Red Bull buys Minardi
Discussion
[quote=Autosport-atlas.com]
Red Bull have decided to buy the Minardi Formula One team, Autosport-Atlas can reveal.
Sources close to the energy drinks giant have confirmed that following the signing of an option to look at the team last week, the company's bosses have now given the green light to a full buy-out of their Faenza-based rivals.
Autosport-Atlas understands that the contract for the sale was signed at Spa-Francorchamps on Saturday afternoon, with the takeover of the team set to take place on November 1.
This period of grace will allow Red Bull chiefs to have a proper look at the Minardi operation during the rest of the season before deciding where improvements need to be made.
Although it was previously thought that Red Bull wanted to run versions of this year's RB1 chassis for Minardi, current limitations in the Concorde Agreement that stipulate teams must build their own car have now ruled this possibility out.
It is likely therefore that the team will develop a new car, based on this year's Minardi, for next year.
A source claimed the decision to buy Minardi came about because Red Bull Racing had done so well this season.
"One of the main reasons is that Red Bull Racing have performed above expectations," said the source. "The team was supposed to provide somewhere for junior drivers to learn about Formula One, but it is better than that now. We needed another team to help make that happen."
It is likely that Red Bull Racing test driver Scott Speed and either Vitantonio Liuzzi or Christian Klien will driver for the junior team in 2006.
Confirmation of the Minardi/Red Bull deal is expected imminently.[/quote]
[quote=autosport-atlas.com also]
The Full Statement by Red Bull
Saturday, 10 September 2005 15:29
Red Bull Takes Over Minardi
"Three birds with one stone"
Today, at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit, an agreement was reached whereby, from 1st November 2005, Austria's Red Bull GmbH will take over all the company shares of the Minardi Formula One team and will be responsible for running the team. Red Bull will therefore run two Formula One teams from the start of the 2006 season onwards.
The second team will be positioned as a "Rookie Team" and this and the current Red Bull Racing will operate independently of one another and compete against one another on the track.
The main reasons for Red Bull deciding to enter a second team starting in the 2006 Formula One World Championship are:
1. Red Bull has more talented drivers than it has available cockpits. This meant there were only two ways of helping up-coming drivers: either place them in other teams or to increase the number of cockpits available to us. After much careful thought, Red Bull decided to go with the second of these options.
2. Looking at the current state of Formula One we feel that the second team will be able to maintain its current assets while also being able to generate its own income in the future, in order to become almost self- financing.
3. This acquisition also means that Red Bull now has a second vote in any matters raised regarding the future of Formula One.
At the moment, no decisions have been taken as regards the name of the team, its management nor its drivers. [/quote]
Red Bull have decided to buy the Minardi Formula One team, Autosport-Atlas can reveal.
Sources close to the energy drinks giant have confirmed that following the signing of an option to look at the team last week, the company's bosses have now given the green light to a full buy-out of their Faenza-based rivals.
Autosport-Atlas understands that the contract for the sale was signed at Spa-Francorchamps on Saturday afternoon, with the takeover of the team set to take place on November 1.
This period of grace will allow Red Bull chiefs to have a proper look at the Minardi operation during the rest of the season before deciding where improvements need to be made.
Although it was previously thought that Red Bull wanted to run versions of this year's RB1 chassis for Minardi, current limitations in the Concorde Agreement that stipulate teams must build their own car have now ruled this possibility out.
It is likely therefore that the team will develop a new car, based on this year's Minardi, for next year.
A source claimed the decision to buy Minardi came about because Red Bull Racing had done so well this season.
"One of the main reasons is that Red Bull Racing have performed above expectations," said the source. "The team was supposed to provide somewhere for junior drivers to learn about Formula One, but it is better than that now. We needed another team to help make that happen."
It is likely that Red Bull Racing test driver Scott Speed and either Vitantonio Liuzzi or Christian Klien will driver for the junior team in 2006.
Confirmation of the Minardi/Red Bull deal is expected imminently.[/quote]
[quote=autosport-atlas.com also]
The Full Statement by Red Bull
Saturday, 10 September 2005 15:29
Red Bull Takes Over Minardi
"Three birds with one stone"
Today, at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit, an agreement was reached whereby, from 1st November 2005, Austria's Red Bull GmbH will take over all the company shares of the Minardi Formula One team and will be responsible for running the team. Red Bull will therefore run two Formula One teams from the start of the 2006 season onwards.
The second team will be positioned as a "Rookie Team" and this and the current Red Bull Racing will operate independently of one another and compete against one another on the track.
The main reasons for Red Bull deciding to enter a second team starting in the 2006 Formula One World Championship are:
1. Red Bull has more talented drivers than it has available cockpits. This meant there were only two ways of helping up-coming drivers: either place them in other teams or to increase the number of cockpits available to us. After much careful thought, Red Bull decided to go with the second of these options.
2. Looking at the current state of Formula One we feel that the second team will be able to maintain its current assets while also being able to generate its own income in the future, in order to become almost self- financing.
3. This acquisition also means that Red Bull now has a second vote in any matters raised regarding the future of Formula One.
At the moment, no decisions have been taken as regards the name of the team, its management nor its drivers. [/quote]
I don't think anyone achieves the success of Dietrich Mateschitz by being a lackey, if he chooses to side with Bernie/Max then I am sure it is because he believes it to be in his best interests. I for one will be glad to see the back of Stoddart, he always seems to have too much to say about other peoples business.
Not entirely unexpected - Minardi had a number of suitors. I do wonder whether Stoddart will now try for Max's post or even establish another F1 team in 2008. I can't help feeling that his eagerness to sell was on the back of the real risk that the US$48m bond may not be a pre-requisite of establishing a team post 2008.
So does Irvine have deep enough pockets to buy Renault F1? I think not - that'll be David Richards' preserve.
So does Irvine have deep enough pockets to buy Renault F1? I think not - that'll be David Richards' preserve.
david_s said:
I don't think anyone achieves the success of Dietrich Mateschitz by being a lackey, if he chooses to side with Bernie/Max then I am sure it is because he believes it to be in his best interests.
I don't think that there's a disagreement.
It appears from his recent actions that Mateschitz and his minions such as Marko think that to be Max and Bernie's lackey would be precisely in Mateschitz's best interests.
Let's see: Renault's driver stable includes Alonso, Fisichella, Montagny and Kovalainen; McLaren's includes Montoya, Raikkonen, Wurz and Hamilton. Yet Red Bull is claiming that it needs a second team because it has too much driving talent for a single team? Please...
Mateschitz seems like an less conspicuous version of Briatore: a guy who sees F1 as a business opportunity but couldn't care less about motorsport itself.
There's no law against such people, but when their personal interests come into conflict with the interests of the sport, we know what gets sacrificed.
I suppose that it is the pejorative use of the word lackey that I disagree with. Is Frank Williams a lackey of Ron Dennis because they (occasionally) agree with one another?
From what I have read Mateschitz would appear to be a long term motor racing enthusiast using motor sport to promote his business, in exactly the same way as the manufacturers, sponsors and tyre companies. I for one would rather F1 was run by Bernie than Toyota/BMW/Mercedes/Honda/Renault/Fiat.
From what I have read Mateschitz would appear to be a long term motor racing enthusiast using motor sport to promote his business, in exactly the same way as the manufacturers, sponsors and tyre companies. I for one would rather F1 was run by Bernie than Toyota/BMW/Mercedes/Honda/Renault/Fiat.
david_s said:
I for one would rather F1 was run by Bernie than Toyota/BMW/Mercedes/Honda/Renault/Fiat.
This'll be the Bernie who's taken his billions of $ out of the sport already?
He has no controlling shareholding, and the sooner the real owners of the sport/business wise up that he is a self serving liability, and replace him with someone younger than a 70'odd year old the better.
7.
Red Bull is a marketing company. Mateschitz has chosen to market the drink using extreme sports and has been very successful in that vein.
I'm not sure he is a "stayer" nor that he is passionate about F1 in the same way that Stoddart undoubtedly is.
I think that he saw Minardi as a good buy for a number of reasons, possibly none of them connected with any passion for F1. For example, he has Scott Speed on his books and I think he sees an opportunity to harness US sponsors in Europe. After all, he already has Cheever's team to push Red Bull in the US market.
Minardi is pretty much a turnkey concern - it already has a chassis that needs little investment for 2006 - the engine deal is already signed up and it has no drivers under long term contract - perfect for someone to move in and pick up the reins.
If 2008 radically changes things, closing down the team means kissing goodbye to US$30m - a mere drop in the ocean. He might even take a quick turn on it if offered the right money.
I'm not sure he is a "stayer" nor that he is passionate about F1 in the same way that Stoddart undoubtedly is.
I think that he saw Minardi as a good buy for a number of reasons, possibly none of them connected with any passion for F1. For example, he has Scott Speed on his books and I think he sees an opportunity to harness US sponsors in Europe. After all, he already has Cheever's team to push Red Bull in the US market.
Minardi is pretty much a turnkey concern - it already has a chassis that needs little investment for 2006 - the engine deal is already signed up and it has no drivers under long term contract - perfect for someone to move in and pick up the reins.
If 2008 radically changes things, closing down the team means kissing goodbye to US$30m - a mere drop in the ocean. He might even take a quick turn on it if offered the right money.
david_s said:
I suppose that it is the pejorative use of the word lackey that I disagree with. Is Frank Williams a lackey of Ron Dennis because they (occasionally) agree with one another?
From what I have read Mateschitz would appear to be a long term motor racing enthusiast using motor sport to promote his business, in exactly the same way as the manufacturers, sponsors and tyre companies. I for one would rather F1 was run by Bernie than Toyota/BMW/Mercedes/Honda/Renault/Fiat.
I don't see the Dennis/Williams relationship as being anything like analogous to the Mateschitz/Bernie/Mosley one.
I said "lackey" because:
It is plain that Bernie/Max (might it be simpler to refer to them as "Mernie"?) desperately need commitments to their series. Their plan, which may well be successful, was to cut a sweetheart deal with FIArrari. Only having F was never going to be enough, but it was intended as the keystone.
Once F were tied in, they became a co-conspirator perforce (if they weren't already). A logical step in getting more commitments was to leverage what F had to sell, which was their engines. I'm sure that they would have sold chassis as well except that that is not allowed under the present CA.
Enter Red Bull, which saw a chance to upgrade to what has historically been a great engine builder while also ingratiating itself with the puppetmasters Mernie.
Now that they are tied in to F engines, and can expect to get special favours from Mernie as a reward for signing with them, Red Bull will do whatever Mernie wants.
Exhibit A - After the mess at the US GP, the seven Michelin teams were summoned before the FIA to answer the (risible) case against them. Ron Dennis was appointed by six of the teams to represent them. Red Bull cut itself loose from the other six and sent Horner unilaterally. The only reason for this was to symbolise to the world that the seven Michelin teams were not united against Mernie.
Is there no difference between allies and lackeys? Just because Mateschitz might feel that the future of F1 is not best served by the manufacturers doesn't make him Bernies bitch.
If the FIA was as pro-Ferrari as some would have us believe, why were the rules changed so drastically this season? Surely leaving things completely un-changed would have better suited Ferrari considering their absolute dominance last year.
If the FIA was as pro-Ferrari as some would have us believe, why were the rules changed so drastically this season? Surely leaving things completely un-changed would have better suited Ferrari considering their absolute dominance last year.
david_s said:
Is there no difference between allies and lackeys? Just because Mateschitz might feel that the future of F1 is not best served by the manufacturers doesn't make him Bernies bitch.
That's very true, David, there is a difference.
I'd say it is that lackeys are allies that have no principles. Lackeys may do the bidding of others indirectly to serve themselves or obeisantly to serve the others, but they do it without regard to whether it is right.
Max lacks integrity - that's obvious. I don't know enough about Mateschitz to be confident of an opinion, but the way that he treated Pitchforth and Purnell appeared to be disgraceful, so the signs are not good. Mosley and Mateschitz are starting to look like each other's lackeys.
Bernie may be a different kettle of fish altogether.
david_s said:Just because the FIA consistently favours Ferrari over the other teams does not mean that every single thing that they do is calculated to give F an advantage. Mosley has become obsessed with the idea that F1 will self-destruct from its profligacy, and much of what he has dictated in recent years has been meant to reduce costs (in many cases his dictates have rather increased them, but that's another story).
If the FIA was as pro-Ferrari as some would have us believe, why were the rules changed so drastically this season? Surely leaving things completely un-changed would have better suited Ferrari considering their absolute dominance last year.
There have been a number of technology rules changes in the last few years and in virtually every case Ferrari have coped with them well. I am aware of no change (with the debatable exception of the single-tyre rule) that was foreseen to benefit other teams at F's expense.
As F1's second-best funded team, if anything one would expect F to be in a good position to benefit from constantly-changing rules.
This may seem a tad off topic but ...
I was at the Renault event at Donington Park today and could not help but notice just how many cars in the open wheel series on show - particularly the Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 race where I think I counted 4 or 5 - were Red Bull liveried.
Whatever the Austrian is seeking to do (world dominance through motor sport?
) he certainly seems to be getting his corporate identity spread far and wide. If that results in a flood of drivers to progress in some way he may need more than 2 F1 teams.
How about the "Red Bull F1 world series by xxxxx" ?
The last time I recall seeing things like this happening, albeit in merely UK based series, most of the all pervasive 'sponsors' turned out to be, shall we say, dodgy. But that was probably just a very British thing.
>> Edited by LongQ on Sunday 11th September 08:24
I was at the Renault event at Donington Park today and could not help but notice just how many cars in the open wheel series on show - particularly the Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 race where I think I counted 4 or 5 - were Red Bull liveried.
Whatever the Austrian is seeking to do (world dominance through motor sport?
) he certainly seems to be getting his corporate identity spread far and wide. If that results in a flood of drivers to progress in some way he may need more than 2 F1 teams. How about the "Red Bull F1 world series by xxxxx" ?
The last time I recall seeing things like this happening, albeit in merely UK based series, most of the all pervasive 'sponsors' turned out to be, shall we say, dodgy. But that was probably just a very British thing.
>> Edited by LongQ on Sunday 11th September 08:24
Eric Mc said:If there were, we can be sure that Mernie would find a way to interpret the rules in order to allow it.
Is there not a "conflict of interests" arising with one owner controlling more than one team on the grid? I know other sports are extremely wary of such arrangements and some have outright bans.
I suspect that they would simply say that since the two teams are legally separate limited companies, it does not matter whether the shareholders of those two companies happen to overlap.
After all, there is probably someone out there who owns shares in both Toyota and BMW.
Such an argument would not be accepted under company or tax law. The important thing to consider is "controlling interest" i.e. has an individual or group of individuals the ability to determine the outcome of transactions between two or more organisiation. In other words, is collusion and manipulation of outcomes possible. That is where the danger lies and that is why other sports governing bodies ban such situations outright.
F1 is corrupt to its core, I'm afraid to say.
F1 is corrupt to its core, I'm afraid to say.
Didn't Benetton own Ligier too in the mid '90s and indeed run two very similar cars within the two teams?
Also, wasn't it rumoured that BCE bailed Minardi out within the last 5 years? I wonder whether he received a shareholding for that act of generosity?
Does anyone know whether Stoddart bought the Arrows name and IPR?
Also, wasn't it rumoured that BCE bailed Minardi out within the last 5 years? I wonder whether he received a shareholding for that act of generosity?
Does anyone know whether Stoddart bought the Arrows name and IPR?
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff