US F1 get hefty fine for non-appearance last year

[He Skunk]

Saw in autosport.com that USF1 were fine 309,000€ and banned from entering F1 again following their non-appearance last year.

Don't know if I misjudged the guy but Peter Windsor always gave me the impression as being a bit far up his own @rse.

Sat in a restaurant once in Spa as he held court with fellow journos from F1 racing mag, and had the distinct impression of a man who is a legend in his own lunchtime.

Some of his articles in the mag struck me as a bit anal, he seemed to always be trying to prove how clever he was , but just came across as a smart @ss.

Didn't do his credentials much good in the F1 world when he trashed a 911Cup car at Blanchimont resulting in the cancellation of a practice session for F1 a few years back in Spa either.

Read somewhere that dithering by the other team principal was given as a major source of all the ball-ache the team went through, so perhaps they were both not up to it. Windsor has however been given credit for finding sponsors, the gift of the gab!

Remaining assets sold, so a bit of a deceased parrot then.

[Teppic]

He Skunk said:

Saw in autosport.com that USF1 were fine 309,000€ and banned from entering F1 again following their non-appearance last year.

They've been banned from participating in any FIA Championship event, not just F1.

FIA said:

Pursuant to article 28(e) of the FIA Statutes the WMSC will impose the most serious penalty available to them of disqualification entailing the permanent loss of any right by USF1 to take part in any competition.

Edited by Teppic on Thursday 24th June 22:16

[groomi]

Is that the team or the people behind it who are banned?

[P924]

groomi said:

Is that the team or the people behind it who are banned?

Exactly, Financially that is nothing,... who is banned?

[BonzoG]

Stupid question - how can the FIA "fine" a defunct team? The WSMC isn't exactly a court of law. Penalising an active driver/team is easy enough - pay up or you're out! - but what's to stop the people behind USF1 just telling the FIA to ps off? Why would they choose to be bound by a penalty from an organisation which has banned them from any future participation anyways?

[andyps]

It does seem to be a bit of a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The FIA have fined a company which no longer exists and had all its remaining assets sold last month. It is even applying the costs of the hearing to them. Unless the contract to enter F1 in 2010 was with individuals rather than the team they have just wasted a lot of money on a hearing from which they will no receive any money.

In terms of the people v team issue for the ban, however, the announcement yesterday of licensing of team personnel will presumably mean that the people involved, and presumed guilty by the FIA, will not be able to get licences to work in things associated with FIA championships.

Actions worth of Mr Mosley from the FIA in this instance.

[Derek Smith]

BonzoG said:

Stupid question - how can the FIA "fine" a defunct team? The WSMC isn't exactly a court of law. Penalising an active driver/team is easy enough - pay up or you're out! - but what's to stop the people behind USF1 just telling the FIA to ps off? Why would they choose to be bound by a penalty from an organisation which has banned them from any future participation anyways?

I think what the decision means is that the FIA will keep USF1's deposit so any other creditors can whistle for it.

Not proper technical language.

It is a warning to other creditors that if they suggest that the FIA's reluctance to tell the teams what was required of them caused the failure they could point to 'poor financial management'.

The ghost of Mosley?

Edited by Derek Smith on Friday 25th June 09:05

[groomi]

andyps said:

It does seem to be a bit of a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The FIA have fined a company which no longer exists and had all its remaining assets sold last month. It is even applying the costs of the hearing to them. Unless the contract to enter F1 in 2010 was with individuals rather than the team they have just wasted a lot of money on a hearing from which they will no receive any money.

In terms of the people v team issue for the ban, however, the announcement yesterday of licensing of team personnel will presumably mean that the people involved, and presumed guilty by the FIA, will not be able to get licences to work in things associated with FIA championships.

Actions worth of Mr Mosley from the FIA in this instance.

So about as enforceable as Flavio Briotore's lifetime ban then? Ie: not very.

[Fire99]

The more I hear about the FIA's actions, the more they come across like one of those soppy Government think-tanks who are completely out of touch with reality but no doubt their ideas seem good after a few bottles of over-priced wine.

[andyps]

Derek Smith said:

BonzoG said:

Stupid question - how can the FIA "fine" a defunct team? The WSMC isn't exactly a court of law. Penalising an active driver/team is easy enough - pay up or you're out! - but what's to stop the people behind USF1 just telling the FIA to ps off? Why would they choose to be bound by a penalty from an organisation which has banned them from any future participation anyways?

I think what the decision means is that the FIA will keep USF1's deposit so any other creditors can whistle for it.

Not proper technical language.

It is a warning to other creditors that if they suggest that the FIA's reluctance to tell the teams what was required of them caused the failure they could point to 'poor financial management'.

The ghost of Mosley?

I did wonder that about any deposit, it would be interesting to know in a legal sense how the FIA would stand on that, and who actually is entitled to the money. In usual company dissolutions (if there is such a thing) all the assets are collected and the sold where possible with the proceeds being divided amongst the creditors. On that basis I wonder if the deposit actually belongs to the FIA or was the property of USF1 and therefore their creditors, of which the FIA may be one. Not a simple one, and complicated further by the different legal situations of one organisation based in the US and the other in France.

Definitely has the feeling of Mosley's ghost.

[groomi]

I would expect that the deposit is non-refundable. The failure to race by USF1 has cost the FIA money by having to re-tender that grid slot, not to mention any potential losses caused by having two less cars on the grid.

[Derek Smith]

I was involved in a tendering process for CCTV cameras although I had the sense to remain an interested spectator as I knew nothing about the procedures. It was unfortunate the the chap in charge knew a fractions less than me.

We changed a couple of items after the contract was signed, due to circumstances beyond out control, and as soon as we did all urgency went out of the contractor's efforts. It was as if they'd had a meeting and spent it smoking pot.

When the date for completion came and went the chap in charge went to our solicitors to activate the penalty clauses. That gave them a laugh. Once you change anything it opens all sorts of options and penalty clauses are all but worthless.

Given how the FIA faffed about with the regs after the initial tenders I'd suggest that if USF1 pushed it they'd be able to stir things up a bit. But I can't see them bothering as they'd only be fighting for others. But the decision of the FIA means little legally. If the stake is taken out of the chest (they haven't hearts) of a receiver I'd bet that he'd be after that £257.5m the moment he's out of his coffin.

In essence what the FIA have said is that we think we should keep the money. Well, they would, wouldn't they.

[flemke]

Of course the FIA should be held harmless for having in the first place denied the two most viable applicants, whose shortcoming was that they were unwilling to be bullied into using the FIA president's personal favourite engine supplier.