Daniel Carlsson exluded for the rest of 2007

[jacko]

After his "show" on thursday he's exluded for the rest of the year. He hasn't the money so in that way there's nothing.. but he can't drive for another team if there was the question. Kronos will have another (to be named) driver for the remaining 3 rounds ( or 7?).

[Micke_VOC]

I dont like FIA, why punish the driver and not the team ,

[Slipzen]

FIA claims the reason is that he did not take part in the recce.....

[jonas_mcrae]

hope the new driver is someone interesting to watch.
of course not saying that carlsson wasnt.

[WRXedUSA]

What happened with Carlsson?

I searched the forum and found nothing.

[GigiGalliNo1]

exactly?! wat happened to carlsson that now he has been excluded? as you noticed not much news outta the WRC hq to inform me!!

that sucks... :(

[alleskids]

A Team Manufacterer has to compete in 10 WRC rounds with 2 drivers. Manfred Stohl is doing al 16 rounds. Daniel Carlsson was planned to do 5 rounds. So OMV Kronos already had to be looking for an other (paying) driver to do the other 5 required rounds, in order to score MT points and avoid a heavy money penalty. Now they have to bring the second driver much earlier in the team, since Daniel Carlsson's budget is disappeared.

[alleskids]

I guess the FIA also read about Carlsson's cheat plans to just do the shake down, drive over the starting ramp and immediatly retire after that. So Daniel did not even do the recce ? You don't think that even the FIA would not notice this ?
In the past they have punished drivers for not doing PWRC and JWRC rounds which they promissed to do in order to score for the championship, so it is a logical decision to punish the driver, and not the team, because the driver is not keeping his promise to the team and the FIA.

[MikeD]

I don't understand why Kronos and Carlsson thought they would get away with this. A good thing it was stopped.

But who could be candidates for the second seat now? I think Bengue would be a good bet for the 3 tarmac rallies. Doesn't he also have good relations with the YACCO sponsorship?

Who do you think could be candidates? (or should we say, who has the sponsorship package to compete)

[Peugeot206WRC]

According to Kronos and Daniel Carlsson they followed the rules but Carlsson still get excluded.
Im not sure about the recce rule, wich seems strange if they agree to do this and follow the rules but still get excluded, maybe Kronos and Carlsson missed that rule.

and alleskids what are you talking about "because the driver is not keeping his promise to the team".
It was a decision made by the driver AND the team, not only the driver.

I think FIA is really ridiculous even though Carlsson got himself to blame for this if he sing up and then cant pay (if thats the reason, not yet confirmed).

[grugsticles]

Candidates... hmmm

Duval maybe?

[MHjerpe]

What happen with the Munchi boys when they was not in Portugal ? they can still run as MT ? or was that a Force Majure situation ?

[Roy]

What happen with the Munchi boys when they was not in Portugal ? they can still run as MT ? or was that a Force Majure situation ?

They do Germany now as substitute for portugal.

[Livewireshock]

I can see the logic behind the FIA's decision.

They do not want drivers & teams to make commitments that they can not honour. It makes a sham of proceedings, such as Carlssons 'retirement' after the Ceremonial Start.

It is a fine line, Carlsson obviously thought he could find the backing to match his commitment. What the FIA would prefer is that drivers with partial backing only apply to enter events that they have firm backing for. Yet as we all know that is not always possible. Promises of money dry up & options close up due to unforeseen circumstances. It is a harsh penalty but it is not totally unreasonable.

The Abu Dhabi WRC rally team was a very close & near run thing. It could even get up & running for 2008. Yet if they used the funding they already had in place, they might have been able to start the season. But the intention was to compete in all 16 rounds, had they failed to secure funding for the later rounds in the season, it would make the WRC & the team look bad. Thus they withdrew from 2007 & will concentrate on a full 2008 campaign.

In the end, if Carlsson only had enough funding for 4 rounds then he should have only committed to four. If extra funding then became available, he could maybe extend the deal or shifted to another paydrive.

[MikeD]

I can see the logic behind the FIA's decision.

They do not want drivers & teams to make commitments that they can not honour. It makes a sham of proceedings, such as Carlssons 'retirement' after the Ceremonial Start.

It is a fine line, Carlsson obviously thought he could find the backing to match his commitment. What the FIA would prefer is that drivers with partial backing only apply to enter events that they have firm backing for. Yet as we all know that is not always possible. Promises of money dry up & options close up due to unforeseen circumstances. It is a harsh penalty but it is not totally unreasonable.

The Abu Dhabi WRC rally team was a very close & near run thing. It could even get up & running for 2008. Yet if they used the funding they already had in place, they might have been able to start the season. But the intention was to compete in all 16 rounds, had they failed to secure funding for the later rounds in the season, it would make the WRC & the team look bad. Thus they withdrew from 2007 & will concentrate on a full 2008 campaign.

In the end, if Carlsson only had enough funding for 4 rounds then he should have only committed to four. If extra funding then became available, he could maybe extend the deal or shifted to another paydrive.


Wise words!

[JAM]

Did Carlson made a commitement because Kronos needed a driver committed with at least some rallyes? The Team had (and has) to find a second driver to honour his commitement.

Is interesting that drivers and teams commit to the WRC to save the manufacturers championship, and still have to see a ban... We have 5 teams, but without Kronos would had 4 teams wich would be worst than now. Without Carlsson commitement i have some doubts that Marc Van Dalen would had made a commitment to the manu championship.

It think absolutelly stupid this rule of commitements. The wrc is in crisis, no manufacturers, no teams, no drivers, no money... and FIA is acting like if everything was fine. What ROI is FIA giving to WRC? What ROI is FIA assuring to the commites to WRC? FIA wants but FIA dont garantee nothing to the ones on WRC.

[MikeD]

Did Carlson made a commitement because Kronos needed a driver committed with at least some rallyes? The Team had (and has) to find a second driver to honour his commitement.

Is interesting that drivers and teams commit to the WRC to save the manufacturers championship, and still have to see a ban... We have 5 teams, but without Kronos would had 4 teams wich would be worst than now. Without Carlsson commitement i have some doubts that Marc Van Dalen would had made a commitment to the manu championship.



No offence, but we do have 6 teams in WRC. Citroen Total, BP Ford, Subaru WRT, Stobart Ford, Kronos Citroen and Munchi's Ford.

But otherwise I agree. I think an M2 team should be able to just run one car, but should at least participate in 10 rallies. But it should be able to switch between 2-4 drivers over these 10 rallies.

And it should be able to run two cars at some rallies if a budget/driver was available.

[JAM]

No offence, but we do have 6 teams in WRC. Citroen Total, BP Ford, Subaru WRT, Stobart Ford, Kronos Citroen and Munchi's Ford.

But otherwise I agree. I think an M2 team should be able to just run one car, but should at least participate in 10 rallies. But it should be able to switch between 2-4 drivers over these 10 rallies.

And it should be able to run two cars at some rallies if a budget/driver was available.

You're right, i forgot Munchis because they have no points :up:

Ai agree with you, we must have flexibility on WRC, because we are in crisis time. Is not easy to find budgets from about 175.000 euros for each car / rally in a championship that is decreasing in interest and media exposure.

A driver has a sponsor, commits to WRC. The sponsor decides pull back after two rallyes and the driver must pay 225.000 to the FIA fine... was better to spend 175.000 and do te rally. But if the driver has no sponsor what should he do? Sell is soul to the evil by 300.000 euros?!? :D

[GigiGalliNo1]

The Abu Dhabi WRC rally team was a very close & near run thing. It could even get up & running for 2008. Yet if they used the funding they already had in place, they might have been able to start the season. But the intention was to compete in all 16 rounds, had they failed to secure funding for the later rounds in the season, it would make the WRC & the team look bad. Thus they withdrew from 2007 & will concentrate on a full 2008 campaign.


Shall this be some good news?! Is this nearly 100% certain that there will be another team next year inclu. Suzuki Motor Sport? So next year:

Citroen, Ford, SWRT, (Munchis? again FORD :| ), Suzuki, Abu Dhabi RT, & (Stobart? again FORD :| )

I want to see the whales back with OMV and any word on MMSP? And Garde, Galli, Bengue, Kresta, and who ever else is out there not competing or on limited program! (Dudu too :D )

[Gard]

I can see the justice in this. But this surely doesn't make it easier for privateers to make it to WRC.

[grugsticles]

Shall this be some good news?! Is this nearly 100% certain that there will be another team next year inclu. Suzuki Motor Sport? So next year:

Citroen, Ford, SWRT, (Munchis? again FORD :| ), Suzuki, Abu Dhabi RT, & (Stobart? again FORD :| )

I want to see the whales back with OMV and any word on MMSP? And Garde, Galli, Bengue, Kresta, and who ever else is out there not competing or on limited program! (Dudu too :D )

Ah theres a positive thought - more team participation next year. A total of a possible 17 regualar competing WRCars is a step forward.


Question: why dont drivers who are struggling to get a full season together team up? Ie. if Galli, Carlsson, Gardemister and Kresta joined forces and split the driving duties for a 2 car team 50/50 so each driver competed in say 8 rallys each, or of they dont have the budget 5 rallys each. That way the team could be registered as an M2 team. There are a couple of Pug's and a couple of Mitsu's around wanting to be used.
Obviously you need someone to run the program, but Im sure Bozian or the like would be interested.

[GigiGalliNo1]

:D :D

Sounds good grugsticles :p

wouldn't mind seeing that happened and was actually surprized with even just seeing the shakedown list from Italy! :)

1. Sordo 1:54,3
2. Hirvonen 1:54,4
3. Gronholm 1:54,6
4. Hänninen 1:55,3
5. Solberg P. 1:55,5
6. Loeb 1:55,7
7. Gardemeister 1:55,8
8. Atkinson 1:55,9
9. Solberg H. 1:56,8
=. Wilson 1:56,8
11. Latvala 1:57,0
12. Companc 1:57,2
13. Stohl 1:57,3
14. Kopecký 1:57,4
15. Villagra 1:58,8
=. MacHale 1:58,8
17. Ostberg 1:59,9
18. Carlsson 2:18,6

OooOOooO ahhh

all WRCars!! :D

Don't forget to add Gigi, Dudu, Pons, Kresta and who else!?!?!? Makes that 22!

[WRXedUSA]

I can see the justice in this. But this surely doesn't make it easier for privateers to make it to WRC.

Wasn't that the whole point of M2 anyways? I think there should be some flexibility given to the M2 teams given what they have to work with.

[Livewireshock]

You should not confuse M2 teams with regular privateer teams. The WRC concept of having an M2 team is to make up a higher level of privateer that is partially sponsored or supported from a factory.

M2 teams are a safety net to save pride for the factory in one sense. A source of potential points for the manufacturer. The amount of support & effort is determined by the factory teams in most ways. It is also makes up for the loss of the third works driver that could score points. The FIA made the rule that 10 events competed in to ensure that specialist teams for one off events, for example a tarmac only specialised team. Plus it looks better for the WRC. 10 rounds make up two thirds of the championship so it is alot less than a full season.

If a works team chooses not to have a M2 team, there is nothing to stop anyone else from entering, as long as they have a budget for what they want to do. For Fords case, they provide material support & maintenance for the M2 teams while their privateer budgets handle the majority of day to day expenses. If a M2 team wants a different pay driver for each of the 10 rounds then so be it. There is nothing to stop anyone else with a Ford WRC car from entering as well.

There is nothing to stop extra privateer teams to enter for individual rounds as their budgets allow. Some rounds will be always better than others. The cost of transport prevent alot of privateer WRC cars competiting on long haul events. It ebbs & flows, alot of privateers choose showcase or famous events, such as Finland or Monte. Ireland's love of WRC cars will see plenty at their home event this year. Plus WRC cars banned from many national & regional championships mean there are less cars than previous years in some regions.

[Livewireshock]

If you allowed M2 teams to be allowed to be entered for single or handful of events only, you would get a case of works supported specialists arrive. A privateer team that is a tarmac specialist or good in snow. A works team could flood an entry list with a large number on such specialists on an event to ensure they scored every single possible point. That also means that hardly anyone enters the other events that the manufacturer does not believe they are strong in.

This can be seen in motorcycling regularly. In World Superbikes & MotoGP, the wildcards entries, especially in Japan, are entered on supposed factory backed & supported "hand grenades" or are locals with intricate knowledge of the circuit. They can often upset the regular field & they take points away from opposing factory teams.

Not so long ago, Citroen acted the same way with their Kit cars on Tarmac events. Whilst being a proper works team, they only entered events they knew they would have an impact & took podiums away from the full time competing WRC drivers. If M2 teams could enter only a few events, you could then have Citroen set up Kronos or Bozian to enter 5 or 6 cars just for Corsica. A Citroen 1-2-3-4-5 or whatever would be good press & publcity. Plus maximum points for Citroen for a similar outlay for entering two M2 cars in several events. It would do nothing for the championship at all.

The ulitmate solution is the WRC 2012 initative. That will allow privateers to readily build a WRC car from a kit or convert an S2000 car to the higher spec for a cheaper cost.

[JAM]

You should not confuse M2 teams with regular privateer teams. The WRC concept of having an M2 team is to make up a higher level of privateer that is partially sponsored or supported from a factory.

M2 teams are a safety net to save pride for the factory in one sense. A source of potential points for the manufacturer. The amount of support & effort is determined by the factory teams in most ways. It is also makes up for the loss of the third works driver that could score points. The FIA made the rule that 10 events competed in to ensure that specialist teams for one off events, for example a tarmac only specialised team. Plus it looks better for the WRC. 10 rounds make up two thirds of the championship so it is alot less than a full season.


The M2 Teams (now MT) were created to save the pride of the championship, otherwise you had a championship with 3 entries (Ford Subaru and Kronos). In that way we had a championship with 6 entries.

The rule of 10 events was to assure that WRC has private teams, because this teams hadn't (and haven't) money to do the 16 events. Last year only Manfred Stohl, Malcon Wilson and Luis Perez Companc made the 16 events

This is the naked truth without flowers.

[COD]

BUT. Is Carlssons exlusion based on regulations? I mean, where does it say one has to take part on the recce? I can not find it. Whatever the real reason (quite obvious) of hm retiring the rally, he has done everything required by the regs.

[Simon Speichert]

This latest development plus recent strong words from Marc Van Dalen make me think there is a likely chance of Kronos ending up in IRC next year. If they brought Stohl along, I think they could have a great chance at wins.

I know Carlsson didn't have the budget for a full season, but this circumstance is beyond words. What the hell is he supposed to do for the rest of the season?

[Peugeot206WRC]

I cant understand why he get in there without a secure economy.

And I cant see what he done so badly and what catastrophe makes him excluded for the rest of the season.
I know rules are rules and if you dont follow them you will have to take the consequences, but I havent seen proof of the rule and the penalty looks very hard for the thing he done.
Then I think a microsupermillimeter thicker window should be a death penalty.
What if he got fever or headache before recce and then it returned on the startline.

[tmx]

This latest development plus recent strong words from Marc Van Dalen make me think there is a likely chance of Kronos ending up in IRC next year.

They already are, I read they're going to enter for Ypres with a Peugoet 207, which is in late June, and planning to run the whole 2008 season.

[JAM]

I cant understand why he get in there without a secure economy.


Sponsor deals my friend. They are not easy and they change ideas fast, and not always are garanted as it looks.

[COD]

Strange also that Giraudet was also punished according to crash.net. What the h**l did he have to do with it? There are a few drivers looking for co-driver then. Maybe Veronica will come back?

[MHjerpe]

Giraudet punishement was taken back.

[Peugeot206WRC]

The reason of the penalty is humiliation!
Carlsson mocked FIA (according to FIA) when he didnt start the rally and you dont humiliate FIA withouth consequences.
Carlsson also said he thinking about appeal, even though the penalty has no clear precedent, his chances is very small he says.

Someone else who was in the FIA said in a interview he never seen something like this before and his been a judge in F1 and WRC in more then 150 competitions.

[Jaanus]

Someone else who was in the FIA said in a interview he never seen something like this before and his been a judge in F1 and WRC in more then 150 competitions.

Well hmm.. in JWRC this has happened more than one time. I remember Monte Carlo 2005 when Urmo Aava just drove over the start ramp and retired because he had not payd his bills to Suzuki.
Offcourse Urmo was not puniched for that.

[Slipzen]

A lot of romours says that the reason for Carlsson not taking part in the rally is not having the budget for it. If I have understood it correct that is NOT the reason.
I beleive that his sponsors who had brought in all the money was not happy about the Kronos-Xsara which seemed to not be as good as promised. Instead, sponsors were more interested to spend their money on Carlsson in another car/team that are more competitive?

[Peugeot206WRC]

Well hmm.. in JWRC this has happened more than one time. I remember Monte Carlo 2005 when Urmo Aava just drove over the start ramp and retired because he had not payd his bills to Suzuki.
Offcourse Urmo was not puniched for that.

Maybe it could be so. But on the news they got a phone interview with someone who was with them and making the decision and he said that.

Carlsson and Kronos was agreed to do this and didnt see any rule that they brake against.
But in the statement Carlsson got the reason is he humiliated the championship because he didnt participate in the recce and retired on the start ramp, nothing about you have to participate in the recce.
Im sure this wouldnt happen if he didnt do the recce but droved the rally.

[Gard]

Same story again. (ref. Bozian) They make a deal with a team and the team only supply old crap. I don't know who to blame, but it's either Kronos management or Citroen.

[turves]

In 2003 Corsica I was speaking with Ramon Ferreyros who used to run in Production championship. He had issues with his team but to avoid being punished he said he not only had to cross the start ramp but also 'compete'. He duly 'retired' after the first leg.

[BDunnell]

Well hmm.. in JWRC this has happened more than one time. I remember Monte Carlo 2005 when Urmo Aava just drove over the start ramp and retired because he had not payd his bills to Suzuki.
Offcourse Urmo was not puniched for that.

This would suggest, then, that the recce is the important thing in this case, unless they are being appallingly (and blatantly) inconsistent. After all, the FIA shouldn't decide when a retirement is legitimate or not. Plenty of cars over the years have failed to make it from start ramp to first stage for one reason or another.

[Lousada]

It is a funny coincidence that Marc van Daalen slammed the FIA just weeks ago in a French newspaper. Now they are taking revenge? There have been previous occasions of drivers just taking the start ramp, but this is the first time an actual ban happened.

[Jaanus]

Another good example is Aki Teiskonen who crashed badly in Australia last year and didn't have a car for New-Zealand which was his nominated PWRC round so he only did the start ramp and retired because he did not want to drive with rented car from a local driver.
And another example is Alan Scorcioni in Finland 2005 when he only did the start ramp and retired right after that, although Finland was his nominated JWRC round.
I could probably think of more examples like that and I actually start doubting whether that FIA guy has actually followed WRC in the last few years or maybe he is just blind.

[Roy]

This is a good move of the FIA. Carlsson was only drive over the ramp because Kronos has to pay al lot of money if he didn't.

Do they realy think they come away with this trick? It is Good FIA give a sign, don't trick with the Championship. A MT team has to drive with 2 cars in a max. of 10 rallies. Not only do the ramp...

It is good to excluded Carlsson for this, so he can do it again in the next rally. Kronos have to search for another driver, who are drive all other 6 or 7 rallies.

Maybe OMV has left money for Aigner? RedBull step in!

[DonJippo]

Do they realy think they come away with this trick? It is Good FIA give a sign, don't trick with the Championship. A MT team has to drive with 2 cars in a max. of 10 rallies. Not only do the ramp...

I agree :up: more professionalism to the efforts and not just high hopes...

[JAM]

I agree :up: more professionalism to the efforts and not just high hopes...

Then you can start finding sponsors to help Kronos and earn a comission.

I think is easy nowadays with the excelent image and ROI of the WRC to find sponsors. Don't you think?

[Peugeot206WRC]

Hope someone can translate from swedish.

http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=672&a=652325

It seems the retire of Carlsson has nothing to do with money, or at least not o nthe surface.
As it says Citroen promised Kronos the latest parts so they could be at least competetive, but they running with 2-3 year old parts.
If that was a deal or just a promise they didnt keep, I dont know.

I think Daniel will protest aganst this and since Denis already got his suspending removed I hope they can figure something out with Daniel.
And hopefully Kronos will receive competetive parts!!!

[JAM]

Nobody to translate this? :uhoh:

[Bjorn240]

Translation from Dagens Nyheter:

Citroen Stops Carlsson

Rally World Champion Sebastien Loeb's Citroen Team is responsible for Daniel Carlsson's exclusion from the WRC. Citroen have not delivered the parts Carlsson's team had been promised.

Sweden's current best rally driver, Daniel Carlsson, went to the WRC event in Sardinia, drove over the start ramp on Thursday, and retired.

On Sunday, he received his punishment from the FIA. Carlsson and his co-driver Denis Giraudet were excluded from this year's WRC.

A massive blow for Carlsson who has been fighting for a good seat in the WRC. Daniel signed a six-event contract with Citroen's B Team, Kronos. In the first three events, he reaped nine points.

On Friday, Daniel revealed that his WRC-campaign is being paused. When DN spoke with him on Monday, he was reticent to reveal the reasons why. But DN is led to believe that Carlsson has not received the parts for his car he has been promised and which would give him an honest chance to compete. Daniel has been driving with parts that are 2 or 3 years old.

Citroen restarted their WRC-campaign with a factory team this year. Sebastien Loeb won last year's WRC with the team that Daniel drives for this year.

Citroen determines which parts will be allotted and delivered to Kronos. Prior to the season, the team were promised that Carlsson would receive the newest specification parts. When this did not happen, Carlsson decided, together with Kronos, to retire in Sardinia.

"We never thought it would have these consequences. They (FIA) clearly want to make an example of us. Already, they're showing what a poorly thought-out decision this is. Denis's exclusion has already been rescinded, says Daniel.

Kronos manager Marc van Dalen adds, "We have to find a common solution with Citroen so that we receive better parts and can make the car quicker."
Daniel is now examining the possibility of appealing the FIAs decision.

[Roy]

On Friday, Daniel revealed that his WRC-campaign is being paused. When DN spoke with him on Monday, he was reticent to reveal the reasons why. But DN is led to believe that Carlsson has not received the parts for his car he has been promised and which would give him an honest chance to compete. Daniel has been driving with parts that are 2 or 3 years old.

DN believe...blabla believe (grazy) Nonsense! Why Carlsson skip the team if the parts are many years old. That is not the reason.


"We never thought it would have these consequences. They (FIA) clearly want to make an example of us.

You must be simple if you are think that. Naive. :rolleyes:


Kronos manager Marc van Dalen adds, "We have to find a common solution with Citroen so that we receive better parts and can make the car quicker."
That is ok, but not the reason why Carlsson is skipping. WHY he would?

[Peugeot206WRC]

You must be simple if you are think that. Naive. :rolleyes:

According to posts above it seems pretty normal to skip rallies this way since it happened several times, so why shouldnt he get away with that?


Yea, money could be a reason.
But then im sure the part delievering is the main reason he wont have any money.
If you get promised a competetive car and latest parts and you dont get that maybe the sponsors getting unsure about investing money on you.

I still think its hard excluding him the whole season, especially compared to Fords penalty? when they BROKE a rule.

[JAM]

Translation from Dagens Nyheter:
[B]
Citroen Stops Carlsson

.....


:up: Many thanks

I continue to think that this measure is extremely unfair, but ok. FIA creates the rules but don't give the enough feedback and makes WRC a bad investment. When sponsors start falling and the drives desapear FIA act in a heavy way. This is not respecting the customers.

[Mv Toy]

I todays paper Värmlands Folkblad (http://www.vf.se) there is a intervju with
M Van Dalen.
Daniels lack of money is the reason!

[Roy]

Daniels lack of money is the reason!
Indeed. That is the reason Carlsson stops.

[COD]

Well, there seem to be two sides to the story which is quite natural. There might be truth in both.

Carlsson surely don't want to admit that he committed to something he could not afford and that this put Kronos in a very difficult position because of the rules. But the results were not there and it is not surprising they don't wan't to put his image into risk with what they see as an uncompetitive car.

On the other hand van Dalen has some support from Citroen, so he does not want to destroy that relationship by saying Citroen didn't deliver the parts they promised.

I think there is something wrong in the Xsara case, because they are not nearly as competitive as last year. Look at Stohl, who is nowhere near his last years pace. And Galli stopped with the Xasara. Maybe lack of funds there as well, but could it also be a bit of dissapointment to the car?

[Gard]

Of course sponsors back out, when they are getting nothing but old outdated parts. Daniel should be up there with other top 5 competitors.

This manu system just doesn't work. Every car entered in the field should count in the manu championship. More competitive cars entered, the more chance for manu points. It works in MotoGP and that is prototypes. Should be even easier for WRC.

[MikeD]

This manu system just doesn't work. Every car entered in the field should count in the manu championship. More competitive cars entered, the more chance for manu points. It works in MotoGP and that is prototypes. Should be even easier for WRC.

It only works to some extend in MotoGP. Before the switch to 4-stroke MotoGP only had two championships. The rider's and the Constructors. But as you say all entries counted towards the constructors championship but only with points for the highest scoring bike. Problem was that "Honda Pons", "Honda Gresini", "Yamaha Tech3" etc never were awarded if they gave a lot of points for the Constructors. It was just a reward for Honda, Yamaha etc.

So in 2002 they added the Team's Championship so that the sattellite team could score their own points. And that's also what has been done now with the WRC with the M2/MT and that is the right way to go. We just need to have sligthly more flexible rules regarding how many WRC events you have to compete in. A demand of 10 event is to high. I recommend minimum 8 events with one car and minimum 5 events with a second car.

[JAM]

A demand of 10 event is to high. I recommend minimum 8 events with one car and minimum 5 events with a second car.

:up:

[Livewireshock]

A demand of 10 event is to high. I recommend minimum 8 events with one car and minimum 5 events with a second car.

You lose sight of the fact that M2 teams are different to most regular privateers. They have limited support from the manufacturer of their cars & as such are allowed to score manufacturer points in that regard. They are works-supported entries, above & beyond being a total privateer.

Because this was created to help win manufacturer points, it was made with what manufacturers wanted from them. 10 rounds is two-thirds of a season which is reasonable. Manufacturers do not want a team that can score only for less than half the season. Also ten rounds spreads the exposure around the calendar for the manufacturer more. Ten rounds may not be ideal for all, but it is alot cheaper than a full season.

As for the ten rounds, there is nothing to stop the team from signing on up to 10 different drivers to compete in those rounds. Pending if that was their budget level. Just as Carlsson signed on for 5 rounds. The point was he only had the budget for 4.

There is no reason why the system as a whole failed. Carlsson made a commitment that he could not fulfill. Despite if it was in his control or not is not relevant. Kronos has someone for the other 5 rounds, so there is nothing wrong with the M2 team system. Just had legal wranglings about contracts between Kronos, WRC & the driver, that could not allow for another driver to take his place for Sardinia.

If you can only afford to run a vehicle for 5 to 8 rounds, there is nothing stopping you entering as a normal privateer in any way shape or form. Will just not score in the manufacturer championship. But can still compete within your budget level. So there is no basis for your argument there.

You can not please everyone, if allowed to run M2 teams for 5 to 8 rounds, a call will go out for 2 to 3 rounds for those will even less money. Such a call has the danger of specialised works-supported teams set up for specific events. A line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. Carlsson knew what the cost was & he failed his end of the bargain.

[JAM]

You lose sight of the fact that M2 teams are different to most regular privateers. They have limited support from the manufacturer of their cars & as such are allowed to score manufacturer points in that regard. They are works-supported entries, above & beyond being a total privateer.

First thing wrong, this must be called a teams championship and not a manufacturers championship. Teams are supported by manufacturers, but only a limited support, the big part of the budget is private. Points are to the team, not to the manufacturer, and when people mention a team said "Kronos" or "Stobart", not "Kronos Citroen" or "Stobart Ford".



There is no reason why the system as a whole failed. Carlsson made a commitment that he could not fulfill. Despite if it was in his control or not is not relevant. Kronos has someone for the other 5 rounds, so there is nothing wrong with the M2 team system. Just had legal wranglings about contracts between Kronos, WRC & the driver, that could not allow for another driver to take his place for Sardinia.

If you can only afford to run a vehicle for 5 to 8 rounds, there is nothing stopping you entering as a normal privateer in any way shape or form. Will just not score in the manufacturer championship. But can still compete within your budget level. So there is no basis for your argument there.

You can not please everyone, if allowed to run M2 teams for 5 to 8 rounds, a call will go out for 2 to 3 rounds for those will even less money. Such a call has the danger of specialised works-supported teams set up for specific events. A line in the sand must be drawn somewhere. Carlsson knew what the cost was & he failed his end of the bargain.

Did you notice that without Carlsson entry Kronos would not compete on the Manufacturers Championship? You should think about that.

I said this and will repeat as many times as saw oponions like yours: Ther is no money aroud to run private teams in 10 events with two cars, and on that base FIA should had created at the beggining of the year more fleible rules. You are acting like FIA, there is no money around but they act if they had 20 teams on the championship and more 25 truing to enter. They act if all of this would be full entry list, wich in fact is not.

[Peugeot206WRC]

Because this was created to help win manufacturer points, it was made with what manufacturers wanted from them. 10 rounds is two-thirds of a season which is reasonable. Manufacturers do not want a team that can score only for less than half the season. Also ten rounds spreads the exposure around the calendar for the manufacturer more. Ten rounds may not be ideal for all, but it is alot cheaper than a full season.

Correct me if im wrong, and no offense I just wanna clear things up.
But I totally thought that M2 teams was created only because of the thin starting line in 2005, where only two manu teams was confirmed (Ford and Subaru) not for helping manufacturers winning points.
Im getting confused.
I dont think the manus care how many rallies you drive (unless you beat them up)? Its totaly two different teams? Now im not longer sure what the M2 teams are for really.

Lets say if First Motorsport enter the WRC next year, can they have one driver with a Skoda and one with a Peugeot? (or whatever car) Its still same team name but different cars.
If they can I dont think the manus has nothing to do with the M2 teams, it just like any privateer team, they just selling parts and keep them with information on the car because they are customers and using their car?
Like Bozian getting support from Peugeot.

Maybe im totaly wrong, but I got little confused.

[JAM]

Correct me if im wrong, and no offense I just wanna clear things up.
But I totally thought that M2 teams was created only because of the thin starting line in 2005, where only two manu teams was confirmed (Ford and Subaru) not for helping manufacturers winning points.


You'te totally right, except the year, was 2006, not 2006.

[Gard]

You'te totally right, except the year, was 2006, not 2006.
:up:

[MikeD]

Just as Carlsson signed on for 5 rounds. The point was he only had the budget for 4.

Carlsson signed for 6 rounds but apparently only had the budget for 3 rounds. Sardegna was supposed to be his 4th round.



Kronos has someone for the other 5 rounds, so there is nothing wrong with the M2 team system.

I would very much like to see a link on that? The only thing I have heard is that Kronos (of course) are working on finding a driver for 7* of the remaining 9 rounds. That will not be an easy task, since WRC are not exately bathing in privateers with those kind of budgets at the moment.

*I assume that Carlssons stunt in Sardegna doesn't count.




If you can only afford to run a vehicle for 5 to 8 rounds, there is nothing stopping you entering as a normal privateer in any way shape or form. Will just not score in the manufacturer championship. But can still compete within your budget level. So there is no basis for your argument there.

Doh! My argument has tons of basis. The hole M2/MT has a purpose in itself because it's great competetion to see these teams (Bozian, Kronos, Stobart, Munchis) compete with eachother (Being best of the private teams).

[MikeD]

I todays paper Värmlands Folkblad (http://www.vf.se) there is a intervju with
M Van Dalen.
Daniels lack of money is the reason!

Of course. All the other BS about missing parts are nonsense.

[Roy]

Lets say if First Motorsport enter the WRC next year, can they have one driver with a Skoda and one with a Peugeot? (or whatever car) Its still same team name but different cars.
If they can I dont think the manus has nothing to do with the M2 teams, it just like any privateer team, they just selling parts and keep them with information on the car because they are customers and using their car?
Like Bozian getting support from Peugeot.

Maybe im totaly wrong, but I got little confused.
That is not possible, because MT (manufacturer team, 2007 name for M2) can only named by the car the use. So only 'First Motorsport Skoda' or 'First Motorsport other car manufacturer'

Read this and you understand the difference between Manufacturer Manufacturer Team and Privateers:
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/529461093__WRC_Constr.pdf

[Livewireshock]

Carlsson signed for 6 rounds but apparently only had the budget for 3 rounds. Sardegna was supposed to be his 4th round.

That still means that he overcommitted himself. It had nothing to do with what sort of rally program that Kronos had. Kronos have a 10 rally program that they must complete. The opportunities exist for who ever has the funding to join in.




I would very much like to see a link on that? The only thing I have heard is that Kronos (of course) are working on finding a driver for 7* of the remaining 9 rounds. That will not be an easy task, since WRC are not exately bathing in privateers with those kind of budgets at the moment.

*I assume that Carlssons stunt in Sardegna doesn't count.

Kronos are committed to compete & as such need to fill the seat. So it is logical to state that someone in the frame for the drive.



Doh! My argument has tons of basis. The hole M2/MT has a purpose in itself because it's great competetion to see these teams (Bozian, Kronos, Stobart, Munchis) compete with eachother (Being best of the private teams).

As I said before, there is nothing to stop drivers from paying what they can afford to get involved. Be it with a M2/MT team for one to whatever rounds, through to just entering their own WRC car.

As such there is no problem with the system as a whole. In fact M2/MT teams are committed to fill their seats to fulfil their contracts. So the chance is there for any driver who has funding.

By having the M2/MT teams commit to 10 rounds is also better for the championship for both the sport & the fan. If only allowed to compete at a handful of events, it would mean there would be bulging WRC entries at some rounds, leaving other rounds with just the works teams. That would not be good for anyone.

[Livewireshock]

First thing wrong, this must be called a teams championship and not a manufacturers championship. Teams are supported by manufacturers, but only a limited support, the big part of the budget is private. Points are to the team, not to the manufacturer, and when people mention a team said "Kronos" or "Stobart", not "Kronos Citroen" or "Stobart Ford".

I said from the start that they are LIMITED supported teams.



Did you notice that without Carlsson entry Kronos would not compete on the Manufacturers Championship? You should think about that.

I understand that completely. But due to legal contracting, another driver could not be put in the seat. Thus the farce in Sardinia. It is also why I said that Kronos will have someone else for the rest of the season, because they have to in order to complete their entry conditions for the season.




I said this and will repeat as many times as saw oponions like yours: Ther is no money aroud to run private teams in 10 events with two cars, and on that base FIA should had created at the beggining of the year more fleible rules. You are acting like FIA, there is no money around but they act if they had 20 teams on the championship and more 25 truing to enter. They act if all of this would be full entry list, wich in fact is not.

You are 100% correct that there is no budget for all drives for all rounds to be filled. But the majority of M2 seats are full so some people can fund the whole program. Those who can not, are paying for part seasons. There is market of drives available that must be filled so chances are available.

WRC is expensive, that is why there is the WRC 2012 review. But the cost of competing is not hidden, the drivers know the price. The point in question is that Carlsson had a deal that he could not fulfil, not that the system is corrupt.

Motorsport is full of drivers who fail to match their promises. From F1 to Champcar and into tin-tops, pick up any race magazine, there will be a story on a driver being dropped for not having the funding in place or someone just found a drive through a financial boost. Most of the time, no one bats an eyelid.

[Gard]

Of course. All the other BS about missing parts are nonsense.

oh please. Sure Daniel lacks the money, but that doesn't make the lack of good parts nonsense. Even Manfred has said this is a problem. I also understood that Manfreds sponsors threatened to hold back unless something is done.

[Peugeot206WRC]

http://www.nwt.se/ArticlePages/200705/21/20070521231231_153/20070521231231_153.dbp.asp

Dont know if there is something new in this article, its from may 22.
Someone could translate if there is something new.
Last on the page I see IRC Super 2000 and FIA.

[JAM]

You are 100% correct that there is no budget for all drives for all rounds to be filled. But the majority of M2 seats are full so some people can fund the whole program. Those who can not, are paying for part seasons. There is market of drives available that must be filled so chances are available.

WRC is expensive, that is why there is the WRC 2012 review. But the cost of competing is not hidden, the drivers know the price. The point in question is that Carlsson had a deal that he could not fulfil, not that the system is corrupt.

Motorsport is full of drivers who fail to match their promises. From F1 to Champcar and into tin-tops, pick up any race magazine, there will be a story on a driver being dropped for not having the funding in place or someone just found a drive through a financial boost. Most of the time, no one bats an eyelid.

Dear Livewireshock

I have no doubt about the drivers and teams that you refer. We have a big market of drivers and teams, but only have 6 teams on WRC (looking at Kronos they seem that they will be no more a team because don't have a second car for 7 rallyes) and 11 drivers competing on that teams. Is this a good number? Of course not. In F1 you have 11 teams and will have more.

Why do you have only 6 teams? Because the rules show litle flexibility, but the worst thing is that you could have a a career of a driver stoped by that inflexibility. FIA could had decided that Carlsson would not score more points, but they simply decided that we will not race anymore this year. And why? Because he ran out of money, probably because his sponsor decidid to stop supporting him.

This is the case that when a person is in bad situation there is always someone that could make things worst...

IMO this is purely stupid. Next year drivers think twice before making a subscription on the champioship, if his sponsor will go bankrupcy they could be suspended from the championship :D this is lake of respect by costumers. FIA forget that drivers are costumers of a championship. Without costumers ther is no championship.

[fdebruyne]

He sais he has not given up yet, his goals is/was a full WRC in future. Now he is looking for 2 alternative championchips (for this year only?)... Or het IRC where he is contacting teams atm or the swedish national championship...

Maybe bad translation since i'm a dutchy :)

[DonJippo]

Next year drivers think twice before making a subscription on the champioship, if his sponsor will go bankrupcy they could be suspended from the championship :D this is lake of respect by costumers. FIA forget that drivers are costumers of a championship. Without costumers ther is no championship.

I sincerely hope they will do that so that we won't see this kind of nonsense anymore. Kronos made a commitrement to participate to the championship, they made an entry for two cars for Sardinia they nominated Daniel as their second driver and what does he do? Drives down from startramp and retires...very professional....if FIA let this happen without implications what's next? Ten drivers retiring after start ceremony, said it before and will said it again good move by FIA.

[Peugeot206WRC]

I sincerely hope they will do that so that we won't see this kind of nonsense anymore. Kronos made a commitrement to participate to the championship, they made an entry for two cars for Sardinia they nominated Daniel as their second driver and what does he do? Drives down from startramp and retires...very professional....if FIA let this happen without implications what's next? Ten drivers retiring after start ceremony, said it before and will said it again good move by FIA.

I know its true and thats where the WRC stands now, but you missing the point.

Look at this

"Although the action is understandable to some degree, the scenario contains some irony. The WRC is in a crisis with deminishing numbers of teams as it is. Right in this scenario a driver is banned. And more even, not only for Kronos, but for all potential privateer teams this is a warning shot that even with sponsorship money you have to be careful what you are committing to in the WRC, you may be punished severely for reasons beyond your control.

It is ironic because it is exactly the extensive calendar and the must to do so many rounds that led to teams like Skoda and Mitsubishi withdraw in recent years and that makes it far more difficult for new teams to commit to a series that is already thin in entries."

http://www.rallye-info.com/article.asp?stid=6149

And then I wonder why a sponsor would pull out like that, im sure they know what money they needed before so I doubt the sponsor didnt have money left.
I guess when you promised a competetive car and that is what you tells your sponsor but you get 3 year old stuff and have to struggle to get points, could be one reason to lack of interest from a sponsor.

[Livewireshock]

Dear Livewireshock

I have no doubt about the drivers and teams that you refer. We have a big market of drivers and teams, but only have 6 teams on WRC (looking at Kronos they seem that they will be no more a team because don't have a second car for 7 rallyes) and 11 drivers competing on that teams. Is this a good number? Of course not. In F1 you have 11 teams and will have more.

Why do you have only 6 teams? Because the rules show litle flexibility, but the worst thing is that you could have a a career of a driver stoped by that inflexibility. FIA could had decided that Carlsson would not score more points, but they simply decided that we will not race anymore this year. And why? Because he ran out of money, probably because his sponsor decidid to stop supporting him.

The WRC with the M2/MT system creates another level or stepping stone if you like. From basic privateer up to M2/MT and onto a works drive. As a stand alone privateer we have all the flexibility we could want to enter whatever events we like according to what we can afford.

You & I, my friend can still put our money together tomorrow & enter what ever amount of rounds we can afford to do. There are no rules stating that we MUST sign on for 10 rounds and that we MUST be a M2/MT team. If our budget allows us to do only, say Finland & Germany, we can still be a normal privateer.

M2/MT team system just ensures that most rallies have a spread of competitors plus the manufacturer support is a bonus. However, if we suddenly got grand ideas & thought entering as an M2/MT would be good, then we must match the commitment that higher level takes.

It is no different for the PCWRC or JWRC, you can enter individual events in a Gp. N or S1600 car as a privateer. But sign on for the entire championship, you commit yourself to all that entails.

A driver I know from Australia did exactly that, travelling to compete with his Gp. N Lancer in Argentina. His budget does not allow for a full PCWRC championship, but he wanted to taste of international conditions & competition. He had the money to do that, now he will look as other one off events in the future that he can afford.




This is the case that when a person is in bad situation there is always someone that could make things worst...

IMO this is purely stupid. Next year drivers think twice before making a subscription on the champioship, if his sponsor will go bankrupcy they could be suspended from the championship :D this is lake of respect by costumers. FIA forget that drivers are costumers of a championship. Without costumers ther is no championship.

The rule is harsh & I doubt it was meant to hurt drivers who honestly have been poorly done by their sponsors. It was set up to deal with dishonest drivers who promise alot & yet deliver nothing. It places a set cost for the season with set conditions attached. It also ensure more drivers at most of the events of the world, not just Monte, Finland & such.

Carlsson knew exactly what the cost was. He knew what the penalties were. It then is more of a personal matter, between him, his sponsors & the team then. It is sad that his sponsor or whoever let him down. I would have liked him to have raced but motorsport at this level is not a charity. Tighter control should have been made over the delivery of his sponsorship dollars. If that money came through for him, then this argument would not exist because he would have matched his contract.

I want Galli, Duval, Carlsson, McRae, Panizzi & the myriad of other drivers out there competing at the top level. It is that the top level has a cost, you must be prepared to pay that cost, face the penalties if you fail to pay or sit it out if you have not got the budget. It is not the system of M2 teams that is wrong, it is the overall cost of competing that is. The FIA are looking at it & WRC-2012 looks promising at the moment but we have to wait & see.

I have personally been involved in situations in the early '90s with circuit racing, no less than four drivers lied straight out about their budget capability. One of those drivers drove a great man I knew to ruin, while the driver left the country to con his way in Europe. Even sponsors have been bad in the past too.

[rwssport]

That is not possible, because MT (manufacturer team, 2007 name for M2) can only named by the car the use. So only 'First Motorsport Skoda' or 'First Motorsport other car manufacturer'

Read this and you understand the difference between Manufacturer Manufacturer Team and Privateers:
http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/529461093__WRC_Constr.pdf

Very true but I guess there would be nothing wrong with say First Motorsport entering their own team and then running another batch of cars, whether or not the same make, on behalf of another team.

[rwssport]

oh please. Sure Daniel lacks the money, but that doesn't make the lack of good parts nonsense. Even Manfred has said this is a problem. I also understood that Manfreds sponsors threatened to hold back unless something is done.

And wasn't Gigi's stopping of his prorgamme partly car related as well?

[JAM]

The rule is harsh & I doubt it was meant to hurt drivers who honestly have been poorly done by their sponsors. It was set up to deal with dishonest drivers who promise alot & yet deliver nothing. It places a set cost for the season with set conditions attached. It also ensure more drivers at most of the events of the world, not just Monte, Finland & such.


And the rule is working well, 10 WRC cars out of Europe and 20 WRC in Europe rallyes. Is amazing how we see that things don't work and you still continue continue agreeing with it and trying to show the rules as a big advantage to WRC.



Carlsson knew exactly what the cost was. He knew what the penalties were. It then is more of a personal matter, between him, his sponsors & the team then. It is sad that his sponsor or whoever let him down. I would have liked him to have raced but motorsport at this level is not a charity. Tighter control should have been made over the delivery of his sponsorship dollars. If that money came through for him, then this argument would not exist because he would have matched his contract.

For your words i start to think that you want to say that Carlsson was not totally honest when signed the contract. He knew that was able to do do only 3 rallyes and sign a contract for 7, right?

[DonJippo]

For your words i start to think that you want to say that Carlsson was not totally honest when signed the contract. He knew that was able to do do only 3 rallyes and sign a contract for 7, right?

Either that or he did a lousy contract with his sponsor about the commitment to fund his WRC adventure in 2007.

[Peugeot206WRC]

Either that or he did a lousy contract with his sponsor about the commitment to fund his WRC adventure in 2007.

Carlsson signed Kronos with the promise he would get a competetive car and so was Carlsson and his sponsors thought.
Now im not sure if the Kronos cars (and Gigis) running with old stuff (but it seems sure), I believe that is the main reason the sposnor quit supporting him.
Its like putting money on a commercial sign on a freeway and everything seems great, but when its finished you cant see it because its behind a wall (not a good comparison but similair), would you still pay the rent.

Another thing I come to think about when we talk about his "money/sponsor" problem and the parts is why Carlsson thinking of appeal against this even though you say he got no money.
It makes no sense (if he have no money or sponsor), then maybe he is really stupid..
There must be another reason beyond the money/sponsor thing for sure and I think its the old parts and thats the reason why the sponsor cant see any reason to put money on him.

Luckily Gigi (who seems to quit his WRC program due same reason) wont get a ban and luckily Stohl didnt do the same as he was near too do even though I think he got money.

[Livewireshock]

And the rule is working well, 10 WRC cars out of Europe and 20 WRC in Europe rallyes. Is amazing how we see that things don't work and you still continue continue agreeing with it and trying to show the rules as a big advantage to WRC.

You fail to see the point. It is not the rules that are the problem. It is the cost of competing in WRC. Remove the rule, it would have been still too expensive for some privateer drivers to compete. The FIA changing the rule will not bring Galli, Duval & the others back, when they do not have the money. If they do find a backer, then they have every chance open to them to enter however many rounds they can afford to do.

Moves are being made to shake up the costs for a WRC drive. It could from the outlook, allows for many more people to run at the top level. However, as WRC will continue to be the top level of rallying, it will still be more expensive than what some people can afford. There will always be the haves & the have nots.

If a M2/MT drive costs $X today, lowering the cost of WRC as a whole will mean that M2/MT drive will cost Y% lower. Cheaper & more affordable.

Carlsson could hypothetically then have competed all 6 or7 drives for the cost of the three he did this year?? It is a case of watch this space.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, the cost per rally at WRC will reduce & make it more affordable. That way more people can compete, either as full privateers or at the M2/MT level on the way up to works drives.



For your words i start to think that you want to say that Carlsson was not totally honest when signed the contract. He knew that was able to do do only 3 rallyes and sign a contract for 7, right?

I have no idea what the deal was for Kronos, none of us will know for certain & there will be differing sides to the tale if it ever is told. As for the parts issue or not, it is a common gripe between works & satellite teams. It may be the truth or just a scape goat. Who knows? It is too easy to over speculate.

It does not change the fact that his funding dried up & that is that. If there was outside influence, then that is a civil matter for Daniel to handle. It does not change the fact he was still bound to the commitment he made.

The banishment rule was designed to stop flash-in-the-pan pay drivers from creating a mess. Making promises that they can not fulfil. The sport is full of the debri that this bad behaviour has caused in the past.

[JAM]

You fail to see the point. It is not the rules that are the problem. It is the cost of competing in WRC. Remove the rule, it would have been still too expensive for some privateer drivers to compete. The FIA changing the rule will not bring Galli, Duval & the others back, when they do not have the money. If they do find a backer, then they have every chance open to them to enter however many rounds they can afford to do.

Moves are being made to shake up the costs for a WRC drive. It could from the outlook, allows for many more people to run at the top level. However, as WRC will continue to be the top level of rallying, it will still be more expensive than what some people can afford. There will always be the haves & the have nots.

If a M2/MT drive costs $X today, lowering the cost of WRC as a whole will mean that M2/MT drive will cost Y% lower. Cheaper & more affordable.

Carlsson could hypothetically then have competed all 6 or7 drives for the cost of the three he did this year?? It is a case of watch this space.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, the cost per rally at WRC will reduce & make it more affordable. That way more people can compete, either as full privateers or at the M2/MT level on the way up to works drives.


I agree with you that the costs are the problem. :up: But if the so talked cost reduction don't come to light, then there are some moves that could be done to have more teams interested on the championship points. What i don´t like to see is a championship points table with 6 names, gives the idea of a failled champioship, as it really is.



I have no idea what the deal was for Kronos, none of us will know for certain & there will be differing sides to the tale if it ever is told. As for the parts issue or not, it is a common gripe between works & satellite teams. It may be the truth or just a scape goat. Who knows? It is too easy to over speculate.

It does not change the fact that his funding dried up & that is that. If there was outside influence, then that is a civil matter for Daniel to handle. It does not change the fact he was still bound to the commitment he made.

The banishment rule was designed to stop flash-in-the-pan pay drivers from creating a mess. Making promises that they can not fulfil. The sport is full of the debri that this bad behaviour has caused in the past.

I know that in motorsport we had a lot of drivers without money but full of promises that don't confirm. I don't think that Carlsson is one of that examples. That's why i'm compreensive in Carlsson's case and think that it was a suspension very hard. We have a lot of drivers that only started the rally and retired before SS1 and FIA didn't suspended him.

Motorsport is tough and is not a charity field, but when the championship is falling down, some flexibility to not create dificultes to the ones that are there could be a good strategy. Thats my idea. I like to see flexibility to try to run at the same level as the dificulties, but i don't like rules created as if the competitions would be full of health, when in fact they are not.

[swordsman]

Either that or he did a lousy contract with his sponsor about the commitment to fund his WRC adventure in 2007.

Contract with a sponsor? Hehe... It seems you are not really deep into the business :) In my world it's very uncommon with signed sponsor contracts.

[DonJippo]

Contract with a sponsor? Hehe... It seems you are not really deep into the business :) In my world it's very uncommon with signed sponsor contracts.

No wonder he ran out of money... :rolleyes: