Exactly what has Ferrari and Red Bull signed up to?

[Lennat]

Thought it would be easier to discuss this in a dedicated thread. :)

What do we know about Ferraris and Red Bulls contractual obligations with the FIA? I can't really imagne them having the guts to form a breakaway series if they were not fairly sure of being able to do so...

From what I understand Ferrari seems to think that FIA broke their part of the deal regarding so

[ioan]

They signed some kind of agreement.
No matter what its' written in that agreement they can walk out of it, sure will have to pay for it if their claims aren't withheld in court, but that's it.

[Knock-on]

FI and Williams may use force majure to get out of F1 and effectivly close the series because of the engine situation. FI in paricular could claim that McLarens exit cripples their team.

Neither car is designed around a engine which they haven't even seen.

If it does go to a braekaway, and that's a big IF, then F1 will wind up and die.

They signed some kind of agreement.
No matter what its' written in that agreement they can walk out of it, sure will have to pay for it if their claims aren't withheld in court, but that's it.

Not quite as clear cut as that.

[ioan]

Not quite as clear cut as that.

What's not clear? They don't want to race in F1 anymore so in worst case will have to pay a bail out decided in some European court, and with that it will be all over.
And if the court decides that the FIA did breach their agreement than all the better!

Not to mention that the lawsuit will certainly not end before next season starts and F1 will be dead and Max gone by the time the court issues their findings.

Max is just a small fish in today's Europe, where corporations and money have the power.

Heck, take a look at Bernie, the "great" F1 supremo, he's done, he doesn't have the energy to fight this war on either side so he just sits their and watches hopeless. Do you think that would be the case if he really had some watertight agreement with Ferrari and RedBull?

[Somebody]

Ultimately, nothing Bernie could do can force Ferrari or either of the Red Bull teams to compete in the FOWC. AT MOST, he can screw them for a huge amount of money, even possibly to the point of bankrupting the companies (not that he would necessarily win at all, let alone get that much money - just making a point)... but at the end of the day, that still wouldn't give him Ferrari, Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso as FOWC competitors in 2009.

I'm curious about the Red Bull teams' situation more than Ferrari's though - there's been a lot of talk about Ferrari's veto, whether the FIA broke the contract, etc... but what do RBR and STR see as their get-out clause?


FI and Williams may use force majure to get out of F1 and effectivly close the series because of the engine situation. FI in paricular could claim that McLarens exit cripples their team.

Neither car is designed around a engine which they haven't even seen.
Given that Brawn changed their engine in weeks at the start of this year, they couldn't claim force majure over that unless they had no engines at all accessible to them. And the only way that could happen is if Cosworth don't have enough capacity to make engines for all the teams.

[CNR]

They signed some kind of agreement.
No matter what its' written in that agreement they can walk out of it, sure will have to pay for it if their claims aren't withheld in court, but that's it.

Concorde Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_Agreement

2008 negotiations
On 7 December, 2004, at a meeting attended by the bosses of all the teams but Ferrari (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Scuderia_Ferrari), Ecclestone offered a payout of £260,000,000 over three years in return for unanimous renewal of the Concorde Agreement, which would guarantee the continuation of Formula One in its present form at least until the expiration of that contract.
On 19 January, Ferrari (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Scuderia_Ferrari) announced it has signed an extension to the 1997 Agreement to expire on 31 December, 2012. Later in 2005, Red Bull (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Red_Bull_Racing) and Jordan (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Jordan_Grand_Prix)/Midland (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Midland_F1) also signed an extension.[4] (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#cite_note-3) On the 7 December, 2005, Williams F1 (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Williams_F1) became the fourth team to sign an extension to the agreement.[5] (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#cite_note-4)
On 27 March, 2006, the five Grand Prix Manufacturers Association (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Grand_Prix_Manufacturers_Association)-backed teams submitted their applications for the 2008 season.[6] (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#cite_note-5) On 14 May, 2006, the five GPMA-backed teams signed a Memorandum of Understanding (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Memorandum_of_Understanding) with the commercial rights holders (CVC/Ecclestone) which will form the basis of the next Concorde Agreement.[7] (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#cite_note-6) On 29 July, 2008, the teams created the Formula One Teams Association (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Formula_One_Teams_Association) (FOTA) to negotiate the terms of contract.
force india and williams would have been forced to join

[race_director]

a better way for RBR and Ferrari is , if they are able to sell or transfer there title deed to some other company interested in joining f1. offcourse the agree will require the clause that no ferrari or RBR name can be used by the purchaser.



am i logical or had too much vodka today ? :)

[Dave B]

I can't see what would stop Ferrari and RBR turning up in Melbourne 2010 with two illegal old cars, failing scrutineering and going home again. Their freight costs are met by FOM, and they'd hardly need many staff, so it wouldn't cost a fortune.

Court ruling or no court ruling, they can't be forced to race if they really don't want to.

[race_director]

I can't see what would stop Ferrari and RBR turning up in Melbourne 2010 with two illegal old cars, failing scrutineering and going home again. Their freight costs are met by FOM, and they'd hardly need many staff, so it wouldn't cost a fortune.

Court ruling or no court ruling, they can't be forced to race if they really don't want to.

u mean a 300 kg car ?

Court ruling or no court ruling, they can't be forced to race if they really don't want to.

This is a myth, and one that only those with no concept of corporate contract law would believe.

The FIA have a contract with Ferrari, the FIA also have a contract with FOM the value of which is dependant upon the Ferrari contract, while FOM in turn have a contract with CVC.

If Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Ferrari do not honour their contractual obligations to the FIA, then they will be liable for the losses incurred by not only the FIA but also FOM & CVC.

There is such a thing as corporate liability.

Ferrari, Red Bull & Toro Rosso may not like it, they may not wish to honour the contracts, but financially the only way out is to buy out the contract to the value of it and all related contracts.

Which will make any chance of affording a breakaway impossible.

Ferrari's only chance is that a court finds that the FIA have negated the contract by not keeping to the clauses about the veto...but they've already been to court once and failed to get that, quite the oppposite occured.

I'm a Ferrari fan, I'll watch whatever series they end up in, but practically, legally and realistically, there is only one series they will be in.

Now, what form Formula One takes is anyones guess, but they will be in it.

Oh, and as a side note, why is it that the anti-Mosley forum members do not understand the law and assume that the law is what they want it to be, not what it actually is?

This isn't the first time.

Seriously, if you think you can just break a contract just because you don't want to honour it anymore, try not paying your mortgage for a year and see what happens.

You can tell the judge that you've fallen out with the bank and that's why you don't want to pay for your house anymore.

You could....but I wouldn't recommend it.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76342

Sir Frank understands the legal situation.

[ioan]

I can't see what would stop Ferrari and RBR turning up in Melbourne 2010 with two illegal old cars, failing scrutineering and going home again. Their freight costs are met by FOM, and they'd hardly need many staff, so it wouldn't cost a fortune.

Court ruling or no court ruling, they can't be forced to race if they really don't want to.

Exactly!
And after they do that a couple of times the WMSC should throw them out of F1! :D

[ioan]

This is a myth, and one that only those with no concept of corporate contract law would believe.

The FIA have a contract with Ferrari, the FIA also have a contract with FOM the value of which is dependant upon the Ferrari contract, while FOM in turn have a contract with CVC.

If Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Ferrari do not honour their contractual obligations to the FIA, then they will be liable for the losses incurred by not only the FIA but also FOM & CVC.

First of all any contract can be renegotiated or terminated by any of the parties and they will incur the penalty.

2nd the FIA can not sue for any kind of damages because they are a non profit organization.

3rd there is also that little problem about if their agreement is void because the way the FIA refused to acknowledge the right the agreement gave to Ferrari.

[ioan]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76342

Sir Frank understands the legal situation.

No, no! Franky boy sold himself for peanuts that's what it's all about, money.

[ioan]

Oh, and as a side note, why is it that the anti-Mosley forum members do not understand the law and assume that the law is what they want it to be, not what it actually is?

The law is written by parliaments not by Mosley nor the FIA, and a court of law will decide who gets what, not Maxie and not Bernie.

Why do you believe that what Max says is true?
If you take into account the European laws than the agreement between the FIA, FOM and Ferrai/RedBull/STR is illegal.

[ioan]

u mean a 300 kg car ?

Or a car with 8 wheels, or with huge wings, or without a driver etc...

[CNR]

Oh, and as a side note, why is it that the anti-Mosley forum members do not understand the law and assume that the law is what they want it to be, not what it actually is?

This isn't the first time.

Seriously, if you think you can just break a contract just because you don't want to honour it anymore, try not paying your mortgage for a year and see what happens.

You can tell the judge that you've fallen out with the bank and that's why you don't want to pay for your house anymore.

You could....but I wouldn't recommend it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_Agreement#2008_negotiations
they can not have it both ways

there has not been a new Concorde Agreement for 11 years it has been updated


the five GPMA-backed teams signed a Memorandum of Understanding (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Memorandum_of_Understanding)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorandum_of_understanding
with the commercial rights holders (CVC/Ecclestone) which will form the basis of the next Concorde Agreement.[7] (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#cite_note-6) On 29 July, 2008, the teams created the Formula One Teams Association (http://www.motorsportforums.com/wiki/Formula_One_Teams_Association) (FOTA) to negotiate the terms of contract.

now tell me that FOTA have a contract with them

First of all any contract can be renegotiated or terminated by any of the parties and they will incur the penalty.

Yes, which is what I said....the difference is you think that the penalty will be small, I say that the penalty could be massive.



2nd the FIA can not sue for any kind of damages because they are a non profit organization.

Ioan, that is bollocks. Anybody with a contract can sue for breach of contract, non-profit or otherwise.



3rd there is also that little problem about if their agreement is void because the way the FIA refused to acknowledge the right the agreement gave to Ferrari.

Maybe...but the only time it has been to court that wasn't the ruling. Maybe it will next time...maybe not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_Agreement#2008_negotiations
they can not have it both ways

there has not been a new Concorde Agreement for 11 years it has been updated



now tell me that FOTA have a contract with them

FOTA haven't, but Ferrari apparently have. I never mentioned FOTA, just the teams who have apparently signed up to the FIA F1 World Championship until 2012

[AndyL]

This is a myth, and one that only those with no concept of corporate contract law would believe.

The FIA have a contract with Ferrari, the FIA also have a contract with FOM the value of which is dependant upon the Ferrari contract, while FOM in turn have a contract with CVC.

If Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Ferrari do not honour their contractual obligations to the FIA, then they will be liable for the losses incurred by not only the FIA but also FOM & CVC.

The thing is none of us know what the terms of these contracts are. There may well be a big gap between doing the minimum to comply with the letter of the contract, and genuinely racing to win. Clearly the contracts can't require them to complete races or they would be in breach every time they crashed or broke down. I think it's extremely unlikely that they are required to spend a certain amount of money either. It's hard to imagine what terms there might be that would prevent them putting in a token effort that failed to finish any races.
The clearest indication has to be the Indy tyre fiasco. The teams that didn't want to race felt they could fulfill their contractual obligations merely by completing the formation lap, and none of them got sued by FOM.

Finally, does competing in FIA F1 preclude Ferrari competing in other series as well? Far from certain. They can build A1GP cars, and they can support teams that currently run Ferrari cars in other series. Put those two things together and you can have Ferraris competing in a FOTA series, even if (big if) Scuderia Ferrari are blocked from competing in anything other than F1.

[Knock-on]

I don't think that Max is as solid on this as he thinks.

First, he publically said that he is fine with the FOTA teams starting their own series. Invited them to do so infact with no threat of a legal challenge.

Second, there has been a breakdown in a working relationship with Max publically calling the FOTA teams Loonies about 10 times in one interview.

He has set himself up for a fall.

[ioan]

Yes, which is what I said....the difference is you think that the penalty will be small, I say that the penalty could be massive.

That will be up to a law court to decide.


[quote="tamburello"]
Ioan, that is bollocks. Anybody with a contract can sue for breach of contract, non-profit or otherwise.

But they can't claim money as they didn't lose any.

[ioan]

I don't think that Max is as solid on this as he thinks.

First, he publically said that he is fine with the FOTA teams starting their own series. Invited them to do so infact with no threat of a legal challenge.

Second, there has been a breakdown in a working relationship with Max publically calling the FOTA teams Loonies about 10 times in one interview.

He has set himself up for a fall.

I think he isn't sure anymore, thus the threats! It's only a bluff, exactly like when he said he can't push back the final date to 1st July and no there isn't any final date at all!

He's been beaten at his own game with his own weapons!
The FOTA anouncing Tuesday night/Friday morning that the go ahead with a breakaway series left him only a couple of hours to show his hand and he had not even a pair of two's.

[MDS]

Does the contract specify the level of participation that Ferrari and Red Bull have to compete at? Wouldn't it be possible for them to put a shell team out there with a two young drivers and essentially run it as an after thought while they put all of their effort into the FOTA program? My bet it is it requires they field a team, but there probably isn't a minimum dollar amount behind that.

[Dave B]

Ignore.

[Big Ben]

Can´t they participate in both competitions? Imagine this: no development, a car that simply follows the rules but nothing more, 2 drivers cruising around trying to save as much fuel as possible, one mechanic changing all the tires, then refueling the car and then giving the driver something to drink and chat a bit, one man with a laptop on the wall playing solitaire... I think the 40 mil cap would be even too big for them :laugh: ...

It is unreasonable but Mad Max is an unreasonable man.
You can´t force a team to stay if they don´t want to stay.
I think Ferrari were right to receive the right to veto the rules if they signed such a contract. You can´t sign something like that and then follow whatever this lunatic comes up with.

That will be up to a law court to decide.


Indeed.



But they can't claim money as they didn't lose any.

They can if they are sued by FOM/CVC. FOM/CVC can look for fiscal damages for loss of income from the FIA, and the FIA can then sue Ferrari for causing that loss of income.

[mstillhere]

This is a myth, and one that only those with no concept of corporate contract law would believe.

The FIA have a contract with Ferrari, the FIA also have a contract with FOM the value of which is dependant upon the Ferrari contract, while FOM in turn have a contract with CVC.

If Red Bull, Toro Rosso & Ferrari do not honour their contractual obligations to the FIA, then they will be liable for the losses incurred by not only the FIA but also FOM & CVC.

There is such a thing as corporate liability.

Ferrari, Red Bull & Toro Rosso may not like it, they may not wish to honour the contracts, but financially the only way out is to buy out the contract to the value of it and all related contracts.

Which will make any chance of affording a breakaway impossible.

Ferrari's only chance is that a court finds that the FIA have negated the contract by not keeping to the clauses about the veto...but they've already been to court once and failed to get that, quite the oppposite occured.

I'm a Ferrari fan, I'll watch whatever series they end up in, but practically, legally and realistically, there is only one series they will be in.

Now, what form Formula One takes is anyones guess, but they will be in it.

Yeah, but they don't have to win any race by contract. I think there is no argument over that. So, they could just show up with some kind of a red car do one lap and retire (pretty much like this year).

So, if getting out their contract would be way too expensive, as somebody else said, Bernie can only force Ferrari to show up but that's pretty much ALL Ferrari will have to do.

[wmcot]

Court ruling or no court ruling, they can't be forced to race if they really don't want to.

Max will pull out his whip and shout, "Race, damn you, race!" :)

[wmcot]

Does the contract specify the level of participation that Ferrari and Red Bull have to compete at? Wouldn't it be possible for them to put a shell team out there with a two young drivers and essentially run it as an after thought while they put all of their effort into the FOTA program? My bet it is it requires they field a team, but there probably isn't a minimum dollar amount behind that.

The perfect way to run a test team!

[Knock-on]

They can if they are sued by FOM/CVC. FOM/CVC can look for fiscal damages for loss of income from the FIA, and the FIA can then sue Ferrari for causing that loss of income.

CVC may be able to sue individual teams but the FIA has no financial arrangement apart from what is agreed within the rules. Max believes his own hype and thinks he actually runs F1.

The only person that runs F1 is Bernie and Max is in charge of the rules and like he rightly said, if the teams want to fcuk off and set up their own series, there's sod all he can do about it.

Now, Big Bernie is a different matter and he has been sitting back and watching the pissing contest. I get the feeling that he will deliver a blow when he's ready and it will be decisive. It will happen and F1 will shake.

This will be over when he makes a decision.

[ioan]

They can if they are sued by FOM/CVC. FOM/CVC can look for fiscal damages for loss of income from the FIA, and the FIA can then sue Ferrari for causing that loss of income.

Even after Max publicly stated that F1 doesn't need Ferrari?!
Talk about shooting himself in both feet.

[ioan]

The only person that runs F1 is Bernie and Max is in charge of the rules and like he rightly said, if the teams want to fcuk off and set up their own series, there's sod all he can do about it.

Now, Big Bernie is a different matter and he has been sitting back and watching the pissing contest. I get the feeling that he will deliver a blow when he's ready and it will be decisive. It will happen and F1 will shake.

This will be over when he makes a decision.

It looks to me that Bernie is lost in this war. The events just went by to fast and I think he is relying totally on Max to clean up the mess, and his comments yesterday were pointing exactly to that.

[Knock-on]

Which just goes to show how little you understand the mascinations and politics of F1 :rolleyes:

CVC may be able to sue individual teams but the FIA has no financial arrangement apart from what is agreed within the rules.

The FIA have no direct financial arrangement with the teams, true, but, and not for the first time I'll point this out because apparently its something none of you really want to hear, if the actions of the teams cause financial loss to the FIA's associates (FOM/CVC through contractual obligations) then the teams can be sued....by the FIA as well as directly by CVC.

It may not go in their favour, but if a court decided that the FIA & FOM/CVC had a case, then due to the amounts of money involved Ferrari won't have enough money left to cut the grass at Fiorano, let alone form a breakaway series.

If it goes to court, I'll happily wager that the FIA win. When he's in court, Max is really quite good.....certainly better than the Ferrari lawyer.

[airshifter]

The FIA have no direct financial arrangement with the teams, true, but, and not for the first time I'll point this out because apparently its something none of you really want to hear, if the actions of the teams cause financial loss to the FIA's associates (FOM/CVC through contractual obligations) then the teams can be sued....by the FIA as well as directly by CVC.

It may not go in their favour, but if a court decided that the FIA & FOM/CVC had a case, then due to the amounts of money involved Ferrari won't have enough money left to cut the grass at Fiorano, let alone form a breakaway series.

If it goes to court, I'll happily wager that the FIA win. When he's in court, Max is really quite good.....certainly better than the Ferrari lawyer.

The FIA would need fairly iron clad contracts to be able to recoup money from the teams. If it came to that point the teams could dummy up a team and call it their F1 team and race.

You're including a lot of big "ifs" for contracts we haven't seen the details of. I'm sure every team consulted with their legal teams before taking the actions they did. Considering the strength of FOTA I wouldn't say Max would have the upper hand, they have a lot of financial strength behind them.

It would be very difficult to prove future revenues of the series if none of this had taken place. Even then FOTA could put the issues back into the lap of the FIA, as it was rules changes that caused the entire issue to begin with.

[Knock-on]

I agree airshifter.

There will be some teams that have signed up to race such as FI. They will be in trouble if they leave the series without just cause such as the obligations of the contract not being met.

If no contract with the rest of the teams exist, then the FIA have no claim on them whatsoever and have no grounds to sue.

It would be like the Rose and Crown sueing me because I decided their beer was crap and moved my custom to the White Hart.

And I repeat, I am not talking about FOTA teams, just the ones allegedly with an FIA contract until 2012.

[Sleeper]

I wonder, are Ferrari one of those teams that are apparently owed money buy FOM/CVC dating back as far as 2006? If thats the case then things will get very murky.

And as for the French court ruling earlier in the year, the French courts have always ruled in the FIA's favour because they see it as an internal matter for them and dont want to get remotely involved. As such it shouldnt really be seen as a precedent, particularly when this is likely to go to the European Courts.

[Koz]

But they can't claim money as they didn't lose any.

Are you retarded?

Do you know what a NPO is?
It doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It only means that the PROFIT they make does not go into the pockets of the shareholders, but rather back into themselves. Ie, FIA makes a profit, and uses that money to help out F1, do road safety programmes, pay Max and his cornies.

NPO is like the government, they can make money but it has to be put back into the government... Like Police spend 100million per year on all policing work, but speeding fines make them 200million, so they do make a profit... You see where I am going with this? If you don't I'll come beat some sense into you with my boot.


Yeah, but they don't have to win any race by contract. I think there is no argument over that. So, they could just show up with some kind of a red car do one lap and retire (pretty much like this year).

So, if getting out their contract would be way too expensive, as somebody else said, Bernie can only force Ferrari to show up but that's pretty much ALL Ferrari will have to do.

That may or may not be true. I doubt it is.

Do you think Max, Bernie, the FIA or FOM are 8 year old kids?
Do you think they would have a contract saying "Teams must participate in every race." ?
They will have hundreds if not thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of pages of references, definitions, etc etc.

Law is not like Alley McBeal, it's serious, considering the billions involved you can bet it's about as serious as it gets.


Even after Max publicly stated that F1 doesn't need Ferrari?!
Talk about shooting himself in both feet.

Well, if it said it, it must be the case. I am sure some smarty pants lawyer could turn that into a binding oral contract.


It looks to me that Bernie is lost in this war. The events just went by to fast and I think he is relying totally on Max to clean up the mess, and his comments yesterday were pointing exactly to that.

He is being smart and staying silent, I am sure he has some cards up his sleeve.
In a worst case scenario, he has most to gain from this, because it will be he who sues everyone for lost revenue.


The FIA would need fairly iron clad contracts to be able to recoup money from the teams. If it came to that point the teams could dummy up a team and call it their F1 team and race.

You're including a lot of big "ifs" for contracts we haven't seen the details of. I'm sure every team consulted with their legal teams before taking the actions they did. Considering the strength of FOTA I wouldn't say Max would have the upper hand, they have a lot of financial strength behind them.

Before anything else, you have to remember who Mister Max is. First and foremost he is a lawyer. And he has done what the FOTA are trying to do, don't you think he would have made sure what he has don't in the past can't be repeated against himself?


It would be very difficult to prove future revenues of the series if none of this had taken place. Even then FOTA could put the issues back into the lap of the FIA, as it was rules changes that caused the entire issue to begin with.

They could predict revenue based on the last few seasons, but this would be harder now because of next year's budget caps.

[Knock-on]

And I repeat, I am not talking about FOTA teams, just the ones allegedly with an FIA contract until 2012.

Totally correct but Max was talking of sueing FOTA on telly.

I agree with you that he has recourse with a small number of teams. I think these are Ferrari, FI and Williams.

Now, I am relying on memory here but I thought there had to be a particular number of cars competing to hold a legitimate series. Even if everyone run 3 cars that would only be 9 at the moment.

Would FI be in a position to run 3 cars?

I think that if The Premier Series goes ahead, Ferrari will be able to wriggle out of the FIA contract because the series would be worthless.

[ioan]

Do you know what a NPO is?
It doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It only means that the PROFIT they make does not go into the pockets of the shareholders, but rather back into themselves. Ie, FIA makes a profit, and uses that money to help out F1, do road safety programmes, pay Max and his cornies.

NPO is like the government, they can make money but it has to be put back into the government... Like Police spend 100million per year on all policing work, but speeding fines make them 200million, so they do make a profit... You see where I am going with this? If you don't I'll come beat some sense into you with my boot.



That may or may not be true. I doubt it is.

Do you think Max, Bernie, the FIA or FOM are 8 year old kids?
Do you think they would have a contract saying "Teams must participate in every race." ?
They will have hundreds if not thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of pages of references, definitions, etc etc.

Law is not like Alley McBeal, it's serious, considering the billions involved you can bet it's about as serious as it gets.



Well, if it said it, it must be the case. I am sure some smarty pants lawyer could turn that into a binding oral contract.



He is being smart and staying silent, I am sure he has some cards up his sleeve.
In a worst case scenario, he has most to gain from this, because it will be he who sues everyone for lost revenue.



Before anything else, you have to remember who Mister Max is. First and foremost he is a lawyer. And he has done what the FOTA are trying to do, don't you think he would have made sure what he has don't in the past can't be repeated against himself?



They could predict revenue based on the last few seasons, but this would be harder now because of next year's budget caps.

What a load of BS and rear side kissing. :rolleyes:
Reality check: Max isn't God and Bernie isn't St. Peter.

[pino]

Guys let's watch the language and quit insults..thank you !

[Mark]

Totally correct but Max was talking of sueing FOTA on telly.

I agree with you that he has recourse with a small number of teams. I think these are Ferrari, FI and Williams.

Now, I am relying on memory here but I thought there had to be a particular number of cars competing to hold a legitimate series. Even if everyone run 3 cars that would only be 9 at the moment.

Would FI be in a position to run 3 cars?

I think that if The Premier Series goes ahead, Ferrari will be able to wriggle out of the FIA contract because the series would be worthless.

I remember in the dying days of CART they had TV contracts which stated that a certain number of cars needed to take part, otherwise the contract will be null and void.

And I think you are right that under FIA terms to have a 'championship' rather than a 'cup' you need a certain number of regular competing cars, but I'm not sure what that number is, or if it is still relevant.

[ioan]

I remember in the dying days of CART they had TV contracts which stated that a certain number of cars needed to take part, otherwise the contract will be null and void.

And I think you are right that under FIA terms to have a 'championship' rather than a 'cup' you need a certain number of regular competing cars, but I'm not sure what that number is, or if it is still relevant.

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.

[Knock-on]

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.

It may well be 16. Sounds familiar.

Will we get the FIA bribing teams to compete just to run a rag tag championship.

If so, Team Knockon will be fielding a Super7 running a Ford 2.0l pinto block and sponsored by Stella Artois

Let me at them Ferraris :D

[AndyL]

Will we get the FIA bribing teams to compete just to run a rag tag championship.

If so, Team Knockon will be fielding a Super7 running a Ford 2.0l pinto block and sponsored by Stella Artois

Let me at them Ferraris :D

I think the EuroBOSS series has been having some troubles, maybe they can pick up some cars and teams there ;)

[christophulus]

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.

All I can find is:


5.7 An Event may be cancelled if fewer than 12 cars are available for it.http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/SPORT/REGULATIONS/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

So Williams, FI, the three newbies.. Max would only need to add Prodrive and away we go! :(

[ioan]

All I can find is:

http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/SPORT/REGULATIONS/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx

So Williams, FI, the three newbies.. Max would only need to add Prodrive and away we go! :(

It would still be only a joke of a race compared to what he FOTA teams can field as it's rumored that they may run 3 cars each!

PS: Also that is the FIA rule for what can be called an F1 race, the 16 cars limit is what is said to be a condition in the FOM/FOA contracts with tracks and TV broadcasters!

[christophulus]

It would still be only a joke of a race compared to what he FOTA teams can field as it's rumored that they may run 3 cars each!

No arguments here, but sadly Max (or Bernie) has put in a get out of jail free card to let them carry on as normal.


PS: Also that is the FIA rule for what can be called an F1 race, the 16 cars limit is what is said to be a condition in the FOM/FOA contracts with tracks and TV broadcasters!

I've heard the minimum of 16 mentioned too, but it'd be strange to see a TV contract specifying min. 16 cars but the regulations allowing for 12.

But what else would we expect from the FIA rules department?

[wmcot]

Totally correct but Max was talking of sueing FOTA on telly.

I agree with you that he has recourse with a small number of teams. I think these are Ferrari, FI and Williams.

Now, I am relying on memory here but I thought there had to be a particular number of cars competing to hold a legitimate series. Even if everyone run 3 cars that would only be 9 at the moment.

Would FI be in a position to run 3 cars?

I think that if The Premier Series goes ahead, Ferrari will be able to wriggle out of the FIA contract because the series would be worthless.

I think Max will adopt the "Put a Warm Body in a Car" philosophy and fill his "grids."

Maybe Bernie can roll out some of his collection and have Max declare them legal? :)