Mosley response to the teams budget cap concern.
Discussion
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73819
"The complaint was that we didn't consult them."
Really Max? And they didn't like it? That's a surprise, could that be because you are meant to be acting in the teams interests rather than your own?
Another bit that he is almost admitting that he has no idea anymore is this:
"I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
Over to you.
Spanky said:
FIA president Max Mosley says he regarded the Formula One Teams' Association's response to the introduction of budget caps as 'weak', and feels the teams' body should have gone further with its own proposals.
FOTA recently unveiled plans for cost cuts that it believed would reduce Formula 1 budgets by 50 per cent, but the FIA World Motor Sport Council still chose to introduce an optional £30 million budget cap for 2010.
A FOTA statement expressed the teams' 'concern' at this development, but Mosley says the independent outfits are in favour of the concept.
"It was a weak response," Mosley told the Daily Telegraph. "They knew we were considering a budget cap, but I don't think they expected us just to do it like that.
"The complaint was that we didn't consult them. Well, we've been talking a lot to Force India and Williams, both of whom were very supportive. I've not spoken recently to [Red Bull owner Dietrich] Mateschitz but I would have thought it might appeal to him too.
"In any case, we had to do something. All we've had from the teams so far is 'We've done a fantastic job, we've reduced costs by 50 per cent'. So what?
"It has come down from $300-$400 million to $150-$200 million? Well, that's admirable, but I'm dubious as to whether they will still have $150-$200 million in 2010 and 2011.
"It is provisional. I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Mosley remains convinced that the teams will ultimately welcome the idea of a budget cap.
"When people calm down a little bit they will see that all of this is brilliant for Formula 1," he said. "It won't hurt the DNA of the sport - £30 million is still vastly more than any other series."
This is the best bit:FOTA recently unveiled plans for cost cuts that it believed would reduce Formula 1 budgets by 50 per cent, but the FIA World Motor Sport Council still chose to introduce an optional £30 million budget cap for 2010.
A FOTA statement expressed the teams' 'concern' at this development, but Mosley says the independent outfits are in favour of the concept.
"It was a weak response," Mosley told the Daily Telegraph. "They knew we were considering a budget cap, but I don't think they expected us just to do it like that.
"The complaint was that we didn't consult them. Well, we've been talking a lot to Force India and Williams, both of whom were very supportive. I've not spoken recently to [Red Bull owner Dietrich] Mateschitz but I would have thought it might appeal to him too.
"In any case, we had to do something. All we've had from the teams so far is 'We've done a fantastic job, we've reduced costs by 50 per cent'. So what?
"It has come down from $300-$400 million to $150-$200 million? Well, that's admirable, but I'm dubious as to whether they will still have $150-$200 million in 2010 and 2011.
"It is provisional. I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Mosley remains convinced that the teams will ultimately welcome the idea of a budget cap.
"When people calm down a little bit they will see that all of this is brilliant for Formula 1," he said. "It won't hurt the DNA of the sport - £30 million is still vastly more than any other series."
"The complaint was that we didn't consult them."
Really Max? And they didn't like it? That's a surprise, could that be because you are meant to be acting in the teams interests rather than your own?
Another bit that he is almost admitting that he has no idea anymore is this:
"I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
Over to you.
Dont see any reason for him to consult them. There would be two groups - the BMW / Fiat teams on the one hand who would like the situation to be unchanged cos it reduces the number of competitors. The big companies can win by outspending. Second group are the smaller "privateers" who havent got $400m a year to throw away.
If there is to be a viable future for F1, then the cost has to be limited to prevent firms buying the championship. And ultimately ending up with a meaningless championship
If there is to be a viable future for F1, then the cost has to be limited to prevent firms buying the championship. And ultimately ending up with a meaningless championship
bordseye said:
Dont see any reason for him to consult them. There would be two groups - the BMW / Fiat teams on the one hand who would like the situation to be unchanged cos it reduces the number of competitors. The big companies can win by outspending. Second group are the smaller "privateers" who havent got $400m a year to throw away.
If there is to be a viable future for F1, then the cost has to be limited to prevent firms buying the championship. And ultimately ending up with a meaningless championship
You are correct. If there is to be a viable future for F1, then the cost has to be limited to prevent firms buying the championship. And ultimately ending up with a meaningless championship
What you seem to have overlooked is that the teams have already taken major steps to achieve this, which is why the mousey dictator should have made an effort to work with them, instead of playing his pathetic little games and contriving a gratuitous confrontation.
Despite their differing budgets and business models, FOTA members had already agreed unanimously a programme to reduce their budgets by at least 50% for 2010, with more reductions to follow:
http://allenonf1.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/fota-cut...
More proof, if it was really needed, that Max needs to be removed from his position as soon as possible.
The depressing thing about the above statement is that in all probability I shall still be making it in 5 years time.
Assuming there is still an F1 for him to bugger about with by then.
The depressing thing about the above statement is that in all probability I shall still be making it in 5 years time.
Assuming there is still an F1 for him to bugger about with by then.
stifler said:
"I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
I think he actually meant that more cuts.Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
He's gone cuckoo if he thinks teams can just slash budgets from 150M to 25M. Perhaps he should reduce his personal budget by similar proportions?
Edited by Jungles on Sunday 22 March 12:43
Jungles said:
stifler said:
"I actually think it could be done for £25 million but that's just my opinion. All my advisers think it should be more."
Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
I think he actually meant that more cuts.Advisors that know what they are talking about perhaps?
Even Bernie reckons on £40 mil:
Fota's conciliatory tone was blown out of the water on Tuesday when the FIA, F1's governing body, announced their plans for an optional £30 million budget cap from 2010, in return for extra technical freedom over the design of their cars, to help them be more competitive. Whose idea was that? "A little bit of Max and mine really," he says. "Although I think it's too low, it should be £40 million." So is it still open for negotiation?
Edited by DrTre on Sunday 22 March 13:15
DrTre said:
So is it still open for negotiation?
With Laurel and Hardy, everything, always, is open for negotiation, because principles are not an issue. They will continue ceaselessly to position themselves, trying to find a new angle.
Ecclestone has an insatiable appetite for money, Mosley has an insatiable appetite for power: nothing is ever enough.
flemke said:
DrTre said:
So is it still open for negotiation?
With Laurel and Hardy, everything, always, is open for negotiation, because principles are not an issue. They will continue ceaselessly to position themselves, trying to find a new angle.
Ecclestone has an insatiable appetite for money, Mosley has an insatiable appetite for power: nothing is ever enough.
But I wholeheartedly agree that nothing is for certain when they're involved...much like your comment on the other thread about the FIA interfering in technical matters. They say one thing (Max = "we're not going to get involved") and then promptly do.
It's incredible that they cannot see it is themselves that are causing the lack of interest in F1 as a sporting spectacle. I know it will always be watched by millions, and I'll be one of them for the on-track action, but I, and other people I know, actually no longer really care about the outcome of a season wrt the winning champion/team since they're based on such completely arbitrary and unfair decisions all the way through the season that it makes a tedious mockery of the whole idea of "sport".
Curiously, once you accept that then F1 becomes fun again!
DrTre said:
I know it will always be watched by millions . . .
The bit tht worries me is that there is every possibility that it won't. If the money goes elsewhere, say into a closed wheel forumla, then lots of other stuff follows as well: the drivers, the sponsors, the TV, the hype, the glamour. At the moment F1 is clearly the pinnacle of motor sport but it doesn't have that position as of right.Money is leeching from the sport, of that there can be little doubt, but that means that teams will not have the budgets of £400m+. But the motor industry will recover, if with fewer names, and they'll want to push their products. If they can't to it in F1 then WSC or WTC will look attractive. If they set up some form of formula amongst themselves - they might feel the FiA is inconvenient - then they will dictate what we watch and that will be as bad as Mosley running it. Well perhaps not quite that bad, but there does need to be checks. As we have seen in the last few years.
If, as seems to be the intent, F1 falls to total control by Mosley with squabbly little kit cars running around the track, something like a cheap version of the Tuscan Challenge, then I for one might well be tempted by WTC.
A few thoughts:
- Is the FIA in the EU, or did it end up in Switzerland ?
- Is there an argument for saying that such a drastic reduction budget (in order for a business to be competitive, given the benefits to running a team which abides by the regs for budget capped teams) could be seen as anti-competitive behaviour or a restriction in the companies ability to trade ? Basically, can an organisation such as the FIA dictate to an independent company how to run its business ?
- Is there scope for challenging this under employment laws, given that for a team to run to a £30M budget there would either need to be a lot of redundancies (which will cost those companies money) or dramatic pay cuts which may not be contractually possible.
Nick M said:
A few thoughts:
- Is the FIA in the EU, or did it end up in Switzerland ?
- Is there an argument for saying that such a drastic reduction budget (in order for a business to be competitive, given the benefits to running a team which abides by the regs for budget capped teams) could be seen as anti-competitive behaviour or a restriction in the companies ability to trade ? Basically, can an organisation such as the FIA dictate to an independent company how to run its business ?
- Is there scope for challenging this under employment laws, given that for a team to run to a £30M budget there would either need to be a lot of redundancies (which will cost those companies money) or dramatic pay cuts which may not be contractually possible.
It's headquartered in Paris, and obviously does much of its business in the EU. It has nothing to do with CH; Mosley scarpered to Monaco a few years ago, either to get himself outside the EU arrest warrant jurisdiction or for tax (ahem...) reasons.- Is the FIA in the EU, or did it end up in Switzerland ?
- Is there an argument for saying that such a drastic reduction budget (in order for a business to be competitive, given the benefits to running a team which abides by the regs for budget capped teams) could be seen as anti-competitive behaviour or a restriction in the companies ability to trade ? Basically, can an organisation such as the FIA dictate to an independent company how to run its business ?
- Is there scope for challenging this under employment laws, given that for a team to run to a £30M budget there would either need to be a lot of redundancies (which will cost those companies money) or dramatic pay cuts which may not be contractually possible.
The Concorde Agreement does not allow any changes to the formula without unanimous agreement of the entrants. The CA officially expired a year ago. In the absence of a successor agreement, all parties are operating under the terms of the expired one.
The one exception to the requirement for entrant endorsement is that the FIA may unilaterally impose changes necessary for "safety". I doubt that even the forked tongue of Mosley could argue that the FIA's "safety" clause could be extended to the "financial safety" of the entrants.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff