Superlicence Increase - Who's going to crack first ??!
Discussion
So, who's got the biggest cojones then ??!!
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73168
Will the drivers stand firm and not pay for their 2009 superlicences and thus force the FIA to do something in order to ensure the Australian GP takes place ??
Or will they be told by their teams to sign (since I understand many of the teams pay for the licences anyway) because they have a contractual obligation to the team ?
Or will FOTA back the GPDA to really show how they are now a force to be reckoned with ?
The chances of the FIA backing down on this are pretty much (if not actually) zero. I expect Bernie may have something to say if it looks like it might cock up one of his GPs, but I think he's somewhat powerless to make a direct influence on this one.
Personally I'd love for the GPDA to stand firm and, if necessary, to have a very quiet day on the Friday of the first GP of the season. But do I think they'll have the balls ? Sadly no, I'm not convinced on that one...
It would be brilliant if they all stood together on the issue. Whats the betting that T.Sato, J Button, R Barrichello and anyone that qualifies for a superliecence that doesn't have a drive would turn up on the friday with a fully paid up, shiney, signed by der fuhrer himself, Super licence and offer their services in a very public way?
Just another twist!
Just another twist!
stifler said:
It would be brilliant if they all stood together on the issue. Whats the betting that T.Sato, J Button, R Barrichello and anyone that qualifies for a superliecence that doesn't have a drive would turn up on the friday with a fully paid up, shiney, signed by der fuhrer himself, Super licence and offer their services in a very public way?
Just another twist!
Well that could well happen - after all, Button must be in line for one of the cheapest superlicences in the field..... Just another twist!
Nick M said:
stifler said:
It would be brilliant if they all stood together on the issue. Whats the betting that T.Sato, J Button, R Barrichello and anyone that qualifies for a superliecence that doesn't have a drive would turn up on the friday with a fully paid up, shiney, signed by der fuhrer himself, Super licence and offer their services in a very public way?
Just another twist!
Well that could well happen - after all, Button must be in line for one of the cheapest superlicences in the field..... Just another twist!
The drivers will cave. It's a pity, but there is not the slightest chance that they will refuse to drive. This is why Mosley won't give an inch.
They are contracted to the teams. They would be in breach if they were to refuse to drive because of a spat between themselves and der Floggermeister.
Imagine that you are a team, you've spent all this money and effort to get ready for the season, you've transported your kit to Australia, your team and all your sponsors are sitting there waiting for the show to start, and your driver won't get into the car because he's in a pissing contest with Mosley over paying another few thou for his licence. It's not going to happen.
Mosley is totally in the wrong here, as per normal, but the drivers are going to lose.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the money. It's all about Mosley's asserting himself. In the last few months he's thrown down the gauntlet to the teams, he's challenged the commercial rights holders, he already controls the FIA membership. The only remaining constituency that he can push around is the drivers, and that is what he's doing - for no better reason than to show that he can.
They are contracted to the teams. They would be in breach if they were to refuse to drive because of a spat between themselves and der Floggermeister.
Imagine that you are a team, you've spent all this money and effort to get ready for the season, you've transported your kit to Australia, your team and all your sponsors are sitting there waiting for the show to start, and your driver won't get into the car because he's in a pissing contest with Mosley over paying another few thou for his licence. It's not going to happen.
Mosley is totally in the wrong here, as per normal, but the drivers are going to lose.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the money. It's all about Mosley's asserting himself. In the last few months he's thrown down the gauntlet to the teams, he's challenged the commercial rights holders, he already controls the FIA membership. The only remaining constituency that he can push around is the drivers, and that is what he's doing - for no better reason than to show that he can.
jonnylayze said:
I agree that the drivers will cave in but IMO they are protesting at teh wrong point. They are protesting against an inflation-linked rise in the cost. The big hike took place last year so why less fuss then?
Your point is fair, but the way that I read it, what pushed the drivers over the edge was not the argument that there had to be a step change in the licence fee for whatever reason. That was the excuse last year, and maybe it was right. These are intelligent people, and they appreciate that they're lucky. Rather, what pushed them over the edge was that Mosley, having already majorly "realigned" the licence fee with whatever a year ago, wanted to charge them a bit more now just to show them that, if he felt like being a prick, there was nothing that they could do about it.
jonnylayze said:
I agree that the drivers will cave in but IMO they are protesting at teh wrong point. They are protesting against an inflation-linked rise in the cost. The big hike took place last year so why less fuss then?
Don't forget that the big hike in the superlicence fee took place before Max was shown to be a devious perv, before FOTA was formed and before Bernie started showing signs of senility.The environment then was that the drivers literally had no choice because the option was not to race. Now, with the teams united and showing some (I was going to say balls, but probably not an appropriate thing to say given Max's tendencies....) they maybe feel that this is a better time to stand up against the FIA.
What is ludicrous about the situation is that, if Mosley had not given away the FIA family jewels to Bernie, the FIA would be hundreds of million of pounds richer than it is now.
I've seen one estimate, which seemed high but who knows, that, simply because Mosley refused to continue with the deal that Balestre had previously negotiated (IIRC, the FIA used to get 30% of the CRH's income), the FIA has since foregone $1.7B in revenue, and that is before we even get into the derisory 100 year contract.
Even if we put that travesty to the side, barely a year ago the FIA received a $60M windfall when they ripped off McLaren. If the FIA now claim that they'll run a $3M deficit in '09, and this is part of why they must raise the licence fee, then what the hell would they have done without the McLaren money?
I've seen one estimate, which seemed high but who knows, that, simply because Mosley refused to continue with the deal that Balestre had previously negotiated (IIRC, the FIA used to get 30% of the CRH's income), the FIA has since foregone $1.7B in revenue, and that is before we even get into the derisory 100 year contract.
Even if we put that travesty to the side, barely a year ago the FIA received a $60M windfall when they ripped off McLaren. If the FIA now claim that they'll run a $3M deficit in '09, and this is part of why they must raise the licence fee, then what the hell would they have done without the McLaren money?
flemke said:
What is ludicrous about the situation is that, if Mosley had not given away the FIA family jewels to Bernie, the FIA would be hundreds of million of pounds richer than it is now.
I've seen one estimate, which seemed high but who knows, that, simply because Mosley refused to continue with the deal that Balestre had previously negotiated (IIRC, the FIA used to get 30% of the CRH's income), the FIA has since foregone $1.7B in revenue, and that is before we even get into the derisory 100 year contract.
Even if we put that travesty to the side, barely a year ago the FIA received a $60M windfall when they ripped off McLaren. If the FIA now claim that they'll run a $3M deficit in '09, and this is part of why they must raise the licence fee, then what the hell would they have done without the McLaren money?
It certainly should raise the question about the capability of the current leadership of the FIA to run an organisation successfully. And then I realise that the leader is the one stating that the F1 teams have to cut costs, which actually is nothing to do with him, I haven't heard Ron or Luca saying that they have budget problems (although I appreciate some others do). Corporate wastage seems more prevalent at the FIA than in the F1 teams who at least have an obvious way to spend their income.I've seen one estimate, which seemed high but who knows, that, simply because Mosley refused to continue with the deal that Balestre had previously negotiated (IIRC, the FIA used to get 30% of the CRH's income), the FIA has since foregone $1.7B in revenue, and that is before we even get into the derisory 100 year contract.
Even if we put that travesty to the side, barely a year ago the FIA received a $60M windfall when they ripped off McLaren. If the FIA now claim that they'll run a $3M deficit in '09, and this is part of why they must raise the licence fee, then what the hell would they have done without the McLaren money?
stifler said:
Is there a list of who qualifies for a superlicence? I would have thought that there would be a few drivers who would get one anyway ie test drivers and the like.
It's in the regulations:Appendix L of the International Sporting Code said:
5.1 The Super licence is issued by the Formula One Commission, on its sole decision, following a specific request and recommendation from the driver’s ASN, accompanied by his/her record of results, and on the following conditions:
i) the driver is party to an agreement with a team entered in the FIA Formula One World Championship to race a Formula One car in the Championship in the year of application as first, second or reserve driver,
ii) the driver is the holder of a Grade A licence,
iii) the driver:
either a): has been classified in the first 4 of the final classification of the GP2 Series within the previous 2 years,
or b): has been classified in the first 3 in at least 5 races, or in the first 6 in at least 10 races, of the GP2 Series, within the previous 2 years,
or c): has been classified in the first 3 of the final classification of the Japanese F/Nippon Championship within the previous 2 years,
or d): has been classified in the first 6 of the final classification of the Indy Racing League (IRL) series or of the Champ Car World Series in the United States within the previous 2 years,
or e): is the current champion of the Euroseries 3000, the World Series F/Renault V6 or the International F3000 Masters (the title is considered valid for 12 months from the last race of his or her championship season),
or f): is the current champion of the Formula 3 Euro Series or of the principal National F3 Championship of one of the following countries: Great Britain, Italy, Japan, (the title is considered valid for 12 months from the last race of his or her championship season),
or g): has started in at least 5 races counting for the FIA Formula One World Championship for Drivers the previous year,
or h): (exceptionally), has a record of results which is judged sufficient, unanimously, by the Bureau of the Formula One Commission and has driven at least 300 km in a current Formula One car at racing speeds, over a maximum period of 2 days, certified by the ASN of the country in which the test took place. Only results obtained with single-seater formula cars will be taken into consideration. Should the members of the Bureau not agree unanimously, the Commission in its entirety will be consulted. In this case, the complete application must be received by the FIA at least 14 days before scrutineering for the first FIA Formula One World Championship event in which the candidate is to compete.
5.2 The Super Licence is valid to the end of the year of issue.
5.3 A driver accepted under the terms of iii) h) above will be on probation for a period of 12 months during which the Super Licence will be held provisionally and subject to review at any time.
i) the driver is party to an agreement with a team entered in the FIA Formula One World Championship to race a Formula One car in the Championship in the year of application as first, second or reserve driver,
ii) the driver is the holder of a Grade A licence,
iii) the driver:
either a): has been classified in the first 4 of the final classification of the GP2 Series within the previous 2 years,
or b): has been classified in the first 3 in at least 5 races, or in the first 6 in at least 10 races, of the GP2 Series, within the previous 2 years,
or c): has been classified in the first 3 of the final classification of the Japanese F/Nippon Championship within the previous 2 years,
or d): has been classified in the first 6 of the final classification of the Indy Racing League (IRL) series or of the Champ Car World Series in the United States within the previous 2 years,
or e): is the current champion of the Euroseries 3000, the World Series F/Renault V6 or the International F3000 Masters (the title is considered valid for 12 months from the last race of his or her championship season),
or f): is the current champion of the Formula 3 Euro Series or of the principal National F3 Championship of one of the following countries: Great Britain, Italy, Japan, (the title is considered valid for 12 months from the last race of his or her championship season),
or g): has started in at least 5 races counting for the FIA Formula One World Championship for Drivers the previous year,
or h): (exceptionally), has a record of results which is judged sufficient, unanimously, by the Bureau of the Formula One Commission and has driven at least 300 km in a current Formula One car at racing speeds, over a maximum period of 2 days, certified by the ASN of the country in which the test took place. Only results obtained with single-seater formula cars will be taken into consideration. Should the members of the Bureau not agree unanimously, the Commission in its entirety will be consulted. In this case, the complete application must be received by the FIA at least 14 days before scrutineering for the first FIA Formula One World Championship event in which the candidate is to compete.
5.2 The Super Licence is valid to the end of the year of issue.
5.3 A driver accepted under the terms of iii) h) above will be on probation for a period of 12 months during which the Super Licence will be held provisionally and subject to review at any time.
Edited by Jungles on Monday 9th February 01:07
The GPDA's logic in the main points they raised is unarguable:
"The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA . . ."
". . . The FIA should raise sufficient funds from the exploitation of its commercial rights."
Whilst the second bit would appear to be a dig at Mosley's sale of the commercial rights to his (then) buddy Eccs, the points raised are spot on. The FiA should not seek to raise funds through the drivers. (As an aside, it's a shame I missed the application for tenders. I might have bid.)
"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."
Again all very sensible and the logic is irrifutable.
"The licensing process for drivers is to ensure that the drivers are competent to race at the level necessary in Formula One."
I can see no argument agains this final point. The costs of the licience should only be enough to cover the administration costs. There is no justification for this year's hike and certainly not the massive increase of last year.
Another Mosley idea that ranks up there with having a de facto one car race at Indy and a one man race for the commercial rights.
"The drivers contend that the Super Licence fees should not be a revenue stream for the FIA . . ."
". . . The FIA should raise sufficient funds from the exploitation of its commercial rights."
Whilst the second bit would appear to be a dig at Mosley's sale of the commercial rights to his (then) buddy Eccs, the points raised are spot on. The FiA should not seek to raise funds through the drivers. (As an aside, it's a shame I missed the application for tenders. I might have bid.)
"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."
Again all very sensible and the logic is irrifutable.
"The licensing process for drivers is to ensure that the drivers are competent to race at the level necessary in Formula One."
I can see no argument agains this final point. The costs of the licience should only be enough to cover the administration costs. There is no justification for this year's hike and certainly not the massive increase of last year.
Another Mosley idea that ranks up there with having a de facto one car race at Indy and a one man race for the commercial rights.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff