molsey costs savings
Discussion
Fresh from his success of cutting costs to teams by bringing in KERS systems, with all the complex research needing to be paid for, Mosley has again worked his cost saving genius with regards to super licences. In 2007 they cost £1285 per driver plus an extra £340 per point scored the previous season. This season they cost £7750 per driver plus £1565 (figures approximate) per point. Now many of you are just itching to work out the percentage rise but will be thwarted by an additional charge of £2564 to pay for something else. So Hamilton, who paid £1285 in 2007 will now pay about £200,000.
One more cost saving stunt like this and Mosley will break all the teams.
Whilst some might say that the drivers can afford this massive hike, I'm told that most top level drivers get their teams to pay the charge and it is only the newcomers and those driving for struggling teams and getting paid very little who will have to pay it.
You've got to laugh. Or do I mean cry?
One more cost saving stunt like this and Mosley will break all the teams.
Whilst some might say that the drivers can afford this massive hike, I'm told that most top level drivers get their teams to pay the charge and it is only the newcomers and those driving for struggling teams and getting paid very little who will have to pay it.
You've got to laugh. Or do I mean cry?
It's a pittance in the grand scheme of things. Meddling for the sake of it.
Moseley is being twisted and awkward; doing it because he can and to reinforce his "FIA = safety" posturing IMO.
What's the next FIA diktat going to be, implemented against the teams' / FOTA#'s will on the grounds of safety, I wonder?
Moseley is being twisted and awkward; doing it because he can and to reinforce his "FIA = safety" posturing IMO.
What's the next FIA diktat going to be, implemented against the teams' / FOTA#'s will on the grounds of safety, I wonder?
Derek Smith said:
Fresh from his success of cutting costs to teams by bringing in KERS systems, with all the complex research needing to be paid for, Mosley has again worked his cost saving genius with regards to super licences. In 2007 they cost £1285 per driver plus an extra £340 per point scored the previous season. This season they cost £7750 per driver plus £1565 (figures approximate) per point. Now many of you are just itching to work out the percentage rise but will be thwarted by an additional charge of £2564 to pay for something else. So Hamilton, who paid £1285 in 2007 will now pay about £200,000.
One more cost saving stunt like this and Mosley will break all the teams.
Whilst some might say that the drivers can afford this massive hike, I'm told that most top level drivers get their teams to pay the charge and it is only the newcomers and those driving for struggling teams and getting paid very little who will have to pay it.
You've got to laugh. Or do I mean cry?
Not defending the FIA, but I feel your post is a little biased IMHO.One more cost saving stunt like this and Mosley will break all the teams.
Whilst some might say that the drivers can afford this massive hike, I'm told that most top level drivers get their teams to pay the charge and it is only the newcomers and those driving for struggling teams and getting paid very little who will have to pay it.
You've got to laugh. Or do I mean cry?
The main hike in superlicence fees took place at the beginning of the 2008 season, and the GPDA made noise (but did f
k all else) about it at the time. The drivers / teams just ended up paying. Now, this was *before* Max's little indiscretion and when he was more powerful, hence I suspect the drivers / teams didn't feel they were in a position to negotiate if they wanted to drive that season.For 2009, there is an indexation linked increase and some sort of compulsory insurance (not sure for what) and the GPDA is advising its members not to pay it, pending discussions with FOTA. I suspect there may be a 'deal' done where the indexation increase is dropped, but that's a hollow victory given the massive increase in 2008.
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
Edited by Nick M on Sunday 25th January 17:43
This isn't the worst thing that Mosley has ever done, but that is because he's done so many bad things.
It is, however, a petty, pathetic attempt by an insecure little 5hit to try to show that he is the boss.
An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
The funny thing is that Mosley justifies more than quadrupling the licence fee on the FIA's increasing expenses on safety grounds. Pull the other one, Spanky.
If Mosley had not contrived for his business partner Bernie to buy the commercial rights to F1 for a sum that was not even large enough to be derisory, the FIA would already have collected hundreds of millions of dollars more than it has done. If anybody should be paying a fee to the FIA today, it's Mosley.
It is, however, a petty, pathetic attempt by an insecure little 5hit to try to show that he is the boss.
An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
The funny thing is that Mosley justifies more than quadrupling the licence fee on the FIA's increasing expenses on safety grounds. Pull the other one, Spanky.
If Mosley had not contrived for his business partner Bernie to buy the commercial rights to F1 for a sum that was not even large enough to be derisory, the FIA would already have collected hundreds of millions of dollars more than it has done. If anybody should be paying a fee to the FIA today, it's Mosley.
Nick M said:
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
So clearly a driver will use those much needed resources in proportion to how many points they got the previous season?If we had a whole field of new drivers - the FIA would have no money to spend on those safety items!
Yep - makes a whole lot of sense.
Joe911 said:
Nick M said:
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
So clearly a driver will use those much needed resources in proportion to how many points they got the previous season?If we had a whole field of new drivers - the FIA would have no money to spend on those safety items!
Yep - makes a whole lot of sense.
But in any case it's like most things - there's a method to it, but we may not like it. Tax for example.
Anyway, I'm not defending it, simply explaining the reasons which were put forward when they implemented the increase.
Nick M said:
For 2009, there is an indexation linked increase . . .
It is nothing to do with inflation. Indeed, licences have gone up at a different rate to the price per points.Nick M said:
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
I'm not sure I agree thee. The one who should be paying for such things is Eccs. I can see no justification for charging the drivers. Would you expect police officers to be charged for stab-proof vests?But my point was that Max bases his whole interference with the regulations on cost cutting and here he is increasing costs, not only by these licences but by KERS and regulations changes, all which costs the teams a fortune. Further, whilst I agree that the licenses had a massive hike in 2008, my point is still accurate: it is a phenominal increase in a fraction over one year. Max used the hike to pressure the drivers, giving them a limited time to pay up or not drive. This was outrageous and the main reason I feel that the drivers were stroppy. Such a hike in prices should have been open to discussion and negotiation, although I accept that Mosley has never negotiated in his life.
Max spends other people's money as if it was other people's. I could have come up with a system which lowered costs for teams and drivers. It is quite simple. But Max, bless his blood soaked underpants, puts costs up. It's no good saying that in 20whatever the costs will be lower. The problems exist now, today. And that is concurrent with the cost increases.
Derek Smith said:
Nick M said:
For 2009, there is an indexation linked increase . . .
It is nothing to do with inflation. Indeed, licences have gone up at a different rate to the price per points.http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72964
Derek Smith said:
Nick M said:
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
I'm not sure I agree thee. The one who should be paying for such things is Eccs. I can see no justification for charging the drivers. Would you expect police officers to be charged for stab-proof vests?But my point was that Max bases his whole interference with the regulations on cost cutting and here he is increasing costs, not only by these licences but by KERS and regulations changes, all which costs the teams a fortune. Further, whilst I agree that the licenses had a massive hike in 2008, my point is still accurate: it is a phenominal increase in a fraction over one year. Max used the hike to pressure the drivers, giving them a limited time to pay up or not drive. This was outrageous and the main reason I feel that the drivers were stroppy. Such a hike in prices should have been open to discussion and negotiation, although I accept that Mosley has never negotiated in his life.
Max spends other people's money as if it was other people's. I could have come up with a system which lowered costs for teams and drivers. It is quite simple. But Max, bless his blood soaked underpants, puts costs up. It's no good saying that in 20whatever the costs will be lower. The problems exist now, today. And that is concurrent with the cost increases.
You seem to think I agree with the FIA's stance simply because I tried to put a bit of balance to your post, which I felt to be a somewhat distorted view. You also seemed to be implying in your original post that this increase was something new for 2009, when it isn't (as I pointed out).
Costs weren't being spoken about, at least not in the same context as they are now, 12 months ago, but surely if the purpose of your post was because you feel so strongly about MM spending other peoples' money on KERS and increasing superlicence fees, isn't it 12 months late ? Or is this just another anti-MM post now you've got another excuse to vent about him ?
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand him or BE and want the sport shot of the pair of them.
But don't get all moralistic about how he's driving costs up - just have a rant about him anyway.
Nick M said:
Derek Smith said:
Nick M said:
The FIA's stance was that the superlicence fee was too low and they had been stumping up for all the safety 'stuff' (I've not seen the specifics, but I imagine expenses for the medical teams, safety car drivers, etc. ??? ) and they felt that, since the drivers were the ones who benefitted from this that they should contribute more towards the cost of it.
I'm not sure I agree thee. The one who should be paying for such things is Eccs. I can see no justification for charging the drivers. Would you expect police officers to be charged for stab-proof vests?But my point was that Max bases his whole interference with the regulations on cost cutting and here he is increasing costs, not only by these licences but by KERS and regulations changes, all which costs the teams a fortune. Further, whilst I agree that the licenses had a massive hike in 2008, my point is still accurate: it is a phenominal increase in a fraction over one year. Max used the hike to pressure the drivers, giving them a limited time to pay up or not drive. This was outrageous and the main reason I feel that the drivers were stroppy. Such a hike in prices should have been open to discussion and negotiation, although I accept that Mosley has never negotiated in his life.
Max spends other people's money as if it was other people's. I could have come up with a system which lowered costs for teams and drivers. It is quite simple. But Max, bless his blood soaked underpants, puts costs up. It's no good saying that in 20whatever the costs will be lower. The problems exist now, today. And that is concurrent with the cost increases.
You seem to think I agree with the FIA's stance simply because I tried to put a bit of balance to your post, which I felt to be a somewhat distorted view. You also seemed to be implying in your original post that this increase was something new for 2009, when it isn't (as I pointed out).
Costs weren't being spoken about, at least not in the same context as they are now, 12 months ago, but surely if the purpose of your post was because you feel so strongly about MM spending other peoples' money on KERS and increasing superlicence fees, isn't it 12 months late ? Or is this just another anti-MM post now you've got another excuse to vent about him ?
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand him or BE and want the sport shot of the pair of them.
But don't get all moralistic about how he's driving costs up - just have a rant about him anyway.
He is commenting on what is happening now. This latest Mosley manoeuvre has nothing to do with safety, and nothing to do with inflation. They are just excuses that the barrister has seized upon to justify his machinations.
If the increase stands, the additional money that the FIA will receive, in toto, will be less than 100,000 Euros. That is maybe enough to pay for first-class travel and accomodation for one FIA official to attend all the races, and I have no doubt that more than one official attends each race.
Rather, and as usual, this is about Mosley's asserting himself. He gave the game away when he said:
Autosport article said:
Max Mosley said he was willing to discuss the situation, but only if drivers could provide him with details of their earnings so he could judge whether the fee was too high.
His Highness will deign to review the drivers' private arrangements, and then he will dictate to them what they shall do if they wish to act within "his" domain. End of.Interesting how NASCAR drivers, who are more highly-compensated than F1 drivers are, do not pay anything remotely like the Superlicence fee.
What fee would Mosley be charging the drivers if he had not extorted the $50M from Mclaren a year ago? In that case, with a less-bulging war chest, would the FIA be forced to charge $2M for the champion's licence, and a mere couple of hundred grand for the rookie's?
Edited by flemke on Sunday 25th January 21:06
Nick M said:
Perhaps they have. My maths isn't as good as it used to be. However, it doesn't explain why my calculator also got it wrong. In any case, inflation is not something that is relevant in this case.
Nick M said:
You seem to think I agree with the FIA's stance simply because I tried to put a bit of balance to your post, which I felt to be a somewhat distorted view. You also seemed to be implying in your original post that this increase was something new for 2009, when it isn't (as I pointed out).
I thought no such thing. You did suggest that the costs incurred by the FiA went up and I said I didn’t agree. There was no justification for the arbitrary hike in SL costs last season and there is none for this year either.Nick M said:
Costs weren't being spoken about, at least not in the same context as they are now, 12 months ago,
Firstly, I’ve got to say that costs were of no concern to Mosley this time last year. Equally, I think they are of no concern to him now. However, he did justify the radical changes to 2008’s regs, which cost the teams a fortune, on the grounds of reduction of cost. Yet, at the same time, but with considerably less notice, he increased the SL cost outrageously.KERS was not brought in on the grounds of cost-cutting but it was brought in at the time that Mosley was suggesting that the other regs were there purely in order to cut costs.
A licence is just that, a licence to do something. There are no 'costs' involved apart from those of the bureaucracy that is required to ensure that the individual applicant is entitled to it. The so-called safety aspect is nothing more than a red herring. The drivers are legally entitled to a reasonable level of safety. My analogy of the stab-proof vests is an accurate one. The circuits should provide this level of safety as a matter of course. The teams don't charge the drivers for increasing the level of performance in crash testing. Indeed, the financial side is not something that the FiA, which is Mosley, is allowed to concern itself with. As for inflation, what on earth has that to do with it?
There is a new increase for 2009 and it is arbitrary. Fair enough, it is not anywhere in the region of the hike the previous year, but it is still wrong. The FiA has imposed it at a time when, according to Mosley, he is trying (and spectacularly failing) to reduce costs. Over two years the hike in licence fees is unjustifiable. And not in the FiA's remit.
It was not the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger which generated the rush for safety but the threat of legal action against all and sundry, although not those who make out they live in some countries. It is, I would suggest, something which the drivers are entitled to under current employment regulations. It is not they who should pay for it.
And I’m afraid I will take every opportunity to attack and rubbish anyone whom I believe is attacking the sport that I've followed as a nerd since 1966. It is my opinion that it is Mosley who is the biggest threat the sport has ever seen. It has ridden out downturns in the economy before and always come out stronger. But it has never, ever had to face such an attack as it is now.
I'm not being moralistic, I'm being selfish. I want to protect my sport but am largely powerless to do so. My winging on these pages is nothing more than frustration, tilting at windmills if you will. It might even be just so that when F1 is nothing more than a paragraph or two in Autosport, hopefully with their figures correct, I will be able to say: I told you so.
Heard the 1 about how Max tried to justify the cost increases on super licenses by saying that the FIA had paid for all the extra safety precautions, ie medical helicopters etc etc at GPs?
Does that mean then that the drivers in the Porsche Super Cup races (that run at GP weekends) either have to cough up vast sums more too? Or are they barred from the helicopter?
Where does this stop?
My racing licence (nothing spectactular, just some regional sprinting & rallies) has the FIA symbol on it. Am I expected to pay loony money for that too now just 'cos I have the impulse to blow a couple of hundred €uros on a day's arsing about in a car once every month or so in the credit-crunch times?
What, exactly, does the FIA do with it's share of the cash I spend on 1 of their approved licences?
Come to think of it, what do they do with the money they get from F1 drivers?
Pay the rent in Monaco does it Max?
Does that mean then that the drivers in the Porsche Super Cup races (that run at GP weekends) either have to cough up vast sums more too? Or are they barred from the helicopter?
Where does this stop?
My racing licence (nothing spectactular, just some regional sprinting & rallies) has the FIA symbol on it. Am I expected to pay loony money for that too now just 'cos I have the impulse to blow a couple of hundred €uros on a day's arsing about in a car once every month or so in the credit-crunch times?
What, exactly, does the FIA do with it's share of the cash I spend on 1 of their approved licences?
Come to think of it, what do they do with the money they get from F1 drivers?
Pay the rent in Monaco does it Max?
SamHH said:
Derek: do you think if the constructors were not spending money on KERS and superlicences that they would put that money away in the bank or that they would spend it on something else? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is the latter.
My point exactly. If the money's there, they'll spend it. Slightly different for Eccs, of course. If there's some money, it's his.flemke said:
It is, however, a petty, pathetic attempt by an insecure little 5hit to try to show that he is the boss.
An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
Don't hold back, Flemke. Say what you mean.An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
Derek Smith said:
flemke said:
It is, however, a petty, pathetic attempt by an insecure little 5hit to try to show that he is the boss.
An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
Don't hold back, Flemke. Say what you mean.An infamous, domineering, deranged dad, and a duplicitous, nazi-idolising mum: a shrink would have a field day trying to figure out the spawn.
Leaving aside corrupt politicians (that is, "official" politicians) such as Mugabe, Shinowatra, et al, I can think of no living person who has abused his position, and discredited his organisation, more than Mosley has done. There is probably somebody, somewhere, who's been worse, but he's right down there underneath the whale 5hit.
Derek Smith said:
SamHH said:
Derek: do you think if the constructors were not spending money on KERS and superlicences that they would put that money away in the bank or that they would spend it on something else? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is the latter.
My point exactly. If the money's there, they'll spend it. Slightly different for Eccs, of course. If there's some money, it's his.SamHH said:
Derek Smith said:
SamHH said:
Derek: do you think if the constructors were not spending money on KERS and superlicences that they would put that money away in the bank or that they would spend it on something else? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is the latter.
My point exactly. If the money's there, they'll spend it. Slightly different for Eccs, of course. If there's some money, it's his.Then they spend it, they do get a leg up, and the other teams feel pressure to raise additional funding or, alternatively, they fall behind, and the competition is weakened.
The only way to limit expenses is to put a limit on expenses. That should be obvious, even to Mosley. Then again, perhaps he cares less about limiting expenses and more about giving the big carmakers enough reasons to drop out altogether.
Also, as Derek mentioned above, the unproved drivers often have to bring their own funding to the party. Loads of folks think that Ant Davidson ought to be racing, but he can't be, because he can't get sufficient personal backing. Additional expenses loaded on the drivers only make it more difficult for a new guy to get a ride.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff