I fundamentally disagree with the way Bernie, Ferrari (Lucifer Montezemolo in particular), Red Bull (Hell's Mutt Marko in particular), News Corp and the Murdoch empire are going with F1. I have so many things to say about this that for now, I hope I'll be excused for leaving it at this. Suffice to say: it sickens me that there should ever be disparity between teams BEFORE THEY TAKE TO THE GRID! Ferrari have never wanted to play fair and have virtually blackmailed Formula 1 into handing them an automatic and massive financial advantage over all other competitors. Red Bull came in with the sole intention of getting every advantage Ferrari hold; and their managing it! To me, it's a disgrace because it is not in the interests of fair play and is wholly inconsistent with the very notion of 'sport' - unless you include fox-hunting where the odds are similarly stacked…
Mercedes's silence on the matter is leading to speculation (see any GMM outlet) that they may quit F1 and/or take Ecclestone to court. This is why I thought the deal as described on Sky last week didn't provide stability. It introduces a stacked deck before the racing begins and ultimately, as well as putting potential new entrants off, it'll drive away the current combatants. Especially if Ecclestone manages to "take more control over F1 from the FIA." A lot depends on what Mercedes is holding out for: a level playing field where every team is rewarded for sporting achievement, or a bigger brown envelope than anyone else got. I suppose if it's the latter then we, as fans, can at least keep up the charade that once the lights go out we're watching sportsmen (including mechanics and car designers) battle it out in a fair environment. In truth, though, we're getting pretty close to watching Giant Haystacks vs. Big Daddy every fortnight. In a way, it's a pity ITV ever passed it over to the BBC. They could have structured the return of World of Sport around F1. Go Schumacher!
So if these figures from GMM/Der Spiegel are true, that's $120m in annual 'appearance fees' for just the top three teams, which, presumably, much be fairly small change in the grand scheme. Does anyone know how much revenue F1 generates over the course of a season? This all makes pretty depressing reading for an old romantic like me. It seems like the real sport to be had is in seeing how many millions Bernie can conjure up; it must be such a thrill for him.
It would provide greater stability under current arrangements if that $120m were divided equally between the twelve participating teams and the best performing teams received additional funding through the existing prize money structure. This isn't about 'current arrangements' though, is it? The original Sky report said: Isn't that what these retainers are all about? It's clear that new manufacturers are unwilling to get involved in F1 partly because of the massive costs but more likely because it's not a level playing field. The private teams are struggling to survive and develop competitive cars. The solution is to commit the existing players until 2020 and give them a retainer up front to make running a B-team viable. It's artificial in terms of F1 history and, in a sense, makes a mockery of the constructors' championship because only half the field will be competing in it. Then again, that's the case now, anyway. It'll look like there are (say) twelve teams but in reality there'll be fewer running more cars. I wonder whether Mercedes are unwilling to commit to 2020 or simply want a bigger retainer, and what Adam Parr's objections were?
I'm very disappointed in McLaren but unsurprised by Ferrari and Red Bull. I'd love to know the answers to the Mercedes and Parr questions; I'm sure we'll find out sooner rather than later. It really makes me wonder why HRT, and others, bother. I also wonder where the FIA fit into all of this? Todt has disappeared, it seems.
The FIA are involved in negotiations, which would go some way to explaining McLaren's acceptance. The arguments for the new agreement may well be overwhelming and Mercedes's resistance could be proving the point. We can safely assume that Ferrari, McLaren and Red Bull are the A-teams and will be offering last year's chassis to smaller teams like Marussia, Caterham and HRT (as examples - they may or may not be around next season, which again proves the point). It's quite interesting to speculate where the likes of Lotus, Sauber and Force India see themselves in the structure (Toro Rosso would presumably revert to their original configuration and run Red Bull chassis as a B-team). Would taking a Red Bull, Ferrari or McLaren chassis preclude them from seriously challenging for the WCC, being bound by 'understandings'? Or have they been offered similar retainers in order to provide chassis to the lower teams? Lotus and Williams (if they join in now that Adam Parr has gone) are ex-constructors' champions but either under a different name or prior to 2000.
According the BBC according to Autosport magazine, Mercedes are considering legal action over the preferential treatment offered to certain teams in the new Concorde Agreement. We definitely haven't seen the last of this one lads...
Wouldn't that be nice! I'd like to think that Mercedes are standing up for all the 2010 new entrants but I think it's more likely that they simply want a better deal for themselves. I can understand why they would feel that they've contributed more to the sport than Johnny-come-lately Red Bull, having been around since the mid-'90s. I can also see how Red Bull and others might consider how long it took for Mercedes to commit as a constructor to be of less worth. I would guess that the intention to float F1 in Singapore is to do with avoiding European competition laws and, as the new Concorde Agreement seems to be tied in with the flotation, I'm not sure what a legal challenge would achieve. Another seven years is a big commitment for a manufacturer whose main interest in F1 is to sell more cars and Mercedes have some negotiating power in relation to the flotation. Their main bargaining chip is the threat to walk away, in my opinion, but that isn't as strong an argument as they might feel it should be. References in the Sky-leaked draft to "competed continuously in F1" and "without changing its name" show how poorly they are thought of by the smoke and mirrors club.
I read an interesting comment today. Since the winter testing exhaust shenanigans, I've been contemplating the possibility that Red Bull may turn out to be an F1 version of Blackburn Rovers or Chelsea - an essentially midfield team making a huge surge towards the front powered by the mega-millions of its enthusiast/opportunist owner. The analogy doesn't hold weight considering the expansive motorsports interests of Dietrich Mateschitz and Red Bull's eagerness to sign up to F1 for another seven or eight years so I've never mentioned it. Still, with the omnipotent Newey looking decidedly mortal in the first two races this season, the idea has occasionally returned to nag me and, as unlikely as it seems, the possibility of Red Bull declining back to the midfield still seems like a possibility to me now that the magic EBD has been put to a mundane b-e-d. Today I read on the Reverend Frog's F1 blog something from back in January by the F1 Mole who "reckons that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Adrian Newey might think about coming full circle and returning to the Oxfordshire team with which he won 60 races and a total of nine world championships between 1991 and 1997," i.e. Williams. "Yes," it says, "he is happy at Red Bull, but paddock insiders seem to think that Dietrich Mateschitz would gladly pull the plug on the whole shebang if the mood took him." This comment took me by surprise but it did stimulate that nagging idea again. Anyway, by a circuitous route, I arrived there from The Mole's latest blog entry, which recounts how CVC is raising more capital on F1 possibly to buy the Lehman Bros shares, thus raising F1's value to around $10bn prior to its Asian flotation. There isn't much in the way of revelation or new thinking until he gets to the end, when he abstrusely introduces a figure who might provide better ownership than CVC: "a white knight." Is he referring to a metaphorical knight in shining armour type, or do you think he has someone specific in mind?
All the "big" teams rise and fall in F1, even when they are utterly dominating. Ferrari and especially Williams are todays examples. F1 is odd in the fact that teams names change fairly often, so although you may get the odd year when a random team wins, the last being Brawn, it essentially a well established team behind the name. I fully expect Red Bull to have a shocking year sooner or later (not this year by the looks of it), but they will probably bounce back, even if they are sold and come back as "Irn Bru Racing" or something.
I don't mean a shocking year, as with Ferrari in 2005, or they and McLaren in 2009. I mean a Williams style decay. It's an interesting comparison. Williams have now been around longer than F1 had when they were formed and have been in decline as long as the team currently called Red Bull Racing have been around. The Benetton/Renault/Lotus team is a good example of one that bounces back. Like I say, though, it's not something I'm convinced of - it's just a little niggle. More importantly, who do you think the "white knight" might be, if anyone?
