Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo wants to cut the costs in Formula 1, or at least that is what he is saying. On the face of it, this is good news. However there are many in Formula 1 who will see this as simply another attempt by Ferrari to protect its own interests, against teams that can afford to spend more.
“The world economic situation and that of Europe in particular, is very serious and the world of Formula 1 cannot ignore the fact,” said Luca di Montezemolo. “We cannot lose any more time: we need to tackle urgently and with determination the question of costs. Ferrari is in agreement with the FIA’s position that drastic intervention is required. We are absolutely convinced that, as I have always said, the teams and the commercial rights holder must work together with the Federation on this front. This is no longer the moment for getting bogged down in sterile discussions or the meanderings of engineers, usually only concerned in defending the interests of someone or other: the question has to be tackled at the highest level, without further delay.”
Fine sentiments, but then there were fine sentiments expressed too when Montezemolo was the founding force of FOTA. Oddly enough, the other teams are less than trusting these days as a result of what happened with the F1 “union”. Montezemolo used FOTA to get Ferrari the best possible deal and then baled out, conveniently forgetting the concept of collective bargaining. That decision torpedoed most of FOTA’s power and in the opinion of many did the sport a great disservice as it meant that the overweening demands of the sport’s commercial rights holders were not checked, as they might have been had Ferrari stood and fought shoulder-to-shoulder with the other teams. Some have also not forgotten that in the past, all too often it was Ferrari blocking cost-cutting because it had more money to spend.
Rival teams understand that cost-control would now suit Ferrari well, as it would mean that the team could spend less on F1, yet still gain more based on his deal that has been struck with the Formula One group. One might say that was an unfair advantage. And what is in it for these other teams? If they can outspend Ferrari and get results from doing that, then why should they agree to handicap themselves?
Ferrari would gain a little more respect if it were to agree to a budget cap, rather than cost-control, so that everyone would be fighting with the same weaponry, which would mean that success and failure would be dictated by the skills of the teams, rather than by money.
Everyone in F1 wants the costs in F1 to be more sensible. The best way to achieve this is a twofold policy: the first is to cap budgets and have the FIA as the policeman; the second is to stop the outward flow of more than 50 percent of the revenues in the sport, to financiers who do not give a stuff about the sport, as long as the goose continues to lay its golden eggs.
Same old Ferrari, they always do what is best for them, ignoring the wider picture and the sport that they are a big part of. Pity that they can’t take a viewpoint that is not so inward-looking.
Too sensible, will never happen
Well said Joe, top post.
Mr Montezemolo seems to have the same sleazy taint that Flab exudes.
No. That is too much. Luca has style and intelligence. Sleazy is not the right word at all.
“Sprezzatura” is the word . . .
“Sprezzatura” does not address the self interest of Mr Montezemolo and Ferrari; it only addresses their manner. The word “furbo” is much better. Oh, and by the way, that bar code had nothing to do with Marlboro.
Sprezzatura is more Gianni Agnelli wearing his watch over his cuff, or his tie askance. Well, at least that’s a definition rooted in motor cars . . I hate to say it, but he out did Luca di when it comes to dressing the part. I decided yesterday, that I am going to start wearing ties again. The world has got too scruffy. Slight problem, I am well out of date style wise . . Thanks dante, for that cool word, “furbo”.
Narcissism and greed, then?
‘Filthy’ perhaps? As in ‘the filthy Luca?’
Not channelling Suzanne Vega, then, Biggus?
“Yes, I think I’m okay . . just don’t ask me how I am. .”
okay, I’m groaning, on my way out, but there’s something apt with that song, , and the man we’re talking about . More seriously, I think the world abhors not a vacuum, but indecision.
There seems a lot of people who don’t like di Montezemolo. I don’t get it. What has he done?
I mean, outside of F1 antagonisms. I confess my own thoughts about Luca di are conflicted. He seems like someone who needs to do something, and has not quite decided. If you are stuck being neither one thing nor the other, well, people will have a go at you. I am very much for Luca striking out. Meanwhile I am very much against us assuming we know anything about him based on his time at Ferrari.
You mean apart from the crass hypocrisy and self-interested cant? I don’t really care what LdM does outside F1, and I’m not assuming I know anything about him other than what I see of his Ferrari involvement, but his behaviour toward the other teams and toward the sport in general mean I’d be more than happy if he decided to strike out and leave F1 alone. I’m sick of the threats, blackmail and posturing that characterise his interaction with Formula One. Ferrari are the single most vulnerable team, yet they behave as though the sport couldn’t exist without them.
John, I think Luca is a product of his class. Ferrari and petty politics? Honestly, never . . the problem my argument faces if you filter out the Ferrari from Luca, what are you left with? I am simply arguing that he be given the benefit of a clean sheet, in other walks of life. My wet finger in the air makes me think more than a few would rather he upped and offed from F1. Might be time. Just as with Bernie, I think there is a time when you get too political, go be a politician, leave the racing to the racers. So, I’m not terribly against your view, likely in most part in agreement. However, we have at least two recent “lost boys” who could be more productive. Adam Parr and Max scream out. Okay, Max has been busy, but that’s almost personal. What I mean is, there doesn’t seem much of a graceful exit from F1 at a certain level. Is it possible Luca di M already hit his heights? I guess, yes. But I’d prefer it if he had a chance. I am really not thinking with F1 goggles on. Rather wondering if he might not be a breath of fresh air in his country’s politics. Forgive me my bias, but I don’t think experienced guys should be laid off in their old age. Rather, I think it’s our job to constructively prod them!
I saw notions of part of what he writes having been a step up for his political career as well, as its clear that cost cutting is just what is needed in Italy nowadays!
Also interesting is how he seems to be nicely rubbing up to the FIA there.
All in all, Ferrari (and Red Bull) going for the quick money, probalby shot down the prospective of that second step happening at least until the end of the decade now. Let’s hope they do get forward with that first step.
And then make real work of both promotion and using the options available to generate and keep a crowd to view the sport (no to pay wall, yes to online content)
Here here! Perfectly said. Self serving vulgarity at its worse.
Sensible article, as always, Joe.
Stories of the recession have reached as far as Luca di. Must be a silk sock shortage or something. (Blackadder, ref, naturally).
I respect the guy, but when I read his comments in Reuters, I thought, “oh dear, too transparent”. And then I pondered what the ploy was, and I can’t think of anything.
At least not to do with F1. Okay, don’t count me as expert as to F1 private life, but bet you there’s going to be some elections his way soon. The half life of politicians in a crisis is short. I just pray the man has been reading some of what I have been reading.
Side note: my little over priced ghetto used to hum to the tune of Russian or Ukranian. Lately, I hear Italian every day. That’s your insane unemployment of the 20ish overqualified at work. Migration. I’ll risk a cultural joke: second wave of great looking girls, and this lot aren’t so scaredy cat. Blast it, too old, oh well. .
actually, seriously, it’s interesting, isn’t it, that who get going is the fairer sex, when trouble comes? All this is anecdotal, by my observation, but there’s far fewer men coming this way. I wonder if they’re boozed up depressed.
Okay, summary, I think Luca is warming up his bigger pitch.
Hey, Luca, your daughters are over here, looking for work! Go sort out your country!
John,
Never let age come between you and the love of a good woman!
Where is your manor, London?
Cheers
p
That had me giggling a long while, thanks patrick, I shall heed your advice!
Only, under consideration . .
My giggle was over Gilliam’s Baron Münchhausen. Not oft spotted, but the old Baron, a rare filmic outing for John Neville, becomes younger of face every time he is in the company of a beautiful lady. He is, e.g. revived from death by a young girl’s presence. Something to do . . something or someone to look after . .
There’s some truth in that.
Some other truth is in my origins. My mom was 40, and married my dad “because he was the only one who had the guts to ask”. Since my mom fibbed repeatedly as to her age on her passport, it is not possible to exactly date her, I use statistical methods . . but the gap was closer to 30 years, than 20. Oh, yes, did he suddenly start to look youthful! What was sad, was as my dad genuinely aged, the mental gap became too much for them. They got lost. So, careful with your talk with younger pretty ladies, is my only advice. Nevertheless, in the scheme of things, there are greater tragedies. I’m probably just talking to myself again, or just wallowing in my favourite flick
patrick,
I have ranted about my Manor, here, before. ’tis a strange place. Bit surprised you haven’t caught on. For the record, Bethnal Green. I like it because it’s parochial, not poncy, and mostly tolerates my rudeness. Been here just long enough not to get a bit of street cred. I consider I grew up here, at least one phase of growing up, but I hail from posher climes. The recent new influx of people has just started to mellow the place. Thoroughly disillusioned, I just lately have felt a bit of the love for the place I once fell for. But corruption is rife, and as a anecdote, was just meeting my bud in the park, approached by a yuf, “You Fed, mate?” Me: “No, eff off”. Him “Want weed?”. Not my thing, but had a amusing exchange me explaining how dressing like a cop got me out of street nonsense, him – maybe 19 or 20 – lamenting the lack of honest jobs. Anything can turn on a sixpence here. Like it or lump it, you’ll likely have to do both!
Footnote: nigh eight years after my business partner passed, I have a new one. Comes with an American accent. I still think it’s a bit fast. But what’s cool is how much I misunderstimated this guy, and how much I was wrong. I needed someone who understood the legacy, and someone who is smart. Signed yesterday. I feel very very privileged to exist, just now. He’s also one of Joe’s silent majority readers.
Was writing “not to get a bit of street cred” a little slip, when I did not mean the “not”? Too much cred, will kill you
No, Lucre diM, no…
You can’t fool us…
We, the F1 ‘proletariat’, are not constrained by the attention span of gnats…
ArJay, you might be missing the point, that someone with Luca’s family history might not even notice the “proletariat”. Not because he’s a bad guy. But I tell you now, personally, even middle class families ditch their no hopers on a whim. Sometimes a a bum bet, I shall say! My pop used to promote “look up, not down”, or that’s my take on it. And the same goes with society. If you have a good position, seriously, down is scary. You don’t want it. My father dragged his family out of genuine poverty. Think he wanted to know much about how regular guys lived? Well, the irony was it fascinated him, shaped his politics. But not at home. So I hated that imagined by me hypocrisy. I have a close friendship now with a guy who also flipped off a well off family to prove something. Tales all sorts, doesn’t it? But you gain nothing by bashing the more sentient of our “betters”. Bash who is clearly a fool.
John (other John)
Fools & Kings have existed throughout written history,
but who decides whose born a King or a Fool?
Who deals the cards to determine karmic fate?
Or does freewill flirt with fate to determine destiny?
All these questions….!
Always enjoy your posts John,
nice one!
cheers
p
Bloke called Shakespeare was rather good at calling Kings and Fools. Thing is, they are often both. I confess to an obsession with those who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth, because that most certainly was me. There is a rich seam of humour to be mined there, which I’ll try to throw in, if there’s context. At least I was brought up with some very confused sense of confidence. I’ll just say, that is not the currency of the world. take care patrick, worry not, Kings and Fools are their own Knaves.
…brevity is an acquired art
…so is humour
(obviously I’ve failed miserably at the latter)
No, ArJay, you just came up on one of my more literal moments! It’s a trait which bugs me also. Brevity and wit seem to be a force of a different nature. It is only when I am confused or curious, that I write too many words. Possibly understandable when there’s a legal confusion. I’m afraid you are reading me learn, in real time . . working on it . . ~ j
Bash who is clearly a fool. But never harshly. There is no pain like self realisation.
I agree with you about the outward flow of revenue, if your figure is correct that is a ridiculous amount…………With regard to Budget Cap and FIA policing, in principle i agree but with all F1 teams being different in structure and resources i think it would take a considerable amount of trust between the teams to make it work ………….. F1 should increase the amount of events to 25, so increasing revenue, however events should be reduced to 2 days of running, with reliability and engineering at such a good level a ninety minute session and qualifying kept as is would i think be enough, this would reduce the amount of running in the season so reduce costs………………..F1 should look to retain the use of the same chassis for a two year period so reducing cost, to aid cost control and ensure development teams should be restricted to a set number of changes per year that should be registered with the FIA, with this structure the build window for a new car can be increased which would spread the cost and would integrate well with an expanded season…………..
“…F1 should increase the amount of events to 25…”
Very easy to say when you are sitting on your couch.
Financiers exist to make money for their clients and themselves, at least they’re honest about it.
Perhaps the best future for Formula One is to be part owned by Soveriegn Wealth Funds from various countries interested in Formula One. The Far East & Middle East immediately come to mind…
Well said. Joe is there any petition or other constructive way for fans to show their support for such a plan?
Amazing how Ferrari switches camps so easily…
Beware Montezuma’s Revenge!
After letting Thee and “Tremors” loose on the Continent with a couple of his latest supercars for a week I think Il Presidente della Repubblica is entitled to a tad more obesiance.
You do know that he reads your blog Joe?
Some Journos just won’t fit in your pocket.
15 years of following the sport have shown me that Ferrari only ever worry about what is good for Ferrari, and to be fair for their staff. The fans, other teams, the owners, the FIA or the sport in general are of no importance to Ferrari.
RBR have more money to spend than Ferrari? I understand that Ferrari have not always had the biggest budget (BAR and Toyota both squandered massive amounts on their F1 program), and that budgets don’t automatically equate to success (Renault, under Briatore, were successful on a comparatively modest budget), but they were never short of money. How is that Ferrari now are not so flush? Is their car business not so profitable and they have to move budget from the F1 team to keep the factory running? Is it the loss of Marlboro money? Is is that their major sponsor is a Spanish bank and thus likely to be in an unhappy financial situation?
My mind went straight Santander.
According to a recent Reuters article, Santander’s business is significantly diversified and insulated to a certain degree from Spain’s woes by it’s strong performance in other markets (Latin America is particularly mentioned.)
But its share prices has been battered because of the lack of confidence in Spain, down around 40 percent in a year, or as the article calls it “collateral damage.”
I wonder what sort of clauses (scale back, pull out etc) were written into the contract extension between Ferrari and the bank, announced back in February? And whether those negotiations include possible changes to the current contract period?
For the full article:
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/global-bank-santander-hamstrung-spanish-133917171.html
Ferrari are still sponsored by Marlboro. IIRC it’s a 9 figure annual amount till 2015. What Marlboro get from it, I really don’t know.
Here here…….
No one wishes to deny the commercial rights holders profit for their endeavours, its just the amount they get appears way to disproportionate.
That money could prevent subscription/pay per view being the incremental means by which the sport is viewed. This in turn would give confidence to sponsors. It is estimated Red Bull alone will loose $20m a year from reduced eyeballs on the BBC. Viewing figures for the Candaian GP were down 3.6m in the UK at their peak when compared with 2011.
It could reduce fee’s from race promoters meaning tickets to attend are more affordable and venues are not 1/3rd empty as they increasingly are (SIlverstone excepted).
It could increase the funding to teams. Done on an objective, transparent, performance basis team by team.
This move by Ferrari is clearly aimed at influencing the 2014 engine dispute. But only they and a few other supercar manufacturers want to continue producing antiquated V8′s.
It appears that F1 will have to go to the brink before all parties agree a revolution in organisation and funding disbersement is desperately needed.
rpaco made a interesting comment, the other day.
I think he argued that Bernie was going scorched earth.
could that be because he see nobody who can perpetuate the status quo, and that All Change is not a bad thing?
You see, the legacy is what survives. What survives is not you, or your machinations.
If I’m allowed, not heard from RShack lately. You okay pal? Hope I did not put you off with all that personal guff I came up with. Big shout out!
I agree that this is almost certainly connected to Ferrari wanting to keep the existing V8′s… which actually makes sense in the short term, but that’s why the new regs have already been delayed by a year, and does not make sense going into the future (as has been oft-repeated here).
“This is no longer the moment for getting bogged down in sterile discussions or the meanderings of engineers, usually only concerned in defending the interests of someone or other”
Ferrari getting all moralistic about people acting in self-interest……… Hilarious.
I think it’s all about keeping the current V8′s
This…
And yet he’s always wanting more in-season testing, which presumably doesn’t cost much money at all.
Luca di Montezemolo is learning fast from the Bernie Ecclestone school of “saying one thing and meaning another”.
I wonder what the mole has to say about all this?
So why did he torpedo the Teams Association?
or
What is his real agenda here?
Martin
“The best way to achieve this is a twofold policy: the first is to cap budgets and have the FIA as the policeman; the second is to stop the outward flow of more than 50 percent of the revenues in the sport, to financiers who do not give a stuff about the sport, as long as the goose continues to lay its golden eggs.”
Joe, I whole heartedly agree, one man can make this happen, Jean Todt, wonder if he has the guts to take ex Boss Luca at his word and run with it now while he can do something. I strongly suspect that Ferrari car sales are projected to be in the toilet for the next few years and Fiat is not feeling comfortable about it near term, Santander might stick with Ferrari while Alonso is in place, but change the deal to be worth less when it renews, meanwhile Red Bull sales are proportional to the ongoing visibility of the brand so they won’t do less in F1 and are likely to spend more to stay at the front of the field and in the media. For the marketing effect getting Lewis in the team and starting a war with Vettle (if he is off to Ferrari) makes sense for Red Bull, because it will get lots of media attention for the season of overlap. By contrast media attention does not sell Ferrari’s, wins do, Luca is trying to stay competitive for wins, pure and simple. Now is the moment Jean, and I hope you read Joes blog and call him in as a consultant, for the FIA to make a move!
I disagree with many of your points, but the stand-out, is that wins sell Ferraris.
Ferrari’s biggest market is the U.S of A, and Americans are notoriously disinterested in F1.
Ferrari, build in the region of 7,000 very highly priced, high end ultimate sports cars.
Their position in America is based on the sports car races of the 50′s and 60′s. The Testarossa, the 250 GTO, the 250 LM etc. Not on any F1 history.
F1 is part of the company’s structure, their DNA, but their 2 year waiting lists are not because of Schumacher’s success between 2000 and 2004, or because Villeneuve is a Ferrari legend.
I completely agree with your view on how to fix the whole thing, but as someone already commented, it sounds too sensible to be implemented by the men in charge of F1.
as for the people who go on about Ferrari looking after their own interest I would ask them to be objective. Every team pushes for what favors their best interest or what plays to their strengths, Mclaren did it during the whole Bahrain episode, Red Bull did it when breaking away from FOTA and in general the teams do it every time they have dealings with the FIA and FOM, it just so happens that Ferraris clout and level of influence is much larger that of any other team.
Mclaren did nothing different than any other team did during the Bahrain incident so i have no idea what you are talking about. At no point did they express a stronger stance than other teams in favor of the event.
It’s Monty warming up his political engines, surely — with the renewed talk yesterday of Italy possibly needing a bailout, he is reinforcing his business-like and fiscally sensible cred to the world at large and European central bankers in particular. And good luck to the old cavaliere as far as I’m concerned…
Is this just a tactic to kill try and kill the new engine rules?
I wonder whether this means that ferrari will conspire against the new engine formula in the name of cost cutting? Classic double talk – supporting the FIA ideals but……
lets have a think about this, ferrari are opposed to v6 engines that they have no use for in their current road car range and want to continue using v8′s , how best to get what they want and appear to have the sports best interest at heart? .. eureeka lets cut costs and stick with v8′s at the same time, surely it’s just coincidence
Let me see, 308GTB, a V8. The Mondial, another V8. The 512BB a flat 12, the Testarossa, flat 12. The 400 and 412, both V12′s. What about the 288GTO or the F40? Both V8 turbocharged cars.
Anything significant about these cars?
Well Ferrari used a 1.5L V6 turbo between 1981 and 1988 for F1, when the above mentioned cars were their current road car range.
Ferrari has used 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 cylinder engines throughout their history, with displacements from 1.5 litres up to 5 litres.
Ferrari has used whatever was the best solution for the current regulations.
Between 1989 and 1995, they ran an exquisite sounding V12 which was very thirsty.
Renault had developed the best solution with a V10, so they developed a V10 for the 1996 season.
At the time of writing, I don’t believe that Ferrari has ever produced a V10 road car, yet BMW and Toyota both have.
Ferrari always seemed to have raced with a financial advantage over the other teams. They have always cut a “special deal” with Bernie for extra money. (The FIAT shares are down and were indicated as a “buy” recently)
Rumour has it that the new CA gives the teams a higher percentage of the “total take” plus non voting seats on some board or other. (which is unclear).
However I wonder what is included in the total that Bernie admits to the teams, is it everything?
The fact that he (Bernie) has given away some more is qualified by his hiring of Michael Payne ex Olympic marketing consultant in order to exploit food, soft drink and clothing. Presumably this will entail only new sponsored brands of each being allowed to be sold at tracks. Once a monopoly is created in theses areas then the prices can be shoved skyward.
Fans could then be in the same position as cinema goers where no food or drink is allowed into the track, everything must be bought inside. So basically the question will be, how much further can the fans, the tracks, the teams the advertisers and above all the current sponsors, be screwed before the bubble bursts? How will Red Bull and Lucozade (McLaren) react to that?
Red Bull can easily go to NASCAR ALMS BTCC DTM etc and dump F1 as having lost it’s audience and no longer being cost effective.
It’s a long time since I could afford to go to a GP and my tv coverage has been cut in half this year, thanks Bernie! One might think he is trying to get rid of fans and sponsors, perhaps he is, Bernie is usually three moves ahead and as I postulated yesterday, by removing the sponsors the teams become even more dependent upon him, but he risks killing the whole business in the process. The Golden Goose has it’s wings severely clipped.
Just to correct a figure I gave yesterday: At the UK Olympics where Mr Payne has tied down (stitched up?) all bar concessions to serve only Heineken, the price per pint is to be £7.23 (not what I said before) . So if he does the same at GPs you will need a pocket full of cash for the event if you need to eat of drink anything during the day. (I suppose carrying the fleecing of fans to it’s logical conclusion, the lavatories will cost £2.00 per visit as well)
The last CA that I had sight of was based on splitting 54% of broadcast revenue period, albeit about 10 years ago. The proposed Official Supplier program could prove to be somewhat divisive; certain, if not the majority of, circuits already have their own programs in place … another revenue stream to be diverted towards Californian teachers’ pension plans at the expense of the venues? As to its viability as a sponsorship property, F1 will remain as an effective niche leader but the days of JPS Lotus and Marlboro McLaren have gone.
The thing that luca has to understand, is what ferrari did to the teams in fota as well as red bull they are just as guilty, they wont be trusted again, i hope. If ferrari are up to their neck in it, up to their neck they should stay, they deserve it. I know it sounds petty. Ferrari go around swanning and say they deserve more money because of their history, Poppycock who cares about history, Eccles snaps his fingers and ferrari can be bought with morals of a prostitute. Cost cutting is no good only budget capping, ferrari have to be on the same page as all the other teams, Remember if ferrari cant afford to stay in F1, F1 can still survive, no team or driver is bigger than the sport, So eccles and luca can knock it off. This should be about the survival of all the teams, no teams no F1, simples…..
What if he just tried to seize the moment (of imminent worsening recession) to point out (again) that it’s not Ferrari who oppose cost or budget restraint? Everybody here seems to forget that their F1 budget is not separate from the car business (and always was). So any attempt to put numbers on it is pure speculation. With their car business booming and with a main sponsor who refused Vodafone’s bigger bumper stickers (and the related cash) does anyone think they cannot match bigger expenditure? Does anyone here think they can’t match Mateschitz’s big bucks? You can’t be serious, can you?
Could it not be that he is trying to show the fans that the F1 circus cannot just continue business as usual while Angela is brewing a Euro meltdown? I know a lot of fans who have to get along with 1,000 Euros a month.
Yes, but when you have taken a special deal from the paymaster, it is not going to be easy to convince the others that cost-cutting is fair. Logic points to a budget cap, so that everyone will extract more from the business and thus make it more viable in real world terms. Cost-cutting and a special deal with Bernie is having your cake and wanting to eat it. The other teams would not be smart to accept that. Yes, Red Bull might be able to spend more, but they do not make cars. F1 is not their core business. And do they can and will (one day) walk – just like Benetton did.
Joe,
Can I ask a straight up question? Do CVC actually put any money back into the sport?
If they dont how can Bernie ever have justified the sale other than lining his own pockets (again)
absolute comedy coming from the team that spends more lavishly than any other and has fought AGAINST any sort of fiscal reform presented to it
Joe,
Could you explain what the budget reduction has to do with FOTA and its demise? As I see it, FOTA (and GPWC before it) was an attempt to shut up Max Mosley and above all to get more money from Bernie. Montezemolo has said for years that all teams, including his own (of course!) should get more money. As I see it, there is nothing wrong with that. There is no other example in the world of business or sport or whatever where the actual players only get a 50 % share. Do you think Ferrari sent FOTA packing once Bernie opened his vault?
Ever since the early days of F1 there was no single occasion when ALL teams could actually agree on anything! Could this not be the reason why FOTA was heading nowhere?
Montezemolo proposed FOTA as a means of collective bargaining. Teams were wary because in the past Ferrari took the money and did not give a toss about the others. Ferrari thus pushed up its price, but then was true to type and deserted FOTA when it would have been possible to screw the money men down to a far better deal. Ferrari thus ended up looking as though it had used FOTA to achieve its aims. The problem is that when you do this you erode trust…
Red Bull got their asses wiped and pulled out of NASCAR at the end of of last season. They had a good budget (20M per year prt car) but did not gave the right people.
Joe,
If I read you correctly you are stating that Montezemolo is the culprit for disbanding FOTA. Can you confirm?
A year ago it looked like it was Red Bull who was the 1st team to quit FOTA after disagreement over resource restrictions. Were these only rumors?
Moreover, FOTA made so much sense, how can it be it proved totally worthless? No single team made ever a comment why FOTA collapsed. How come? It is known that Williams and Ferrari never were friends. But Ferrari and McLaren never were on such good terms as now.
That is what I am saying.
Montezemelo watchers may find something of interest in this recent talk given at the Stanford School of Business – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Lb8phIBL8&feature=youtu.be
completely off topic Joe but I read today that according to Mark Hughes, Ferrari sources have confirmed that while Alonso has approved the team hiring Sebastian Vettel as his team-mate for 2014, he has ‘vetoed the recruitment of Hamilton’ Have you heard anything of this nature?
No
Well said joe….
If you wanted to balance the books in F1 you could cut costs or you could maximize the return by having more races, but how about a European F1 series not counting towards the World Championship using year old cars and giving test drivers and tracks not currently used in F1 a chance to shine? Contracting the running of these cars to outside teams would be a good way of promoting the dispersion of knowledge of running a F1 team to a wider group. And it would enable tracks like Zandvoort, Brands, Spa (alternating), Imola and Estoril to keep up to date on how F1 works. Who wouldn’t want to se F1 cars on those tracks? I bet you could easily add a few more to that list, the world is littered with tracks F1 doesn’t visit anymore. You could even call it GP1…..
How about Montezemolo is just talking some common sense?
The euro crisis will not go away. The Italian economy is poor and if they went back to a very wonky Lira, FIAT earnings will become skewed against world costs. Fans will be unable to buy tickets to Monza etc. etc.
Change desperately needs to happen and very soon.
That is how it is supposed to sound…But it is easy to argue that when you have taken a bigger share than everyone else.
Easy way to cost cut would be hire a cheaper driver?
Reblogged this on F1 Goggles and commented:
The straight goods from Joe Saward. Please follow @JoeSaward and his blog at joesaward.wordpress.com
Joe,
If Montezemolo just took the money and ran, how come no other team ever complained about it? Your argument is based on very very little evidence, but it is conceivable. I think FOTA lost the steam when BMW, Honda and Renault bowed out. Fact is that historically the teams never showed a united front against anyone or anything! And they never will. It was always easy for Bernie to divide & rule. At times I regret that GPWC did not materialise. This would would have done away with all this mess once and for all!
But then, for the fans, the most disturbing fact is not about who earns most. It is the way the FIA tinkers & administers the rules. It really defies common sense. The most recent chapter in this never ending saga just added another brick in the wall.
These are the facts. I don’t really know why you would not understand that if you are a fan of F1.
Mr. Saward,
Please excuse me for using this forum, as it were, to throw out another idea about cost containment in a competitive sport environment.
The new engine rules need to contain a clause stating that the manufacturers have a cost cap on the price of an engine. They will submit a sample engine at the being of testing season which the FIA would use to check that client engines and factory engines conform to it’s specs. The FOTA and the FIA can settle on this per engine cost. This will (hopefully) control costs for the teams and limit engine development to a slower seasonal rate while still allowing for engine development. Also it will encourage engine manufacturers to sell more engines so as to defray design and development costs. additionally, there needs to be a clause stating that the engine formula will not be changed for a set number of seasons (long enough to cover the engine deign and development cost life-cycle).
I offer this as a manageable way to control and police engine costs in Formula One. broad outlines, yes, but a basis to work from.
Hey guys! Who came up with “Sprezzatura”? None of my 3 Italian dictionaries shows it. It’s NOT Italian. Maybe it’s a local slang or so. But not from where I come from. So what does it mean? And if Monty was such a greedy guy, how come none of the other teams had something to say about it? Am saying that the bottom line of this discussion is just a thought. Among others. Pure speculation. All these behind-the scenes Concorde discussions are so secret we will probably never find out the truth. And therefore blogs & newspapers will always find “something” to write about it. So we can spend our spare time between the races without resorting to watch footballisters.