FIA tax-man goes ballistic

[Ranger]

Superlicense costs skyrocket.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64750


Superlicence cost goes up from 2008

By Steve Cooper Friday, January 18th 2008, 11:18 GMT


The cost of Formula One superlicences has shot up this year in a move that should dissuade less-qualified drivers from applying for one, this week's Autosport reveals.

A superlicence is a mandatory requirement for an F1 driver and last season one only cost 1,690 Euros, plus an additional 447 Euros per point scored in the previous year's championship.

However, the FIA's World Motor Sport Council recently approved a huge price hike that will see the licence now cost 10,000 Euros plus an additional 2,000 Euros per point.

That means world champion Kimi Raikkonen's superlicence will cost 230,000 Euros - and increase of almost 199,255 Euros on what it cost him in 2007. For Ferrari, the total bill for their two drivers will be 428,000 Euros.

No official reason has been given for the increase in costs, but Autosport reports that the increased fees may be aimed at discouraging lesser qualified drivers from applying for a superlicence and to preserve F1's exclusivety.

I will and do credit the FIA for what it does right... but man they just hit new lows here. What other sporting body tries to reduce the influx of new talent by such extreme measures??

That article points to the increased exclusivity that the FIA believe it will bring. I would translate that as the FIA trying to make F1 inbred (more than it is, in any case). I see no other reason for it.

Ridiculous.

[ShiftingGears]

A filthy money grab.

[ArrowsFA1]

That article points to the increased exclusivity that the FIA believe it will bring.
Exclusivity based on ability to pay certainly :dozey:

That said for a driver to progress up the ranks to F1 takes a wad of cash anyway, so if they've made it that far then I guess the supposition is that the sponsor or team they are linked with would stump up the cash if they wanted to see 'their' driver in F1.

Perhaps if the drivers object to this price rise we'll see another drivers strike as we did at the 1982 South African GP :eek:

Perhaps if the drivers object to this price rise we'll see another drivers strike as we did at the 1982 South African GP :eek:

Best get that Piano tuned up!

[MAX_THRUST]

Least Kimi can afford it. Who paysfor it anyway. His team, from his wages, so its not like he has to write a cheque. His accountant will say, well you spent this much last year and you earnt this much. As your not paying tax because you have a house in Monaco, or another tax haven you have discovered, I really don't think the drivers will care to much.

It's rough on the new boys but you think the investment these teams make in taking the risk of a new young driver. Maybe this is the FIA trying to keep other young hotshots coming in and upsetting the apple cart....

As for the drivers that earn millions each year, OH MY POOR HEART BLEEDS FOR THEM!!!

[markabilly]

Least Kimi can afford it. Who paysfor it anyway. His team, from his wages, so its not like he has to write a cheque. His accountant will say, well you spent this much last year and you earnt this much. As your not paying tax because you have a house in Monaco, or another tax haven you have discovered, I really don't think the drivers will care to much.

It's rough on the new boys but you think the investment these teams make in taking the risk of a new young driver. Maybe this is the FIA trying to keep other young hotshots coming in and upsetting the apple cart....

As for the drivers that earn millions each year, OH MY POOR HEART BLEEDS FOR THEM!!!

It should bleed---that 230,000 Euro dollar works out to be what is in us dollars? $330,000 for a one year license?????? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[TMorel]

Hang on, I thought the FIA wanted to help reduce costs - hence the budget capping on the other thread.

The '82 drivers strike... ah yes, in a way one of my favourite times in the sport. Thinking back to Elio playing the piano - Gosh, I feel all pathetic now getting misty eyed at those memories :(

[trumperZ06]

:dozey: What does the FIA gain (except $$$) by imposing this ridiculous tax???

;) Another FIA regulation that is utter nonsense.

[Mark]

It's Euros not Euro dollar.

[trumperZ06]

It should bleed---that 230,000 Euro dollar works out to be what is in us dollars? $330,000 for a one year license?????? :eek: :eek: :eek:

;) Hhmmm... either way, it's a Lot of Money !!!

Our keyboards (here in the US), don't have the equalivent Euro character for $$$. Sorriiee.

[janneppi]

Then you just write EUR, e or Euros. ;)

[inimitablestoo]

What I don't understand is the additional premium per point scored - do they want to use this as an incentive for one driver not to run away with the championship? Will we see a situation where a bunch of drivers suddenly slow down with the chequered flag in sight, not daring to finish in the points in case they price themselves out of the following year's championship? ;)

[Garry Walker]

Whats this max? I thought you were trying to REDUCE costs?



Perhaps if the drivers object to this price rise we'll see another drivers strike as we did at the 1982 South African GP :eek:

I believe the teams are paying those.


It should bleed---that 230,000 Euro dollar works out to be what is in us dollars? $330,000 for a one year license?????? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Euro dollar? :rotflmao:

[wmcot]

I may be really dense, but I thought you had to earn a super license with talent, not with cash?

[AJP]

I may be really dense, but I thought you had to earn a super license with talent, not with cash?

precisely.
reducing costs my ass!
they are all a bunch of pay drivers now..

[Osella]

Now just wait for the FIA to announce a new NASCAR-style points system: 180 points for a win ;)

[gloomyDAY]

Now just wait for the FIA to announce a new NASCAR-style points system: 180 points for a win ;)
NASCARification of F1.

Believe it people. LOL!

[wmcot]

I think I'll get a superlicense. I won't pay too much since I won't have any points to worry about. I'll never use it, but it would be a fun talking point! :)

[Osella]

You mean like Jos Verstappen?.. ;)

[waitey]

how can it be discouraging less qualified drivers to apply, when technically the better drivers have to pay more for their license because of more points?

[ShiftingGears]

how can it be discouraging less qualified drivers to apply, when technically the better drivers have to pay more for their license because of more points?

Because the drivers all have to pay more money than they previously did to acquire a super license.

[Ranger]

how can it be discouraging less qualified drivers to apply, when technically the better drivers have to pay more for their license because of more points?
Because the initial cost of the license has still increased 6-fold regardless of points scored.

It seems that $100 million that went into the FIA's pockets in September wasn't enough, despite calls for cost cutting. A vastly stupid exercise for all.

[markabilly]

MaX got to have his dough for his living style, just like benie

[wmcot]

You mean like Jos Verstappen?.. ;)

Good one!! :)

[CNR]

this is fen bull



Driver Super license feeK.Raikkonen UK£166500L. Hamilton UK£165000F. Alonso UK£165000F. Massa UK£143000N. Heidfeld UK£95000R. Kubica UK£63500H. Kovalainen UK£50500G. Fisichella UK£37000N. Rosberg UK£36000D. Coulthard UK£27000A. Wurz UK£25500M. Webber UK£21500J. Trulli UK£18500S. Vettel UK£15500J. Button UK£15500T. Sato UK£12500V. Liuzzi UK£11000A. Sutil UK£8000R. Barrichello UK£7000A. Davidson UK£7000K. Nakajima UK£7000N. Piquet UK£7000T. Glock UK£7000S. Bourdais UK£7000


http://www.fosagold.org/F1SA/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5182&Itemid=2

[waitey]

Because the initial cost of the license has still increased 6-fold regardless of points scored.

It seems that $100 million that went into the FIA's pockets in September wasn't enough, despite calls for cost cutting. A vastly stupid exercise for all.

Yes i know. but at the same time. If you are that step under f1, and you need to fork out 10,000 euros or so. you can do it. trust me. I am trying to get the budget so I can race Formula BMW Pacific next season, have got offers from 5 teams for a race seat but it's well over 130,000 Euros a season. So basically what i mean is, if you get that close to f1, this license of 10,000 Euros will not turn you away. It's bad if your an experienced driver dominating the championship though! Another dumb thing by the FIA.

[tinchote]

Like several said, if you can get to F1 you can pay it. Regarding the amoung that a newbie would have to pay, many people here seem to forget that we are talking about an amount similar to the cost of one helmet. What's the big deal? Does anyone think that a team would not run a driver because of 8000 euros?

And regarding the drivers with points in the championship, with almost no exception their salaries are in the millions. What's the big deal, then?

[Osella]

The problem is the way things work outside those top teams.

Ignoring those manufacturer/top teams who will no doubt pay for the driver's superlicence, what about the lower teams?

Teams like Super Aguri and Force India are low-budget teams, and certainly Spyker were in serious financial trouble. If a driver is trying to get a deal with them, they normally have to have to pay for a test in the first place (in 2001 for example, Andy Priaulx was offered an Arrows test by Tom Walkinshaw; the cost of the test was a cool £300,000...) Then, in addition to paying for perhaps 2 tests or more, the promising driver will have to bring a budget to the team to run a full or part-season, and now is being asked to pay huge amounts for a superlicence in order to race! To say that 'if you can get to F1 you can pay for it' is rubbish, because the drivers are now having to go to their sponsors and ask for an extra few thousand dollars, in addition to the hundreds of thousands they are already expected to pay to get the driver into a team.. To place this extra pressure on young drivers trying to get a break, at a time of global financial uncertainty and a perception of F1 as being unneccessarily overblown, expensive and environmentally damaging is just plain stupidity on the part of the FIA.

[CNR]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41672

At a lunch with journalists on Monday, FIA president Max Mosley explained that the funds raised would be earmarked for the governing body’s ongoing safety drive.


‘Hang on a minute, these drivers are all earning megabucks and we're spending a fortune to try and make sure they are safe.’

[GridGirl]

Do you need a superlicence to test F1 cars? I've seen recent F1 test contracts and the wage that a driver could get testing for a top F1 team for a season does not cover the cost of a licence, let alone a small team with next to nothing budget.

If the driver is paying I'm sure it will be tax deductable. It's hardly going to stop them swanning off to Switzerland or Monaco though. :p

Sounds a bit daft, but this is the FIA we're talking about. :s

[markabilly]

Do you need a superlicence to test F1 cars? I've seen recent F1 test contracts and the wage that a driver could get testing for a top F1 team for a season does not cover the cost of a licence, let alone a small team with next to nothing budget.

If the driver is paying I'm sure it will be tax deductable. It's hardly going to stop them swanning off to Switzerland or Monaco though. :p

Sounds a bit daft, but this is the FIA we're talking about. :s
"seen" recent contracts.....how pray tell, do we have an "insider"

[gloomyDAY]

The drivers' seem a bit peeved.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964

[AndyRAC]

Now just wait for the FIA to announce a new NASCAR-style points system: 180 points for a win ;)

Not forgetting a 'Chase for the Cup/Title'.........

[ioan]

The drivers' seem a bit peeved.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964


They should stop crying for money, they earn more than enough for steering a car a few hundreds kms every 2nd Sunday.

[gloomyDAY]

They should stop crying for money, they earn more than enough for steering a car a few hundreds kms every 2nd Sunday.That's unfair. You really want to deprive the drivers from an island getaway in the Bahamas? :p

[Rusty Spanner]

Hang on I thought Bernie was the only one allowed to bleed all the money out of F1.

If the FIA is using all this money for its on going safety programs then why the sudden huge rise last year? Didn't they bother with safety before that.
What about all the money the FIA gets from sanctioning fees, entry fees, fines, commercial rights etc. for this? after all isn't that what the governing body is for?

Whether its the drivers themselves or the teams who pay makes little difference. It all gets factored into salary negociations or the amount of money brought to the team by a driver.

If the FIA steps forward and clearly shows where all this money is going I'll reconsider. But until then it just looks like a money grab.

[ioan]

Hang on I thought Bernie was the only one allowed to bleed all the money out of F1.

If the FIA is using all this money for its on going safety programs then why the sudden huge rise last year? Didn't they bother with safety before that.
What about all the money the FIA gets from sanctioning fees, entry fees, fines, commercial rights etc. for this? after all isn't that what the governing body is for?

Whether its the drivers themselves or the teams who pay makes little difference. It all gets factored into salary negociations or the amount of money brought to the team by a driver.

If the FIA steps forward and clearly shows where all this money is going I'll reconsider. But until then it just looks like a money grab.

Load of bollocks. The FIA always worked towards safety on race tracks and on the roads.

[Rusty Spanner]

Load of bollocks. The FIA always worked towards safety on race tracks and on the roads.

I think you've missed the point - and the sarcasm.

The FIA has always been working on safety, but why suddenly do they feel they need more money for it, and why do they think a huge rise in the cost of a super licence is the way to fund it?

[Hondo]

Ahhhhhhh...government and it's relatives, Stuff like this tickles me. The drivers or somebody has to pay big bucks for a super license to be a Formula 1 driver. But no license is required to be the head of the FIA, or a stewart, or a representitive.

In the USA for the most part, you need a license to be a plumber, electrician, and most other skilled crafts and professions, but any fool can put his or her name on a ballet and become President of the United States.

Amazing, ain't it?

[ArrowsFA1]

Amazing, ain't it?
It is :dozey:

The superlicence is "awarded" to drivers based on certain criteria i.e. success in other series enables them to get one which then permits them to race in F1. They've earned it; then they have to pay for it :crazy:

[PolePosition_1]

I feel very sorry for them, poor guys, having to pay £200,000 out of a £10,000,000 pay packet to improve safety for them. Must be tough!

Whilst I can sympathise in some respect, if you look at Vettel, who is probably on a "modest" paywage, and scored a relatively high number of points, but at end of the day, he still probably made £300,000 that year. I guess a percentage of driver wage would be more suitable.

But I can't say I'm impressed about the fuss they're making. We have a credit crunch, people are struggling, and these guys being paid to do something they love, and moaning about an amount of money which isn't going to affect their lifestyles.

[ArrowsFA1]

When a fee increase was announced last year Fernando Alonso said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964):
"we all agree that it is not fair that from one year to the next it (the cost) increases 500-600 percent"
Now, I haven't checked his figures, but that level of increase hardly seems reasonable.

The latest dispute is over "a further minor increase" so having accepted the large increase I can see why some may baulk at the drivers complaining this time around, but although many of them are very wealthy people the licence is something the FIA says they have to have to be able to race (work).

It's a bit like the car tax here in the UK. Car owners have to have it. The fee increases almost every year and we keep paying it because we have to. If we were told the fee was being increased by 500-600 percent one year I wonder what the reaction of UK car owners would be :crazy:

[Knock-on]

When a fee increase was announced last year Fernando Alonso said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964):
Now, I haven't checked his figures, but that level of increase hardly seems reasonable.

The latest dispute is over "a further minor increase" so having accepted the large increase I can see why some may baulk at the drivers complaining this time around, but although many of them are very wealthy people the licence is something the FIA says they have to have to be able to race (work).

It's a bit like the car tax here in the UK. Car owners have to have it. The fee increases almost every year and we keep paying it because we have to. If we were told the fee was being increased by 500-600 percent one year I wonder what the reaction of UK car owners would be :crazy:

I think you will find they may well be up in arms if that were to happen.

Most people operate a NIMBY version of fairness ;)

[inimitablestoo]

Given that the amount they pay is calculated on a per-points basis, perhaps Bernie was hoping he could garner support for his medals system instead? ;)

[PolePosition_1]

When a fee increase was announced last year Fernando Alonso said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964):
Now, I haven't checked his figures, but that level of increase hardly seems reasonable.

The latest dispute is over "a further minor increase" so having accepted the large increase I can see why some may baulk at the drivers complaining this time around, but although many of them are very wealthy people the licence is something the FIA says they have to have to be able to race (work).

It's a bit like the car tax here in the UK. Car owners have to have it. The fee increases almost every year and we keep paying it because we have to. If we were told the fee was being increased by 500-600 percent one year I wonder what the reaction of UK car owners would be :crazy:

Thats such a right wing view. Its totally different. With car tax, we're talking up to £200 a year, with their FIA superlicense, to be fair we're probably talking about the same in ratio, but difference is that they will have millions a year to live off!

Whilst I can see their view points, I cannot agree with the amount of fuss they're making.

[SGWilko]

It's a bit like the car tax here in the UK. Car owners have to have it.


You should spend some time in my old house. Round there, a good proportion of the 'tenants' of the 'affordable housing' area, who all had cars, and could afford to smoke while not being employed, never had a valid tax disk.

Unsurprisingly, coppers did feck all about it.... but that's another story. ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Its totally different. With car tax, we're talking up to £200 a year, with their FIA superlicense, to be fair we're probably talking about the same in ratio, but difference is that they will have millions a year to live off!
Not all of the drivers earn $m's but when the fee increase was first announced a year ago Autosport reported (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64750) that "Kimi Raikkonen's superlicense will cost him 230,000 euros - an increase of 199,255 euros compared to 2007." Obviously Kimi would have no problem finding the money, but I don't think ability to pay is the main issue.

The argument (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64883) for the increase, according to Max, was: "We spend a fortune on safety and most of it is for the benefit of the drivers...A lot of the people who have otherwise been meeting the bill said 'Hang on a minute, these drivers are all earning megabucks and we are spending a fortune to try and make sure they are safe. So hence the increase."

Sounds reasonable, although it also raises a few questions. "We spend a fortune"? We being the FIA? Perhaps not because it seems "a lot of people" meet the bill. So does the FIA pay for safety or is it perhaps the circuit owners? Whoever it is seem to have been happy to foot the bill up until a year ago. What changed and why such a dramatic increase?

Perhaps those paying the bills lobbied the FIA and, knowing the GPDA was not particularly effective or influential, the FIA agreed with their wishes. Who knows :crazy:

[ioan]

As long as the fee is proportional with the pay I see no discrimination and they should not complain given their huge pay checks.

[Knock-on]

Thats such a right wing view. Its totally different. With car tax, we're talking up to £200 a year, with their FIA superlicense, to be fair we're probably talking about the same in ratio, but difference is that they will have millions a year to live off!

Whilst I can see their view points, I cannot agree with the amount of fuss they're making.

To be fair, it's such a Left wing view to automatically penalise the successful.

This is a tax on success. Pure and simple.

[ArrowsFA1]

Thats such a right wing view.
I'm not sure that raising an objection to a 500-600 percent increase in fees is a right wing viewpoint. I see that as unreasonable, not right wing :)

If it were not for such a sudden and dramatic increase last year I don't suppose the drivers would object nearly as much, if at all, to this year's increase which is, according to Autosport (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964), purely the result of inflation.

[PolePosition_1]

To be fair, it's such a Left wing view to automatically penalise the successful.

This is a tax on success. Pure and simple.

I agree, ideally it would be proportional to amount you earn.

But even then, we're talking about Lewis paying 200k, when he probably earnt 10m, so he still got 9,800,000 left to spend.

Even Vettal who probably driver who paid highest ratio, say he is on 500k, he probably paid 70k, I'm sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with people who are complaining on paying this amount of money, for safety to protect them and those who enable them to compete in sport they love, when it doesn't affect their lifestyle whatsoever.

Most people would happily pay this "tax" to get paid what they do and doing job they love.

[Knock-on]

I agree, ideally it would be proportional to amount you earn.

But even then, we're talking about Lewis paying 200k, when he probably earnt 10m, so he still got 9,800,000 left to spend.

Even Vettal who probably driver who paid highest ratio, say he is on 500k, he probably paid 70k, I'm sorry, but I find it hard to sympathise with people who are complaining on paying this amount of money, for safety to protect them and those who enable them to compete in sport they love, when it doesn't affect their lifestyle whatsoever.

Most people would happily pay this "tax" to get paid what they do and doing job they love.

I don't care how much tax they pay but that should be for the Government to decide and not Max.

I quite enjoy my job but would not be too happy if my box started taxing me in addition to the Government because I don't dislike what I'm doing.

Where does the line get drawn? Just how much can one earn before it's justifiable to penalise them like this.

In your opinion, earning £500k a year might be the right amount while the same question to someone in a Bombay slum might be £500.

Equality isn't supposed to be selective.

[ioan]

To be fair, it's such a Left wing view to automatically penalise the successful.

This is a tax on success. Pure and simple.

Because the taxes you pay aren't the same?
Aren't any taxes based on profit/success?! :rolleyes:

And as far as I know all the governments have such taxes even the most Right wing ones.

[Knock-on]

Because the taxes you pay aren't the same?
Aren't any taxes based on profit/success?! :rolleyes:

And as far as I know all the governments have such taxes even the most Right wing ones.

Exactly.

Government tax residents. Not Max!!

This is for a Licence, not a Tax.

How would you like to pay income tax and then buy a driving licence based on how much you earn?

[ioan]

Exactly.

Government tax residents. Not Max!!

This is for a Licence, not a Tax.

How would you like to pay income tax and then buy a driving licence based on how much you earn?

The problem is that their driving license is a very special license that gives them the chance to earn those incredible amounts of money.
No superlicense, no money.
The FIA has the right to impose whatever they wish in this conditions.

It's like with a copyright license, you'll sell x amount of copies you have to pay the author x*y%.

[BDunnell]

As long as the fee is proportional with the pay I see no discrimination and they should not complain given their huge pay checks.

ioan, I agree very much with your view. Proportionality is what counts, and they all have the ability to pay. It's not as if they will lose out financially when all is said and done and they receive their wages.

[ioan]

ioan, I agree very much with your view. Proportionality is what counts, and they all have the ability to pay. It's not as if they will lose out financially when all is said and done and they receive their wages.

Thanks, I appreciate it. :)

[ArrowsFA1]

The problem is that their driving license is a very special license that gives them the chance to earn those incredible amounts of money.
The superlicence means they can race in F1. Nothing else. It is an FIA requirement. To qualify for a superlicence a driver must satisfy certain criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence) none of which relate to earnings.

[BDunnell]

The superlicence means they can race in F1. Nothing else. It is an FIA requirement. To qualify for a superlicence a driver must satisfy certain criteria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence) none of which relate to earnings.

But the amount concerned is still a drop in the ocean for a lot of these drivers. If I'm honest, I actually don't see why it has to go up, but I always find it rather distasteful when very rich people moan about having to spend what is for them a fairly small amount of money on something.

[Bagwan]

That the drivers must pay a large sum to have a super-licence is not what bothers me .

It is the fact that the driver who does well pays more .
Why should it matter if you score more points in regards to safety ?
If you get your car to the end of every race , whether in the points or not , are you not likely a safer driver ?

How about , like most governments , make the owner of the licence with more points against it , pay more , when renewing ?

Hopefully , it would result in more respect on track , and make those who really make it necessary for extensive safety proceedures , pay for it .

Attach a fee to the teams employing those drivers with records of unsafe conduct , and the dangerous would be weeded out even quicker .

[ArrowsFA1]

But the amount concerned is still a drop in the ocean for a lot of these drivers.
True, but I still don't think that their ability to pay is the issue. The drivers are already taxed on their earnings. If the superlicence is effectively to become a payment for safety provided for the drivers, in addition to being a qualification enabling them to race, why should the fee paid by each driver differ? The level of safety doesn't differ and there aren't different levels of superlicence according to points scored or salary.

How about , like most governments , make the owner of the licence with more points against it , pay more , when renewing ?

Hopefully , it would result in more respect on track , and make those who really make it necessary for extensive safety proceedures , pay for it .

Attach a fee to the teams employing those drivers with records of unsafe conduct , and the dangerous would be weeded out even quicker .
I've sometimes read of drivers in other formulae having their licences "endorsed" for on-track offences, but can't recall incidents like this happening in F1. I think there's something in the FIA regs about when a superlicence is first issued the driver is on probabtion. This certainly was an issue in Kimi's debut season, but other than that...?

Perhaps the FIA should look at your idea :s mokin:

I've sometimes read of drivers in other formulae having their licences "endorsed" for on-track offences, but can't recall incidents like this happening in F1. I think there's something in the FIA regs about when a superlicence is first issued the driver is on probabtion. This certainly was an issue in Kimi's debut season, but other than that...?

Yuji Ide had his superlicence revoked after Imola 2006.
after being put on probation.

The "probation" period for Kimi was just a precaution given that he went from Formula Renault to Formula 1, a 'jump' of at least 3 formulas. Nobody had done that before.

To be honest, every time a driver gets in a race car he is on "probation", in that the stewards and offcials can revoke his/her licence over any incident they deem to be serious enough to deserve such a sanction.

Of course, that opens up a whole debate over what is serious.

Some would say that parking on the track to bring out the yellows should have been an infringement worthy of a licence been revoked. Some might say that running Timo Glock off the road on the entry to the Curva Grande should have done likewise.

But at the end of the day, though, the stewards & officials can revoke anybody's licence.

[ArrowsFA1]

To be honest, every time a driver gets in a race car he is on "probation", in that the stewards and offcials can revoke his/her licence over any incident they deem to be serious enough to deserve such a sanction.
Revoking a licence entirely is one thing, but a "points" system (such as that applied to road users) doesn't seem to have been used, at least in a transparent way. Perhaps "points" added to a licence, having a cumulative effect, may be more likely to prevent incidents...then again it may make no difference at all :p :

[BDunnell]

True, but I still don't think that their ability to pay is the issue. The drivers are already taxed on their earnings. If the superlicence is effectively to become a payment for safety provided for the drivers, in addition to being a qualification enabling them to race, why should the fee paid by each driver differ? The level of safety doesn't differ and there aren't different levels of superlicence according to points scored or salary.

Fair point.



I've sometimes read of drivers in other formulae having their licences "endorsed" for on-track offences, but can't recall incidents like this happening in F1.

It is certainly a sanction used regularly in RAC MSA championships, although I cannot recall any occasions, even in the BTCC, of a driver having their licence endorsed so many times that any action resulted.

[BDunnell]

To be honest, every time a driver gets in a race car he is on "probation", in that the stewards and offcials can revoke his/her licence over any incident they deem to be serious enough to deserve such a sanction.

Of course, that opens up a whole debate over what is serious.

And that is surely why linking superlicence costs to some kind of 'safety ranking' could never work, because we all know how arbitrary decisions about this sort of thing are.

[Bagwan]

Yuji Ide had his superlicence revoked after Imola 2006.
after being put on probation.

The "probation" period for Kimi was just a precaution given that he went from Formula Renault to Formula 1, a 'jump' of at least 3 formulas. Nobody had done that before.

To be honest, every time a driver gets in a race car he is on "probation", in that the stewards and offcials can revoke his/her licence over any incident they deem to be serious enough to deserve such a sanction.

Of course, that opens up a whole debate over what is serious.

Some would say that parking on the track to bring out the yellows should have been an infringement worthy of a licence been revoked. Some might say that running Timo Glock off the road on the entry to the Curva Grande should have done likewise.

But at the end of the day, though, the stewards & officials can revoke anybody's licence.

We have the system in place now , essentially , where we deem the incident "serious" or not .
Drivers can be banned for races , or tossed out completely .
I didn't see a huge brou ha ha when Ide hit the bricks .

Stopping on track might get a guy a yellow card . Running a Glock off the road might get you another .

And , getting 2 points might cost the driver points , but also make it more expensive for the team to use him as a driver .
This might not make it too expensive for the team , as the driver might be worth it , as he brings in the medals , but it should sort those who are there through sponsorship , rather than skill , out of the mix .

[ioan]

The drivers are already taxed on their earnings.

:laugh: :laugh: :rotflmao:

Yeah, sure! Especially those who live in Monaco and Switzerland!
Good joke though!

:rotflmao:

[ArrowsFA1]

Yeah, sure! Especially those who live in Monaco and Switzerland!
Good joke though!
Two questions:

What does how much a driver earns, where he lives, or what tax he pays have to do with the FIA's superlicence?[/*:m:33iwbnff]
If the superlicence is effectively to become a payment for safety provided for the drivers, in addition to being a qualification enabling them to race, why should the fee paid by each driver differ?[/*:m:33iwbnff]

[ioan]

Two questions:

What does how much a driver earns, where he lives, or what tax he pays have to do with the FIA's superlicence?[/*:m:3nfimfla]
If the superlicence is effectively to become a payment for safety provided for the drivers, in addition to being a qualification enabling them to race, why should the fee paid by each driver differ?[/*:m:3nfimfla]

I'll answer when you'll acknowledge that you were talking bollocks when you stated that they pay their taxes already!

:s mokin:

[ArrowsFA1]

I'll acknowledge that I should have said I assume they pay their taxes in places like Monaco and Switzerland, but not all of them live there. The likes of Jarno Trulli lives in Italy where I've read (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/115114-are-formula-one-drivers-right-to-complain-about-the-cost-of-super-licences) that high earners pay as much as 43% tax.

Regardless, IMHO how much a driver earns, where he lives, or what tax he pays has nothing to do with the FIA's superlicence. Perhaps you could explain what relevance it does have in your view, and then move on to question #2.

[ArrowsFA1]

It's a shame ioan chose not to reply, but still here's the GPDA statement in response to the situation:

In the wake of recent misreporting of the drivers' issue with the FIA regarding their Super Licence fees in certain sections of the media, and in response to Mr. Mosley's latest comments (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73145), the Drivers wish to clarify the following:
In January 2008, the FIA unilaterally increased the Formula One drivers' fees for holding a Super Licence. The basic Super Licence fee for the 2008 season increased from EUR 1,690 in 2007 to EUR 10,000 representing a rise of nearly five-fold. In addition, the points' fees which are paid concurrently with the basic Super Licence fee increased from EUR 447 per point in 2007 to EUR 2,000 in 2008, an increase by a factor of nearly 3.5.
These increases were made without any prior consultation with the drivers, and the first the drivers knew of the increases was when the invoices were received by their respective teams and via the media in January 2008. The proposed increases are inherently unfair, both in the way they were introduced and the way they impact on individual drivers.
Since these increases were introduced by the FIA, they have been opposed unanimously by the drivers because they are unreasonable and unfair. The GPDA has - on behalf of all drivers holding Super Licences including the non-GPDA members - appropriately and professionally sought to resolve the issue privately with the FIA throughout the 2008 season, culminating in a meeting with Mr. Mosley at the Italian Grand Prix last September which opened up the way for further discussion.
This included a request from the FIA to the drivers to disclose their gross earnings. However, Mr. Mosley is incorrect in his claim to the media that he had not received an answer from the drivers as a letter was sent by the GPDA in December declining the request because it was not relevant to ascertaining the appropriate Super Licence fees. Furthermore, drivers' gross (and net) earnings are confidential to the drivers, their management and financial advisors and any relevant tax authorities, and should be respected as such.
In fact, Mr. Mosley himself alluded to such confidentiality in recent correspondence with the GPDA. On the subject of whether the Super Licence is paid by the team or the individual, Mr. Mosley concluded it was a private contractual matter between the driver and his team, and not a matter for the FIA.
The drivers are not opposed to a reasonable increase in the Super Licence fees, the fee which should cover the administrative and other costs relating to the issue of the licence.
Therefore, the drivers have offered to pay the 2007 Super Licence fees adjusted upwards by inflation for the 2008 season with a corresponding increase for the 2009 season.
In addition, the drivers have offered to explore fair ways in which they can assist the FIA in raising funds to meet the apparent EUR 1.7 million shortfall required to run the Federation in 2008 and a further EUR 3 million shortfall that will be required in 2009, according to the figures cited by Mr. Mosley at Monza.
The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA and such a change constitutes a major departure in principle for both past Super Licence fees and fees for any other drivers' licences. The FIA should raise sufficient funds from the exploitation of its commercial rights.
As a principle, the drivers should not be taxed to fund the costs of others fulfilling their legal duty to the drivers. It is the teams' duty to provide the driver with a safe car, it is the circuit owners' duty to provide a safe circuit and it is the duty of the manufacturers to provide helmets, fireproof overalls, etc. fit for the purpose of safety. The FIA, as the governing body, has a duty to impose safety regulations and to supervise through licensing the parties carrying out their duties, e.g. licensing a circuit. The licensing process for drivers is to ensure that the drivers are competent to race at the level necessary in Formula One.
FIGURES
* Already in 2007, the F1 Super Licence was the most expensive Licence payable by any sportsperson in the world
* In one year and without prior notice, it went up between 200% (basic fee) and 350% (fee per point)
* The winner of the 2008 F1 World Championship will have to pay $270.000
* The closest Licence Fee in the world is NASCAR in which each driver pays $4.000 per season
* The FIA qualifies the drivers' contribution to the running of the Federation to a total of EUR 1.7 million per season via our Super Licence fees.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73169

[truefan72]

reason # 30023 to form a breakaway series and leave this whole mess behind.

Arrows assesment is spot.

It is the height of hypocricy to talk about cost cutting when you impose outlandish fees on teams and drivers and then in effect, punish a driver for doing well the previous year.

I would love a driver's strike, or better yet a 1 yr hiatus of F1 for the teams to form their own series, without the FIA, they can keep the name Formula 1 and we can get to see the best cars, with the best innovation, with open and fair aggreements, decent cost measures, a transparent and well informed race stewards committee, and an entertaining 20 race season, with a good number of tracks, all willing and able to accomodate the circus without being held hostage by Bernie and max or for fear of loosing out to some new tilke design in the middle fo nowhere.

If Ferrari chooses to stay with F1, they will become a single engine/chasis supplier series of very little interest to the masses. They would surely see the value and the need to compete against their peers and respect.

I for one won't miss F1 fora year, if it means a brighter future and the end of benrie , max and the fia.

They are not a sacitoning body, they are a bunch of extortionists with hidden agendas, shadowy practicies and no sense of reverence for the sport or its heritage. good riddance I say.

[ioan]

It's a shame ioan chose not to reply, but still here's the GPDA statement in response to the situation: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73169

Sorry, I completely forgot about this topic, I have a pretty busy life outside this forum! :D

As for what the drivers are saying, I can't be bothered to feel pity for someone who earns millions and are crying over spilt milk (some 1-5% of their phenomenal income).

[Garry Walker]

But the amount concerned is still a drop in the ocean for a lot of these drivers. If I'm honest, I actually don't see why it has to go up, but I always find it rather distasteful when very rich people moan about having to spend what is for them a fairly small amount of money on something.

ahh, so it is wrong for a rich and successful person to attempt to defend his earnings and only the low-paid (also often with low-intelligence and drive) should have that privilege.

I see nothing wrong with drivers trying to defend their earnings, after all, why pay 200 000 euros for pretty much nothing? Just because FIA is run by an incompetent guy and they are not doing well financially, shouldn`t mean F1 drivers have to bail FIA out.

[Knock-on]

Sorry, I completely forgot about this topic, I have a pretty busy life outside this forum! :D

As for what the drivers are saying, I can't be bothered to feel pity for someone who earns millions and are crying over spilt milk (some 1-5% of their phenomenal income).

Would you publish all details of income and expenditure to your employer?

How much you spend on entertainment, food and toiletries. How much you earn from work and other income.

Then, forget about your employer. Give it to an unregulated professional body you are a member of with nothing at all to do with taxation.

I wouldn't and they shouldn't have to.

How much are they short? A couple of million quid? Well, perhaps they should think about passing the amount onto all drivers, becoming more efficent, stop bribing smaller FIA member states or stop doing underhanded deals with FOM worth billions and taking back handers from Bernie.

Isn't the $100m persecution on McLaren supposed to cover safety inititives?

(Spot on Garry BTW)

Isn't the $100m persecution on McLaren supposed to cover safety inititives?


It wasn't a "persecution", though.

I can only assume you meant "prosecution", since anyone who claims it was "persecution" is is talking bollocks and has the moral fibre of a sewer rat.

[Tazio]

I find the entire concept rather baffling, and somewhat perplexing. The drivers do need to be checked off on their understanding of the consequences of reckless, offensive, and careless driving. But this is like making a pitcher pay a fee to chuck in the big's. Here is a guy that since he was 12 years old started forming his craft. After many years of this he has to work his way through the minor league system continually learning nuances, and tweaks in his delivery, grips, release points, and strategy. Once succeeding in this Arena and joining the show he is asked to pay a relatively substantial amount of his remuneration to practice his craft. Knowing full well that there are already penalties for habitually beaning hitters (fines/suspension without pay) or being sent back down to the farm to brush up on his infectiveness! And if you don't believe this is a fair comparison I suggest you Step up to the dish against a guy who can bring 90mph heat from 60 ft 6 ins. I could probably arrange it for you! :)

[Tazio]

Of course Baseball players have a union (damn socialists :) )that they contribute to to insure that they have say in their profession, and are treated equitably!

[truefan72]

I find the entire concept rather baffling, and somewhat perplexing. The drivers do need to be checked off on their understanding of the consequences of reckless, offensive, and careless driving. But this is like making a pitcher pay a fee to chuck in the big's. Here is a guy that since he was 12 years old started forming his craft. After many years of this he has to work his way through the minor league system continually learning nuances, and tweaks in his delivery, grips, release points, and strategy. Once succeeding in this Arena and joining the show he is asked to pay a relatively substantial amount of his remuneration to practice his craft. Knowing full well that there are already penalties for habitually beaning hitters (fines/suspension without pay) or being sent back down to the farm to brush up on his infectiveness! And if you don't believe this is a fair comparison I suggest you Step up to the dish against a guy who can bring 90mph heat from 60 ft 6 ins. I could probably arrange it for you! :)

tot take that analogy even further;
That same pitcher the following year would have to pay more if he had more wins, probably an extra $80k for a no hitter, and $100k for winning the WS.

this whole scheme by the FIA is ridiculous. so F! drivers have to pay for the survival of the entire organization?

How much is S. Loeb paying them for his "license" or the 20 other series they regulate?

[ArrowsFA1]

Isn't the $100m persecution on McLaren supposed to cover safety inititives?
Correct:

Michael Schumacher has been elected as the head of the FIA's Motor Sport Safety Development Fund, created as a result of the $100 million (USD) fine that McLaren paid for spying last year.

The Fund will distribute a number of grants around the world to help young drivers, improve safety skills for officials and help the development of motor sport venues in emerging motor racing nations.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67713

[Knock-on]

It wasn't a "persecution", though.

I can only assume you meant "prosecution", since anyone who claims it was "persecution" is is talking bollocks and has the moral fibre of a sewer rat.

Nope, I meant what I wrote and consider your insults a compliment if you are basing your opinion on your own values. :p

[Mark]

Correct:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/67713

Is MS's fee $99.9 million?

Nope, I meant what I wrote and consider your insults a compliment if you are basing your opinion on your own values. :p

Then it's official. You're talking bollocks.

[inimitablestoo]

Exactly. You didn't think he had values did you Knockie? ;)

[Knock-on]

Exactly. You didn't think he had values did you Knockie? ;)

PML :laugh:

[ArrowsFA1]

I see the FIA have released the news (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73230) that three drivers have now lodged their superlicence applications with the governing body.

Exactly. You didn't think he had values did you Knockie? ;)

Well, I never would have considered using info illegally supplied.

Apparently, though, that isn't a value anymore.

[Knock-on]

Well, I never would have considered using info illegally supplied.

Apparently, though, that isn't a value anymore.

:s nore: Same old, same old.

:idea: I know, why not just give up dragging up the same old thing time, after time, after time for justification of your silly vendetta.

It's very droll, boring and has nothing to do with Superlicences :?:

Isn't the $100m persecution on McLaren supposed to cover safety inititives?



:s nore: Same old, same old.

:idea: I know, why not just give up dragging up the same old thing time, after time, after time for justification of your silly vendetta.

It's very droll, boring and has nothing to do with Superlicences :?:

So why did you bring it up?

Once again, you complain about it being brought into the debate yet it was you introduced it into the debate.

That is not only boring, it's pathetic, ridicolous and unworthy of anything other than utter contempt.

But then, what else to expect from a man with the conscience of a sewer rat who condones theft and espionage.

Your mother must be so proud.

[ArrowsFA1]

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety. Max's argument says that the drivers should be contributing towards the cost of safety with their superlicence fees.

[ioan]

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety.

It was publicly stated that the McLaren cheating fine will be used to improve safety, what use was there to ask again almost 2 years later?
Do you think that $100 million will last forever when it has to cover world wide motorsport and other automotive activities?! :rolleyes:

back to the topic now, the F1 divers are the ones who benefit most from the advancement in the automotive safety department. 20 year ago they would have died or deen dsabled after an accident like Kubica had in Canada in 2007, 10 years ago would have certainly broke a few bones, now they walk away with some bruised bones and are back in the car in no time.
Plus they are the ones earning most in the whole automotive related industry!
So I see it fit that they have to pay for it.

I read somewhere that since MS quit the GPDA are having fonds problems. Guess why? Because the big bad German was the one willingly paying huge amounts to support the GPDA activity (besides countless other charity events).

The remaining drivers should pull their hypocrite heads out of their sorry backsides and use it for more than just something to cover their throats in the rain.

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety. Max's argument says that the drivers should be contributing towards the cost of safety with their superlicence fees.

It's all part of the discussion. The childish insults we could do without.

And the childish notion that Mclaren are "persecuted" we could do without.

[ArrowsFA1]

...what use was there to ask again almost 2 years later?
Oh, I don't know ioan. Perhaps he completely forgot about where the money went. We all have a pretty busy lives outside this forum and can't remember everything! ;) :p

[ArrowsFA1]

...So I see it fit that they have to pay for it.
How do you respond to these ponts made by the drivers?

The basic Super Licence fee for the 2008 season increased from EUR 1,690 in 2007 to EUR 10,000 representing a rise of nearly five-fold.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
These increases were made without any prior consultation with the drivers.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
Mr. Mosley is incorrect in his claim to the media that he had not received an answer from the drivers as a letter was sent by the GPDA in December declining the request because it was not relevant to ascertaining the appropriate Super Licence fees.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
The drivers are not opposed to a reasonable increase in the Super Licence fees.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA and such a change constitutes a major departure in principle for both past Super Licence fees and fees for any other drivers' licences.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
As a principle, the drivers should not be taxed to fund the costs of others fulfilling their legal duty to the drivers.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]
Already in 2007, the F1 Super Licence was the most expensive Licence payable by any sportsperson in the world.[/*:m:1zgyww9b]

[trumperZ06]

With good reason, since Knockie raised the question of whether the the $100m fine was put towards safety. Max's argument says that the drivers should be contributing towards the cost of safety with their superlicence fees.



:p : Max, once again, Plays the "SAFETY CARD"...

when he is unable to provide a reasonable explaination.

;) Knockie's right about the "Safety Issue"... ample funds have already been taken from McLaren, so there's no need to force the drivers to contribute.

[ioan]

How do you respond to these ponts made by the drivers?

The basic Super Licence fee for the 2008 season increased from EUR 1,690 in 2007 to EUR 10,000 representing a rise of nearly five-fold.

Laughable, coming from someone who earns millions a year, this making the amount they paid last year being between 0.25 and 1% of their paycheck!
And the money is used to improve their chances to survive an accident.


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
These increases were made without any prior consultation with the drivers.

Like if the government asks you before increasing your taxes? Or do the bank ask you before increasing the cost of your debt?!
Don't make me laugh, these guys talk like if they are living on the Moon.


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
Mr. Mosley is incorrect in his claim to the media that he had not received an answer from the drivers as a letter was sent by the GPDA in December declining the request because it was not relevant to ascertaining the appropriate Super Licence fees.

:laugh: So they just declined the request because they thought it was not relevant?!
I see why Max says he got no answer, because the answer was plain rubbish!


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
The drivers are not opposed to a reasonable increase in the Super Licence fees.

It doesn't look like that. if they consider reasonable a level of under 1% as it was until now than they should get a reality check.
Since when does the taxpayer decide if the level of the taxes he has to pay is reasonable?


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA and such a change constitutes a major departure in principle for both past Super Licence fees and fees for any other drivers' licences.

It's not a revenue stream for the FIA it's a fee that will be used to improve their safety on track.
Maybe it's time for some of them to be injured during a race in order to bring some reason back into their skulls.


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
As a principle, the drivers should not be taxed to fund the costs of others fulfilling their legal duty to the drivers.

Is this for real?
As a principle all the taxpayers are paying taxes in order for the governments to be able to fulfill their legal duty to them.
From what money are they expecting the FIA to fulfill it's duties towards the millionaire drivers? from some poor taxpayers money?!
Fukc of rich idiots! More power to Max, someone has to teach this tax evaders some manners.


[/*:m:2yurhkdh]
Already in 2007, the F1 Super Licence was the most expensive Licence payable by any sportsperson in the world.[/*:m:2yurhkdh]

I doubt it.

To conclude, the drivers points are childish (at best kindergarten level), retarded, egocentric and I'm a bit frustrated to have lost 5 minutes of my life in order to answer such rubbish.

[ioan]

;) Knockie's right about the "Safety Issue"... ample funds have already been taken from McLaren, so there's no need to force the drivers to contribute.

:laugh:

Please tell us how long does 100.000.000 USD cover the costs for safety measures improvements for all forms of FIA sanctioned motorsport all over the world?!
I doubt it's even enough for a season. :rolleyes:

[Knock-on]

So why did you bring it up?

Once again, you complain about it being brought into the debate yet it was you introduced it into the debate.

I brought it up because the $100m fine was to be used for safety inititives which is the same reason Max has hiked the Super Licence fee.

Surely you can see the relevance?


That is not only boring, it's pathetic, ridicolous and unworthy of anything other than utter contempt.

But then, what else to expect from a man with the conscience of a sewer rat who condones theft and espionage.

Your mother must be so proud.

As per usual, you are talking utter BS yet again. If you can show me ONE post where I have justified theft and espionage then please post it. In fact, I believ YOU defended Renault over theft and espionage of McLaren data and agreed with Max that they should not be punished.

How does that sit with you and your Mater. :laugh:

Lastly, your personal attacks and threats of violence against me are pathetic and demonstrate more about your values and personality than my views on a silly Motorsport forum.

[ioan]

my views on a silly Motorsport forum.

How dare you?! :p :

I'll repair that for you:


my silly views on a Motorsport forum.

There you go, much better! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

To conclude, the drivers points are childish (at best kindergarten level), retarded, egocentric.
The points you make appear to be made on the basis that the FIA is a state, and the drivers citizens of that state. Neither is true, and even if either were true then at least the drivers would have the option (if the FIA were a democratic state :p ) of voting in an election to decide whether they felt the state's taxation policy was fair or reasonable. They don't have that option.

If it was required that you needed a licence to do your job (in addition to you paying your taxes), would you be happy if the cost of that licence increased nearly five-fold in one year?

Would you be happy to be told out of the blue that one of the reasons for the increase was to pay for the health and safety measures at your workplace; health and safety measures that your employer is legally/contracturally obliged to provide.

[Dave B]

Would you be happy to be told out of the blue that one of the reasons for the increase was to pay for the health and safety measures at your workplace; health and safety measures that your employer is legally/contracturally obliged to provide.
Actually I'd be concerned that if H&S compliance costs had suddenly rocketed, as I could only assume that either my job had suddenly become more dangerous or safety had been underfunded in the past.

I'm sure that neither of those scenarios apply to F1, so I can't understand why Max feels that the cost has suddenly skyrocketed.

[truefan72]

I'm nopt sure what ioan's going on about but the principle notion of a massive increase in the superlicense is absurd. The reasons given by MM are even worse. The simple fact is that they do so because they "think" they can and want to get as much money for themselves as possible. I wonder of all the other racing series saw a 500% increase in ther licenses or is F1 paying for all of these other sports. I would also like to know exactly how the FIa allocates its budget. The whole enterprise seems very shadowy to me and makes non sense whatsover at this point. Safety is provided by the organizers of each race, The FIA simply comes in there and stipulates what is required and only provides a traveling doctoras its expense. Perhaps a few other technical people to oversee that the barriers are set up right etc, and the car inspectors. All of that should be covere by all the other money the generate and really as Arrows said, should be already part of what they are mandated to provide in the first place.

These driver license fees are nothing more than a cash grab and everyone knows it.

[trumperZ06]

:laugh:

Please tell us how long does 100.000.000 USD cover the costs for safety measures improvements for all forms of FIA sanctioned motorsport all over the world?!
I doubt it's even enough for a season. :rolleyes:

:p : W O W !!! What "safety improvements" does the FIA pay for?

:rolleyes: You have no idea what all is involved in getting a track FIA approved... the co$ts for the track's owners are astronomical.

Here in the United States... the FIA only charges the track for their "certification review", the FIA does NOT provide any financial assistance !!!

[ioan]

The points you make appear to be made on the basis that the FIA is a state, and the drivers citizens of that state. Neither is true, and even if either were true then at least the drivers would have the option (if the FIA were a democratic state :p ) of voting in an election to decide whether they felt the state's taxation policy was fair or reasonable. They don't have that option.

Well the FIA is a governing body, I bet every democratic country has one.
And where do you have elections to vote wether you feel that the state's taxation policy is right or not?! :confused:

[ioan]

:p : W O W !!! What "safety improvements" does the FIA pay for?

Who do you think that pays for the research for the safety improvving solutions introduced in motorsport?!

Who did develop all the crash tests required in motorsports to declare a car safe?!
Who developed the HANS device?
Who developed the new water filled deformable containers placed along the street circuits protection walls?!

Some smart people paid by the FIA did it.

You think you're smart with replies like this one? You're wrong mate, you look like someone who hasn't got an idea about what he is blabbering.

:s mokin:

[Tazio]

And where do you have elections to vote wether you feel that the state's taxation policy is right or not?! :confused: For specific tax initiatives in the U.S. we do it at a place called a polling both. As for Income tax a 100%
increase would cause a full blown revolution. 500%......would be greeted with chuckles :dozey:

[ioan]

For specific tax initiatives in the U.S. we do it at a place called a polling both. As for Income tax a 100%
increase would cause a full blown revolution. 500%......would be greeted with chuckles :dozey:

Not if it went from 0.3% to 1.5%, and that is where I have a problem with the drivers, also considering that most of them live in tax paradises where they pay nothing.

With the kind of paychecks they get they should pay more than 70% of it as tax if the were to live in France or other countries with similar system.

So I do not feel any kind of sympathy for them cause they are arguing over peanuts, that would be used for their benefit!

[Tazio]

Well when you put it that way I concur. Professional athletes are generally overpaid IMHO.
Having tax amnesty is a problem more specific to Europe than the U.S. Some States hardly tax you at all.
But the Feds will! Plus you have higher taxes due to social programs, that make a comparison to my countries policies irrellevant in this issue.

[Bagwan]

Ioan , do you understand the logic behind charging a driver on a per point basis ?
If so , could you explain ?

I do agree that the licence should be expensive and difficult to get , to pay for safety .

There are a certain number of points available during the season between the drivers .
Would it not be more fair to divide the amount they get in total , and charge the appropriate percentage to each driver , regardless of points ?

If the point is to collect an amount , why not charge them all the same ? If nothing else , it makes for less paperwork .

[SilverArrows]

With these new figures it's the equivalent of someone earning £24,000 a year having pay £150. It does seem like nothing but I can understand why the drivers are upset. It's not the first time the FIA have suddenly introduced new rules out of the blue. Maybe the FIA should be more transparent about where the money is actually going to.

[truefan72]

With these new figures it's the equivalent of someone earning £24,000 a year having pay £150. It does seem like nothing but I can understand why the drivers are upset. It's not the first time the FIA have suddenly introduced new rules out of the blue. Maybe the FIA should be more transparent about where the money is actually going to.

It is what they have to pay for that matters more than [resumed negligible amount.
I heard a story the other day About Oprah staying in a Hotel a while back. She was at the restaurant and ordered coffee, orange juice and a fruit platter. When the bill came she refused to pay unless corrections were made. Apparently they charged her $8 for the cup of coffee, $8 for the orange juice and twice the regular amount for the Fruit platter. They tried to give her some bogus story but she refused to pay unless it was changed to the standard fair. Just because she is worth a billion doesn't;t mean she has to pay twice the going rate for the same goods as others. The simple argument can be made that she can afford it and that cost represents a nanobyte of her income. But that isn't the point. The actual point is that they are trying to take advantage of the situation and pluck as much money as possible with the age old theory of affordability. It is not anybody's place to spend someone else's money or decide for them what they can afford. Be it Oprah, or F1 drivers

[ioan]

Ioan , do you understand the logic behind charging a driver on a per point basis ?
If so , could you explain ?


More money is collected in this way! :)
I think that those who get more points are usually those who get to drive the best cars and thus earn more money.

IMO the FIA also thought about a flat tax (like to say 1% of the income), but they figured out that the ones earning more will complain about it, so they went with the points solution cause it comes more or less to the same result, and the drivers might not complain because in F1 everything is based on points earned during racing.
And the FIA was right, the drivers aren't complaining about the "per point" aspect, bur rather about the fact that they have to pay more than previously, and this is why I have no sympathy for them.

[trumperZ06]

Who do you think that pays for the research for the safety improvving solutions introduced in motorsport?!

Who did develop all the crash tests required in motorsports to declare a car safe?!
Who developed the HANS device?
Who developed the new water filled deformable containers placed along the street circuits protection walls?!

Some smart people paid by the FIA did it.

You think you're smart with replies like this one? You're wrong mate, you look like someone who hasn't got an idea about what he is blabbering.

:s mokin:


:rolleyes: Oh My, Ioan,

You silly little keyboard jockey, you really haven't a clue, do you !!!

There are multiple racing series around the World involved in a wide range of vechicles, ranging from motorcycles to off road vechicles, Sportscars, Sedans, and open wheel vechicles. They all have govening bodies that are concerned with, test, regulate, and inforce safety.

This information is shared and used within racing to futher the safety for everyone.

The FIA doesn't have a MONOPOLY in development...

and in fact, many times the FIA follows rather than lead others !!!


:D : Lets just take one example... that you mentioned...

The Hans device !!!

It was invented ~TWENTY YEARS ago by Dr. Hubbard (a professor @ Mich State) along with Jim Downing (Race car driver, builder & owner from Atlanta, Ga).

My company was involved at the earlist stage, using a variety of composites including carbon fiber, to manufacture prototypes for testing and evaluation.

We have also been involved with NA$CAR, Indy Car, and were in fact contacted by Ferrari... asking about our composites.

:p : Now Ioan, class dismissed !

Run along now, you can go pout and play with your keyboard.

:s mokin:

[ioan]

:rolleyes: Oh My, Ioan,

You silly little keyboard jockey, you really haven't a clue, do you !!!

There are multiple racing series around the World involved in a wide range of vechicles, ranging from motorcycles to off road vechicles, Sportscars, Sedans, and open wheel vechicles. They all have govening bodies that are concerned with, test, regulate, and inforce safety.

This information is shared and used within racing to futher the safety for everyone.

The FIA doesn't have a MONOPOLY in development...

and in fact, many times the FIA follows rather than lead others

:D : Lets just take one example... that you mentioned...

The Hans device !!!

It was invented ~TWENTY YEARS ago by Dr. Hubbard (a professor @ Mich State) along with Jim Downing (Race car driver, builder & owner from Atlanta, Ga).

My company was involved at the earlist stage, using a variety of composites including carbon fiber, to manufacture prototypes for testing and evaluation.

We have also been involved with NA$CAR, Indy Car, and were in fact contacted by Ferrari... asking about our composites.

Now Ioan, class dismissed, run along now, you can go pout and play with your keyboard.

:s mokin:

What kind of composites did you use, manure+straws?!

Next time you'll tell me that your company is producing the fuselage of the next Boeing airliner! :laugh:

Someone who is working in such an environment as you claim, has little time to lose spouting venom over the internet, unless he is the company's secretary! :s mokin:

[trumperZ06]

[quote="ioan"]What kind of composites did you use, manure+straws?!

Next time you'll tell me that your company is producing the fuselage of the next Boeing airliner! :laugh:

S

:rolleyes: Sorry Ioan,

You have already made yourself out to be a FOOL !!! :p :

:D And the answer is yes, we do make composite parts for the major airframe manufacturers, including Airbus & Boeing. In fact, this is our primary market.

:s mokin:

[ioan]

What kind of composites did you use, manure+straws?!

Next time you'll tell me that your company is producing the fuselage of the next Boeing airliner!

S

:rolleyes: Sorry Ioan,

You have already made yourself out to be a FOOL !!! :p :

Common, you can do better than this. :laugh:



And the answer is yes, we do make composite parts for the major airframe manufacturers, including Airbus & Boeing. In fact, this is our primary market.

:s mokin:

I didn't know that they use composites to make the toilets in order to reduce the weight.
Thanks for the info! :s mokin:

[trumperZ06]

Common, you can do better than this. :laugh:



I didn't know that they use composites to make the toilets in order to reduce the weight.
Thanks for the info! :s mokin:

:rolleyes: While we aren't involved in manufacturing lavatories, sandwich panel composites (Nomex honeycomb core/Phenolic fiberglass skins) are used in their structure in order to reduce weight and meet the FAA/JAA flamability requirements.

:p : So once again, you've shown your ignorance !!!

:dozey: End of discussion.

[ioan]

:rolleyes: While we aren't involved in manufacturing lavatories...

So I was right all the way! :D

[ArrowsFA1]

Dear sirs.
Know that IndyCar Series teams would welcome your participation in the 2009 or beyond season should you follow FIA president Max Mosley's suggestion of looking elsewhere to ply your trade.
Please note that an IndyCar Series license fee is only $1,000 (U.S.) - a bargain that includes your/three guest hard cards for venue admittance, participant accident medical insurance coverage and other benefits. There are no closing fees, user fees, points fees or even landing fees for your aircraft.
Sincerely,
Indy Racing League management
http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=13149

:laugh: :laugh:

[Knock-on]

http://www.indycar.com/news/?story_id=13149

:laugh: :laugh:

:D

But, where do they get all their money for safety inititives?

[Malbec]

If it was required that you needed a licence to do your job (in addition to you paying your taxes), would you be happy if the cost of that licence increased nearly five-fold in one year?

Everything you say is true but the drivers are fighting a losing battle.

When teams are disbanding entire test teams and shedding employees left right and centre, for drivers to demand the right to fight a fee increase that will not impact their financial wellbeing significantly is pushing it to say the least.

I have little sympathy with this one, unless the drivers agree to put any savings they make if the FIA back down into a kitty fund to help recently unemployed F1 staff.

The drivers need to come back down to earth. Yes their fees are higher than just about any sport but how many sportsmen are paid $10-50 million per year?

[BDunnell]

The drivers need to come back down to earth. Yes their fees are higher than just about any sport but how many sportsmen are paid $10-50 million per year?

Probably far too many for my liking.

[Garry Walker]

Probably far too many for my liking.
Well, we all can`t be employed by the state and do maximum of 1 hour of actual work per week.

[inimitablestoo]

One hour? Christ, I've still got 55 minutes of work to do this week then :p :

[PolePosition_1]

I don't care how much tax they pay but that should be for the Government to decide and not Max.

I quite enjoy my job but would not be too happy if my box started taxing me in addition to the Government because I don't dislike what I'm doing.

Where does the line get drawn? Just how much can one earn before it's justifiable to penalise them like this.

In your opinion, earning £500k a year might be the right amount while the same question to someone in a Bombay slum might be £500.

Equality isn't supposed to be selective.

If the extra tax goes towards ensuring my safety, and it didn't affect my lifestyle whatsoever I wouldn't moan.

[Knock-on]

If the extra tax goes towards ensuring my safety, and it didn't affect my lifestyle whatsoever I wouldn't moan.

That safety smake screen is a load of old fanny in my opinion.

I don't really give a Monkeys how much the Drivers pay in Tax but it's not the job of the FIA to decide either.

It just seems a crazy decision.

Anyway, I really cannot be bothered with it any more as it's not at all important to me.

My view is that's it's an abuse of power whereas some think that's justified because they earn too much.

Think i'll leave it there but just remember, what you earn may seem an ungodly amount of money to someone else :)

[Malbec]

I don't really give a Monkeys how much the Drivers pay in Tax but it's not the job of the FIA to decide either.

Its not tax, more like a professional membership fee to keep practicing in whatever field they happen to perform in in order to receive a licence. Tax is a totally separate issue which is why so many of them live in Switzerland and Monaco where tax is lower. There's always been a licence fee for the drivers, its just that previously its been ridiculously low.

You're right, not all drivers are paid millions which is why the point based additional payment system comes in handy. Drivers like Fisichella or Sutil are unlikely to be paid much but are also unlikely to have scored many points and therefore pay less than some superstar driving a McLaren or Ferrari scoring 80+ points a year.

[ArrowsFA1]

"Following a very positive meeting between FIA President Max Mosley and representatives of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association (GPDA), a proposal will be made to the World Motor Sport Council to revise superlicence fees for drivers in the 2010 championship," said the FIA in a statement.
"A reduced fee would reflect the major cost reductions that will be brought into the sport for next season.
"A number of other issues were discussed and the FIA has agreed to meet representatives of the GPDA on a regular basis to maintain what promises to be a constructive dialogue."
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73858