FIA want total control over F1. The teams dont want them to.

    Who has more right to control – the one making the investment, or the one benefitting from it?

    1. Who has more right to control – the one making the investment, or the one benefitting from it?

      Good question. We do need to keep sight of the fact that this is a three-way negotiation: how much money the teams get from Ecclestone has a significant effect on how large their budgets need to be.

      At the moment a gigantic quantity of F1’s earning leaves the sport to line Ecclestone and CVC’s pockets. Were more of that going to the teams – being re-invested in the sport – this would be less of a problem.

  36. theRoswellite
    16th May 2009, 7:01

    Although my comments are always “time zone inappropriate”, here goes…

    a) Max says he must save F1 from the Big Spenders who will leave the sport vacuously empty when they pull out after realizing their exorbitant spending is unsustainable and indefensible.
    Yet, at this point, his draconian proposals seem to be a more likely cause of their withdrawal.

    b) Levels of spending, and team participation, have changed era to era, but there has never been a time when…”they gave a race, and no one showed up.”
    Max seems to be showing a bit more pessimism than is really called for, especially considering the sporting success of the last two years. (Was he this concerned when one MS was leading a very stolid parade for a considerable part of 5 years in a row?)

    c) F1 employs a good number of folks, most of them very highly skilled and dedicated. His measures will, if adopted, bring to an end a long period of prosperity in the sport; one that has reached around the globe.
    Why does he feel that it is HIS MANDATE to “save” us from ourselves?

  37. I have voted for the teams. However there are many valid and good comments made about the current issues facing F1 today. As Robert correctly stated there is to very complex issues that need to be resolved.

    My concern is that should their be no compromise and the likes of Ferrari, Toyota, Red Bull etc not submit entries for 2010 then F1 is dead after Monaco for the simple reason that none of these team will be spending money on developing their cars for the rest of the 2009 season. You could very well have a situation where they will not participate in the Friday and Saturday pratice sessions, be knocked out in the first part of quali and retire the cars after 2 or 3 laps. Apart from that with Ferrari gone in 2010 you could have extremely poor attendance at the Italian GP and as a direct consequence we could see this venue dissappear from the F1 calender in future.

    Inconceivable – commensense must prevail.

  38. I voted for the teams.

    I think this is more about power than budget caps, but fair enough.

    Yes the FIA should be encouraging teams to cut costs to help keep everyone in business BUT at the end of the day its down to the individual teams to have the right people in place to get the money in etc.

    I think the sponsors and manufacturers are no longer in a position to throw money at the one big marketing exercise that is F1, so the budgets will naturally shrink as contracts are not renewed.

    When will the FIA learn that changing the rules only increases spending not reduces it – leave the rules as they are now for a few years and the costs will come down.

    Max did great things with the sport but now is going off the straight and narrow and I for one hope he sticks to his promise of not standing for re-election. For all those on twitter #maxout!!!

  39. Martin Bell
    16th May 2009, 10:58

    I have felt for some time that the manufacturers wield too much control over F1, as there can be few sports where the participants have so much influence on the rules. This latest sabre-rattling is just another round in this tedious battle for control, which from where I sit does nothing to improve my Sunday afternoons. The manufacturers have tried to invoke the same passion for their teams as Ferrari, but failed. Would any of us really miss Toyota, or BMW, or Renault? Neither side is right, just both completely self absorbed.

  40. Ferrari are clearly bluffing. Who would voluntarily give up their main (only) advertising platform???

  41. The solution is simple: tell Max to get lost as he is an incapable old coot.

    Formula 1 is screwed without Ferrari, so I don’t why he’s allowed to play these games.

  42. The cap and the rules changes are all smoke and mirrors disguising the real struggle: Who’s sport is it, and who will get all the money?

    Bernie and Max are forcing the cap on the teams simply to reduce the amount of money the teams seek from the sport; end of story! More for CVC and Bernie to pocket.

    If Max and Bernie are no longer in a position to dictate these kinds of changes, they will no longer be in a position to secure the cash.

    Of course the teams are willing to reduce costs, but on their terms, not Max’s or Bernie’s. Max is willing to flush the sport’s entire history down the crapper, including Ferrari, simply to maintain his personal position of power and Bernie’s cash. Follow the money.

    Big business at its biggest and baddest.

  43. 1) as a rabid tifosi, let me just say that if Ferrari is NOT bluffing, then to hell with them –
    2) if these things can’t be negotiated without this harmful crap going on, then something big DOES need to change, and this change would/will be painful –
    3) as I mis-posted on an older article, what’s happening on-track for five years now is GREAT – it should be a Golden Age…

  44. The FIA’s proposal has blatant weaknesses in it, ranging from an encouragement to the uncapped teams to spend more to counteract the technical advantage of the smaller teams (this weakness no longer applies as of yesterday afternoon) to requiring the cost-regulated teams to know their staff, suppliers and agencies 14 months in advance on pain of an unspecified penalty.

    To bring in such a proposal in a way that breaks both Appendix 5 of the Sporting Regulations (because neither the Technical Working Group nor the Sporting Working Group agreed to the measure) and also the Ferrari veto simply shows how weak the proposal is.

    Moving the deadline for entry from the end of July to May 29 seals the deal for me. The FIA thinks it can do what it likes no matter how badly it does it without getting help or consultation from anyone that may be able to assist its job. Someone has to do something and Ferrari taking the FIA to court is probably the best thing that could have happened to F1 right now. Maybe in future the FIA will think before imposing new regulations against what would be advisable.

  45. I’m for the teams.
    The two tier thing is nothing and most teams can’t be run with a 40mil budget… not yet atleast!

    They should cap it, but much higher, for sure.

    Let’s hope Max is gone quickly so we get a fresh wind and less political BS.

  46. Pitpass has an interesting article questioning the right of the FIA to make such regulations at all (following the European Union’s ruling in 2001). Bernie Ecclestone seems to have agreed.

  47. I’d like to believe that no team is bigger than the sport, but frankly I don’t. And the fact that McLaren got away with very lenient punishments for two separate serious offences over three years shows that the FIA don’t believe it either – they need all the teams they can get.

    That said, I don’t think Ferrari automatically deserve to get all they have asked for out of these talks. They are the only team that disagrees fundamentally with the principle of a budget cap – surely on that point they will be forced to come to a compromise, and a good thing it will be too.

  48. While the budget cap is a nice idea, in reality it’s stupid. In will be completely unenforceable. There will be a million ways teams can buy things below cost from parent companies, get free labor, or hide costs to meet the cap. You’ll just end up w/ teams arguing about who really spent what (which is always what Max wants anyway).

    My vote: Coup, Coup, Coup!

    It’s high time Max was gone. In a properly run sport, we would never, ever be talking about the governing body because it would be operating smoothly in the background. It just wouldn’t be an issue and that’s one of the biggest problems w/ Max. He manufactures drama to keep himself in power and at the center of everyone’s attention (he’s like a spoiled 5 year old, except there aren’t many 5 year olds who like neo-nazi hookers).

    1. In will be completely unenforceable.

      While true of any top-down budget cap, the FIA hits the nail on the head by asking teams to voluntarily race under the cap. This way, it is up to the teams to prove they comply with the rules. And so they can in effect be found guilty until proven innocent.

  49. Max Mosley in his BBC interview made it very clear he believes that teams will not be able to acquire sponsorship to maintain 200 pound plus budgets. The teams however in their oposition to Max’s plan are saying they can raise the money. The team to focus on is Renault. Renault is struggling now and yet they dont agree with Max even though they will be losing ING next year. Max went on to say that the teams just are accustomed to their budgets and dont realize whats going on. The boards of directors are fully aware of thier F1 budgets. They dont need to make up lies to Max. Max wants gaurantees from teams. How can business’s make gaurantees in a changing economy.
    To me theres something missing from this story. Whats Max’s real motivation here? If he lets that out maybe this can be solved.

  50. i voted for the teams even though i don’t like ferrari..the teams ARE F1, because of support given to them by the fans the sport exists and bernie makes money and max has a job..bernie and max especially are just “by the way”..the fia is just a referee but max is acting like an emperor..

    on another’s interesting that ferrari have veto powers on technical regulations since 1998..makes one wonder of the shine on all those constructors and drivers trophies they have bcos technically one could exercise one’s power to have the regs go one’s way to produce a fast car which suits one’s driver..hmmm..

    anyway, costs need to be this economy everybody is trying to reduce cost, it’s common sense but having a two tier sport with 1 championship at the end is just plain stupid..

    just get rid of max no matter what the issue..he’s been there too long and is becoming an emperor (star wars anyone?)..

  51. Accidentalmick
    16th May 2009, 19:03

    @ Man

    Thanks for tagging that article.

    Makes you wonder why FOTA don’t just tell Mosely to go play in the traffic.

  52. For once, I voted in support of Max and the FIA. Even though I don’t think he should be forcing the issue quite as hard as he is, I admire that he’s trying to change the status quo of the sport, which is a bad business model to begin with.

    For Ferrari, Toyota and the rest of the grumpy bunch, it’s all about fear……

    These big-budget teams are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a season- some are very successful, others are not. But the big money is a security blanket for those involved in F1- they feel if new teams can come in and compete on a much smaller budget, the entire pecking order of the sport will be thrown into uphevial. Moreover, some of the big brass would look quite foolish- can you imagine the Toyota board asking John Howett who Lola is beating his team in every race in 2010 despire running less than half of Toyota’s budget?

    I beleive Flavio had a quote last weke that said teams just can’t come in and spend way less than Ferrari and Renault and compete. My reply to that would be “Why the (insert explative here) not!!!” The bototm line is the big teams view their big spending as a security blanket, and anything that poses a threat to that security, they will fight to the bitter end.

    My answer to the teams currently in disagreement with the cost cuts is “If you and all your people can’t put together a competitive car, and some of these new teams really can, then you don’t belong in the sport to begin with.”

  53. John Spencer
    16th May 2009, 20:06

    It’s always interesting to read the comments on F1Fanatic – whatever you think, there’s always someone with a compelling counter-argument. I voted for Ferrari merely on the grounds that I am incapable of supporting Max. Having read some of the points here and on other sites, I’m sticking with that decision.

    Whatever the outcome of Ferrari’s court action, this whole thing looks like getting a lot more complicated. If you’ve ever tried to explain to a non-F1Fanatic what the difference is between FIA, FOM and FOTA, and who makes what rules, you’ll end up confused. Turns out that FIA, FOM and FOTA aren’t entirely clear either.

    There’s an interesting piece on PitPass explaining that Max and the FIA may not have the power to change the rules in F1, given that the rules influence its commercial exploitation.

    This dates back to a 2001 EU Commision ruling when there was concern over anti-competitive practices in F1. I haven’t read the ruling or pretend to understand it, but one interpretation is that the FIA cannot change the F1 rules without the agreement of the teams (FOTA) and the commercial rights holder (FOM – Bernie).

    It might also seem crazy that one team alone thinks it has a legal right to veto rule changes, but it only has this right because Max and Bernie gave it to them a few years ago to prevent a breakaway series.

    It also seems crazy that Max thinks he knows more about the teams’ future finances than they do. It’s clear that everyone agrees budgets should be cut substantially, but nobody seems to understand why Max’s way should be the only way.

    It’s easy to forget that both Max and Bernie were team owners themselves a good few years ago, and they muscled their way into the regulatory side of F1 to make sure that they got (a) more control and (b) more money. Perhaps this is why they’re so concerned about FOTA doing to them what they did to Balestre et al way back when.

    This crisis also brings into sharp focus the fact that Max and Bernie aren’t the odd couple. Odd, yes. But they only work together when it suits them. I read a biography of Bernie a few years ago, and the one thing that stands out in his character is a preoccupation with business above all else. His (soon to be ex-) wife was astonished to find herself ejected from their honeymoon suite when Bernie ushered in a couple of burly men. Turns out he needed to complete a deal before he could think about anything else.

    I used to see Bernie quite often on Saturday mornings in Fortnum & Mason. He would be having breakfast with his real friends – people he didn’t do business with, in other words. You would have thought the the diminutive pensioner eating a single fried egg with a bunch of old men was running a golf club, rather than a multi-billion pound business.

    Bernie’s going to carry on running that business until the day he dies, and he’s not going to let Max, FOTA or Ferrari reduce his income by one penny.

    He’ll do a deal. He always does.

  54. I voted for Max for the sole reason that I don’t like Ferrari and would prefer them out of F1. Max has called their bluff. Ferrari taking Max to court is a desperate attempt to save face.

  55. I think Ferrari are blowing things out of proportion, and by doing so are loosing a big chunk of their fans that still prefer F1 over any other series.

    Max Mosley’s FIA might be over twisting the teams’ hands, but what he is offering is legitimate and the 2 tier thing now looks to have been just a detail and was never set to be carried out.
    I have always been against limiting budgets, and to me ultimately F1 should go back to the de-restricted days of the 80s and early 90s.
    If de-restriction is to be a ******* child of budget caps and a grid without Ferrari, than so be it. i like the fact that teams not paying as much as ferrari get to almost literally rip the regs up and get a free for all. and i think restricted regulations have given some neat aero solutions on this year’s cars. so i can only imagine what a budget restriction would do if there were no rules. engineers like Newey and Brawn to name a couple would be the stars of the show, and F1 will be back to be at the cutting edge of engineering innovation, albeit at a [40m pound) nickel and dime.

  56. I just watched Max Mosley being interviewd by the BBC [ (possibly only available to UK residence)] following yesterdays FIA meeting with FOTA. I was particularly struck by Max’s admission that the Toyota boss tried to get the rest of the teams to walk out of the meeting in protest by that non of the teams wanted to do this. Toyota are clearly unhappy with the FIA…

  57. I voted for neither, because I’m tired of both sides. I’d support whatever series has the best drivers. That’s why I watch. I could care less who administers the sport, or which teams are involved, however storied their history may be.

  58. 200 pound plus budgets?

  59. I stand 100% behind the FOTA and Ferrari. If Ferrari were to leave F1, it would be like the Montreal Canadiens or Toronto Maple Leafs leaving the NHL. Its almost hard to fathom something like that.
    Speaking of the NHL, they have a cap system where in the cap increases each year depending on the average icome from the season before.
    If FIA want to decrease spending, then they should implement a cap system that slowly decreases at the start of each year. You can’t ask a team that spends an average of 100 million to suddenly drop down to 40 mil. That would result in unbelievable job losses plus many logistical problems for every team. But overall, I don’t agree with a cap system in any form for Formula 1. Every team knows what their budget will be for each season and they won’t spend over that unless they are completely stupid. Let the teams worry about the teams and let FIA worry about the rules on the track.
    As a side note I just want to say: For all that is good and holy, if you want more passing then stop adding street circuits!

  60. The way I see it is that we all love to watch a sport that for the protagonists is all about vested interest. Not different for other sports. Football, tennis, even athletics is like that. So its all about the vested interests of the teams against those of FIA. And obviously through a process like that the sport gets its shape, it develops to something you personally like to watch or not. The FIA feels it is better for it’s own good to have a sport with poorer teams. The teams feel they want to spend as much as they want to do the sport and FIA looks to poorer teams and says “hey I’ve stripped the rich guys off the guns, go fight”. I love the sport and watched it whenever a TV channel would broadcast it in my country, but I never had any illusions about it.
    Budget cap? Could anyone think of a budget cap in England’s premier league? Could anyone ever think that restricting the money Manchester United (which I don’t support) and the other top teams spend would make British football better or more successful? Most probably it would level out otherwise mid class football. That is one thing about budget capping in a world economy driven off profit.
    The second most important thing though is does anyone see anybody out there that would effectively audit a company’s financial books and find out the real numbers hiding behind? Remember Enron? For those that know a bit about financial books there are companies that follow a financial year (fiscal year as it’s called) starting in July and ending next June……… right in the middle of the championship. When are you going to audit? And if you find a team (a company) spent more last year, what is it you do? strip them off their points, positions, or even championships? What is the kind of sport we are going to watch? Action, subject to audit?
    It is stupid to try to impose technical rules through budget capping. Impose cheaper technical rules and let the teams spend what they want.
    I voted for the teams
    Two tier? Try to imagine a 2 tier premier league: half the teams with as many foreign players as they like and the others with the same players for ever! Well it would be a type of sport that one too, but we should find it a name

  61. F1 is all about technology and advance .
    Every week max just want to change the rules as the season goes how is that in any other sport or team event rules are there for the season but it seems that max thinks he owns the teams and the sport.
    If you want to race F1 then nobody should cry about costs it is the top of the range sport.
    F1 is supposed to be more than indy cars but their cars drive faster than F1 cars so why try to limit every thing in f1.
    F1 should have unlimited aerodynamics bigger enjins turbos .
    Why must they race with smaller enjins than what the motor companys sell on the street.
    max is to old for the sport new you blood and non conservative people should have a say.
    F1 is the best better than indy cars so STOP LIMITING IT MAX

  62. While I don’t think either side would put F1’s best interests before their I own, I am defiantly on the team’s side in all of this.

    If it wasn’t for the fact that everyone in F1 says he is massively intelligent, with everything Mosley has said and tried to do to F1 I would have said he was a certified halfwit. It seems that because he was denied a carrier in politics because of his family history he decided to turn F1 into one big political arena, and while some people do all they can to avoid arguments Mosley seems to do all he can to start arguments.

    The best conclusion I could come to about Mosley based on the evidence at hand, assuming he is intelligent and has F1’s best interests at heart, is that his vision of F1 is just too far removed from what I think it should be.

    The teams main problem with what the FIA are trying to do is the two tier regulations. They agree that costs need to come down and that a realistic budget cap should brought in, but does anyone really believe that all the current teams could manage to achieve the £40m budget cap by next season.

    I didn’t think I would ever be glad that Ferrari enjoyed special privileges but hopefully they can manage to use their veto to block the two tier system.

  63. There is only one group of people that will truly benefit from any of this and that group of people is the Lawyers.

  64. I’ve just read an article on Pitpass i think, (too much surfing ) and i reckon the guy has a point.
    Basically he is saying that the FIA should not be implementing regulations in F1, but policing them only. It should be upto the teams and according to himself, Bernie Ecclestone to make up the rules.
    Personally i think an independent group should set up the rules and regulations not the teams and definitely not Bernie.

  65. I just read an interview with Ferrari, who say they aren’t bluffing and the case against Max and the FIA will go ahead. What needs to happen now is for all the other members of FOTA to bring the same case against the FIA before they all meet again on Friday, just to get the point into Max’s thick skull.
    Also, Ferrari seem to be quite happy to leave F1 and return to GT racing and Le Mans, since it will keep them racing and the factory employed, and is part of their heritage too.
    Also, although Max has changed his stance on the ‘two-tier’ aspect of the proposal, I still think the teams are perfectly correct in refusing to agree to such severe budget cuts in such a short space of time. What about the FIA cutting costs, Bernie handing more money over to the teams and reducing the entry fees? These would also encourage more teams and ‘cut costs’.
    Also, what about Max’s grand gesture of making the sport greener? If he wants better use of technology, it will cost more than just painting some stripes on the tyres. And are the teams going to be compensated for the money they have wasted on developing KERS?
    I hope the teams are now suitably angered by Max and Bernies attitude, and maybe will think of boycotting the Abu Dhabi race at the end of the year. It would need a gesture like that to make the point, I think.

    1. The trouble with having the rest of the teams taking Mosley to court is that they do not have this special veto which ferrari have. maybe they can find something in the sporting regulations with which they can use to get their point across to thick head Mosley.
      And as for boycotting Abu Dhabi, I can’t see any of the teams fighting to the wire in the championship to relinquish the chance of much needed points. However if it turns out to be a throwaway race where nobody needs the points then maybe. But by then it may be too late in the year for such a gesture. And do you really think Max Mosley would give a toss about it?

    2. But its a great PR stunt, to have a race where nobody turns up…..

  66. Sasquatsch
    18th May 2009, 9:23

    I voted neither, because I missed the option teams. The option Ferrari and the other teams implies that Ferrari has the control, which they cannot have. It should be a FOTA decision.

    Ferrari does not have the right to go to court just because they don’t agree with the rules. They should confer with the FOTA and take a unanimous stand in this. Just the fact that Ferrari has a veto in this and can block anything that does not agree with them is just not roght.

    The FIA should (according to the European Union) not make the (sporting and technical) rules. They should only enforce them. The FOTA should make the rules, which suits them (and all new entries) and make sure the sports has a long term future. So yes, there should be cost reduction, and no, there should not be a two tier system.

  67. I support Max, (flamesuit on) he is correctly in my opinion looking to the future of F1. Taking the BTCC as an example what major manufacturers are left and will we have that one next year?

    FOTA is a big enough organisation with enough money to get together in the time that was available and meet with Max often and properly come up with a solution to all of this. However, they have not, what concrete proposals have they offered the FIA? what effort have they made to discuss and meet?

    For me the teams just care about themselves, whereas Max cares about the future of F1. If anything I would maybe say 40mill from 2011, 80mill from 2010. New teams can still enter in 2010 with 40mill anyway, as no team ever wins on its debut… and NO Brawn is not a new team.

  68. Oh, if Brawn is still winning at the end of the year then its proof that a major manufacturer can compete successfully in F1 in 2010 under the budget cap.

    …yes, I know that Brawn had an enormous budget in 2008, but so do all the other teams in 2009.

    1. Then you`ll be pleased to see the entry list as published on Ferrari F1 news, Dougie.
      Wirth Research, Lola, USF1, Epsilon Euskadi, RML, Formtech, Campos, iSport

      USF1 has a whole continent to get sponsorship from but consider what makes sponsorship a good buy for the smaller teams. It is the pulling power the larger teams have for audience numbers? They cannot afford major sponsorship of the big boys but they benefit from their presence.
      If the large teams leave how long do you think it will be before sponsors of smaller teams start to jump ship?
      It will be back to “Alf`s Cafe” (apologies if one actually exists) sponsoring their local outfit for one race per season.
      Be very careful what you wish for :)

  69. Formula 1 was Formula 1 before the sponsors arrived… but the sponsors are not going anywhere, especially if they can do it for a lot less.

    As much as the scaremongers go on about Formula 1 not being the same, teams leaving, sponsors leaving, backyard specials blah blah … the glamour of F1 will always be there, the circuits and new locations are doing there part also, the budget cap does not impact marketing and team presence at the circuits.

    Ferrari, McLaren, Williams are not going to leave (personally I don’t care for the BMW or Toyotas as they are typical of the “in it for the moment” ethos), the 3 and Max are not stupid enough to let that happen… all we are seeing at the moment is positioning, it will all work out in the end and Formula 1 will continue as we know and love it.

  70. Well, Reuters is flashing that the injunction has been rejected so maybe we`ll get to see, Dougie?

  71. Yep, injunction rejected. Its going to be an interesting next couple of weeks.

    You gotta love Formula 1, intrigue on and off the track. Bring it on!! ;-)

  72. Delete Duplicate Files offers to help users clear valuable space on their … The program scanned files for content or by file name quickly, taking less …. you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). …

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.