Ferrari's contract to F1 in 2010
Discussion
Mosley keeps going on about Ferrari being contracted to F1 until 2012 so therefore would have to race in F1 next year.
If a new series were to be set-up, what would stop Ferrari joining that series as a competitive team then sending the 2009 car to the cost-capped F1 races, doing a lap and retiring in each and every race. Could the FIA stop them from doing this? Would it be that expensive to do and would it be cheaper than a legal battle in the courts?
If a new series were to be set-up, what would stop Ferrari joining that series as a competitive team then sending the 2009 car to the cost-capped F1 races, doing a lap and retiring in each and every race. Could the FIA stop them from doing this? Would it be that expensive to do and would it be cheaper than a legal battle in the courts?
That's a good question.
If Ferrari were to do that, in such a way that it was transparent that they weren't really trying, they could be found to have "brought the sport into disrepute", as they say. That in turn would bring about a sanction, although the real question would be whether it would result in a penalty that would actually matter, maybe a breach of contract. When Mosley fined McLaren $100M, they were not bound by law to pay it; it was just that, if they weren't to pay it, they wouldn't be in F1 anymore.
However, coming to every race but doing badly would make Ferrari look stupid (yes, the FIA looks completely stupid about this whole thing, but its president doesn't care), and their own reputation and brand value would suffer as a result.
On many occasions, signatories to the Concorde Agreement have subsequently failed to enter races. This has been for lack of money, but still they did it. I wouldn't know whether there is something special about the present CA that would create a greater obligation for Ferrari to particpate. Alternatively, the FIA (or Bernie's people - let's not forget that they have a lot more to lose than Numbnuts does) may have had the potential ability to sue those signatories in the past that failed to compete, but saw no advantage to doing so, unlike now.
Then there is the question of exactly which Ferrari entity signed the CA and may be obliged to race under the FIA. Is it the same big company that has annual sales of a couple of billion and a lot to lose, or is it a special-purpose subsidiary specific to Formula One that could be folded without much damage to the whole?
If Ferrari were to do that, in such a way that it was transparent that they weren't really trying, they could be found to have "brought the sport into disrepute", as they say. That in turn would bring about a sanction, although the real question would be whether it would result in a penalty that would actually matter, maybe a breach of contract. When Mosley fined McLaren $100M, they were not bound by law to pay it; it was just that, if they weren't to pay it, they wouldn't be in F1 anymore.
However, coming to every race but doing badly would make Ferrari look stupid (yes, the FIA looks completely stupid about this whole thing, but its president doesn't care), and their own reputation and brand value would suffer as a result.
On many occasions, signatories to the Concorde Agreement have subsequently failed to enter races. This has been for lack of money, but still they did it. I wouldn't know whether there is something special about the present CA that would create a greater obligation for Ferrari to particpate. Alternatively, the FIA (or Bernie's people - let's not forget that they have a lot more to lose than Numbnuts does) may have had the potential ability to sue those signatories in the past that failed to compete, but saw no advantage to doing so, unlike now.
Then there is the question of exactly which Ferrari entity signed the CA and may be obliged to race under the FIA. Is it the same big company that has annual sales of a couple of billion and a lot to lose, or is it a special-purpose subsidiary specific to Formula One that could be folded without much damage to the whole?
MartG said:
There is also the question whether, by imposing rule changes without following due process as described in the 'contract', has Mosely already abrogated the contract and thus rendering any attempt to sue the teams for breach impossible ?
I believe that that was part of Ferrari's unsuccessful argument in the French court.Under the FIA's rules, any decision that it makes may only be challenged in a French court, although I believe that anyone can attempt to bring a claim before the European Court of Justice.
France also has an appellate court.
flemke said:
That's a good question.
If Ferrari were to do that, in such a way that it was transparent that they weren't really trying, they could be found to have "brought the sport into disrepute", as they say. That in turn would bring about a sanction, although the real question would be whether it would result in a penalty that would actually matter, maybe a breach of contract. When Mosley fined McLaren $100M, they were not bound by law to pay it; it was just that, if they weren't to pay it, they wouldn't be in F1 anymore.
However, coming to every race but doing badly would make Ferrari look stupid (yes, the FIA looks completely stupid about this whole thing, but its president doesn't care), and their own reputation and brand value would suffer as a result.
On many occasions, signatories to the Concorde Agreement have subsequently failed to enter races. This has been for lack of money, but still they did it. I wouldn't know whether there is something special about the present CA that would create a greater obligation for Ferrari to particpate. Alternatively, the FIA (or Bernie's people - let's not forget that they have a lot more to lose than Numbnuts does) may have had the potential ability to sue those signatories in the past that failed to compete, but saw no advantage to doing so, unlike now.
Then there is the question of exactly which Ferrari entity signed the CA and may be obliged to race under the FIA. Is it the same big company that has annual sales of a couple of billion and a lot to lose, or is it a special-purpose subsidiary specific to Formula One that could be folded without much damage to the whole?
Almost definately the latter If Ferrari were to do that, in such a way that it was transparent that they weren't really trying, they could be found to have "brought the sport into disrepute", as they say. That in turn would bring about a sanction, although the real question would be whether it would result in a penalty that would actually matter, maybe a breach of contract. When Mosley fined McLaren $100M, they were not bound by law to pay it; it was just that, if they weren't to pay it, they wouldn't be in F1 anymore.
However, coming to every race but doing badly would make Ferrari look stupid (yes, the FIA looks completely stupid about this whole thing, but its president doesn't care), and their own reputation and brand value would suffer as a result.
On many occasions, signatories to the Concorde Agreement have subsequently failed to enter races. This has been for lack of money, but still they did it. I wouldn't know whether there is something special about the present CA that would create a greater obligation for Ferrari to particpate. Alternatively, the FIA (or Bernie's people - let's not forget that they have a lot more to lose than Numbnuts does) may have had the potential ability to sue those signatories in the past that failed to compete, but saw no advantage to doing so, unlike now.
Then there is the question of exactly which Ferrari entity signed the CA and may be obliged to race under the FIA. Is it the same big company that has annual sales of a couple of billion and a lot to lose, or is it a special-purpose subsidiary specific to Formula One that could be folded without much damage to the whole?
Im sure that Ferrari cars and Ferrari F1 must be different legal entities
Although the FIA may have a contract with Ferrari I dont think it will be a barrier to them leaving.
If things get so bad that Ferrari want to leave then I dont think they will change there decition due to a contract.
Even if the contract is enforcable and the FIA can sue them I suspect that it could be tied up for a very long time in court.
But to be honest I dont see the current argument going so far.
In many ways its in everybodys interest to hype up the current argument in the media, any publicity is good publicity. Also the resulting resolution (or postponement) is likely to be seen by both sides as a victory by both sides so there will be no loser in the end.
Holst said:
Im sure that Ferrari cars and Ferrari F1 must be different legal entities
You would think so, but even then the entrant could be a racing team with assets including a racing car factory, wind tunnel, test track, etc. I don't have a clue about the facts, of course; was just pointing out the issue.flemke said:
You would think so, but even then the entrant could be a racing team with assets including a racing car factory, wind tunnel, test track, etc. I don't have a clue about the facts, of course; was just pointing out the issue.
Then perhaps the racing team could fold, owing large sums of money to the parent company. The parent would then seize the assets, and be free to use them to form a new team for competition elsewhere, might be far-fetched but I'm sure the lawyers on Ferrari's payroll are smart guys and could make something like this work.SirTainly said:
flemke said:
You would think so, but even then the entrant could be a racing team with assets including a racing car factory, wind tunnel, test track, etc. I don't have a clue about the facts, of course; was just pointing out the issue.
Then perhaps the racing team could fold, owing large sums of money to the parent company. The parent would then seize the assets, and be free to use them to form a new team for competition elsewhere, might be far-fetched but I'm sure the lawyers on Ferrari's payroll are smart guys and could make something like this work.One step on from this, if the FIA don't accept any FOTA entries for 2010, could the FOTA teams pull out this year? Or even do something similar to the US grand prix a couple of years ago and pull inot the pits after the parade lap? I know it would probably p!ss off their suppliers, but it would destroy F1 before the new teams entered for 2010 and certainly cost Bernie a fair few quid.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff