I think this problem goes all the way back to 2015, when Hamilton signed his new contract. They'd originally lured him from McLaren with a mega bucks deal, clearly with the intention that he would be be the team leader. After two and a bit years, they turned a position of great power into a position of weakness when they signed him up again for even more money. If I'd have been Wolff, I'd have taken a completely different tack and gone down the route of: The car's dominant and we can get pretty much any driver we like and they'll win the WDC, so here's £5mil a year, take it or leave it. This would give them a lot more flexibility now to deal with the problems as they'd be in a strong position with both drivers contractually. The problem they have now is they are paying team leader wages, to someone who hasn't asserted leadership in the team and they have a number two who is popular in their home market who is creating problems they didn't expect. I guess it's possible that Lauda is trying to undo this mistake by now by undermining Hamilton and making him look elsewhere for a drive?
It seems this interview was performed before the Austria GP. Perhaps this is why Mercedes are mad, they were starting operation "undermine Hamilton" and then Rosberg went and did what he did. A misdemeanor that most who matter blame Rosberg for. It's not like the interviewer quizzed Lauder on this, he came out with it off his own back. Very peculiar, I love a good conspiracy
Problem is all top drivers would think they are 'worth' more than that so they would find it difficult to hire. It's not just about success on the track, the teams derive a lot of income from marketing, sponsors etc, so there is huge influence for the top teams to take on the top drivers. As BLS suggest, Frank Williams was a big advocate of having a good car and a driver being grateful for the opportunity to drive it, but those heady days are gone. Money talks. Vettel, Kimi, Ricciardo, Alonso etc wouldn't sign for £5m these days. It's a lovely thought, but outdated.
True, Massa and Button possibly, but their motivation is to stay in F1 a their age with a competitive seat, so would take a pay cut to do it. The others have years left so wouldn't need to. Would Merc want to take on a 36/37 yr old at the twilight of their careers?
Angry competitive person reacts angrily when he cocks up. Not really a massive story or shock really?
£5mill might have been a bit low, but for Rosberg's £10M, for a practically guaranteed championship, I think plenty would take it, including two you mention in Alonso and Ricciardo, but also Grosjean & Bottas who would also win the championship in that car. Even at that cost you can sack a problem driver, hire another one and still spend nearly £10M on developing the car compared to what they are now paying Hamilton. To be clear, I have no issue with the first contract they gave him, because they did it thinking they would get a driver who would dominate Rosberg and potentially deliver them a title if they gave him a competitive car (at the time I assume they didn't expect to have such a huge margin). Effectively they were trying to set themselves up to compete with Ferrari/Alonso & RedBull/Vettel. What I think was crazy was doing it again once it became clear, that a) He wasn't going dominate Rosberg b) Continued friction between the drivers was likely b) They had such a margin that a whole range of drivers would be sufficient to deliver both titles
"Adult reacts like a badly behaved 6 year old", is somewhat newsworthy in that it will sell papers/generate clicks/ add listeners or viewers, especially if it's demonstrating he's an angry person when he's generally trying to project a different image.
That's pretty much what Frank tried with Mansell. Threw money at him when they needed him, then tried to stuff Mansell by forcing him to take a pay cut after he'd won the title. It was quite a shoddy way to treat a driver and instead of getting a nice easy title in 1993, Prost stumbled to the title and each title after that was a fairly close call. It's not only just the car as Frank quite arrogantly though.
Imo, that example somewhat proves my point. Mansell was dominating his teammate who was pretty close to Schu and Senna, who were in far worse cars. In that case they needed Mansell and the crazy thing was not paying/rewarding him for delivering. This is proving harder than I thought to explain! Imagine if Merc had handed Hamilton an contract ultimatum and eventually hired Ricciardo last year for £10M, either: A) Likely he'd be well on his way to a first championship. Merc would have "new star" headlines and positive press and 20M in the bank to invest in next years regs. B) Potentially, Rosberg and He would be fighting tooth and nail for the championship, but without all the previous animosity between their two drivers, so probably a much more positive spin on the competition and with less money invested in handling any unmanageable escalation in conflict. C) Unlikely I know, but Rosberg might be cruising to the championship having asserted his dominance over Daniel. Merc have "Rosberg comes of age" headlines, positive image in their home market and 20M to invest in next year's regs.
In my opinion, even worse was to come from Williams. And by Williams, I mean Sir Frank himself. What he did with Damon Hill, deliberately and consciously undermining a man mid-way through what became an heroic World Championship winning campaign almost tore the team apart. Patrick Head was disgusted, along with at least 50% of employees. And when I say, 'at least', I'm being extremely generous to the other, far smaller 50%.
Seems Lauda is trying to take it all back. When he said Hamilton destroyed his room and lied about him and Rosberg he was misinterpreted. He actually meant that no damage was done to the room and him and Rosberg are fine. I can see how the two statements can be confused.
I don't understand it myself, whether he's made it up or Merc are now covering - it just adds fuel to the fire. It's smells of a classic Karl Pilkington Bullsh1t! to me. Anyway regardless of where you stand on Lewis (love him or loath him) he does seem to be 'involved' in more 'drama' than any other driver - except/equal to maybe Alonso? For me, I still think pound for pound he's the best driver on the grid. However his tempriment means he's beatable/matchable - which Button showed - a driver who is seen as a second tier driver. I think Lewis is who he is, so I would rather he portrayes that (Good and Bad) rather than trying to be someone he isn't or moulded by a corporation. This isvone of the reasons he left Ron/McLaren. Be a total bast4rd and don't give a t0ss - fine with me - and he'd probably be more respected by fans like me. I think some struggle to relate to flipping between cut throat and lovable rouge.
I think the marketability Hamilton brings is worth more than the £20M they'd save. Even Bernie said he is a great champion as he goes out and brings publicity to F1. Most other drivers just stay quite between races/seasons. Plus I don't really think money is an issue for Merc. Any other driver and I'd agree but in my opinion, publicity and marketability is one thing Hamilton does do far better than any other driver on the grid.
Really? That's not what I hear about him, especially out side of the UK. From what I hear about the image of Lewis is, Great driver, a bit of a cock outside the cockpit. There was even talk about Mercedes having a word with him about his out of the cockpit antics.
