The legal action between Force India and Team Lotus/Caterham is not as simple a story as it is portrayed by Force India.
At the centre of it is a personal problem between Force India boss Vijay Mallya and Mike Gascoyne. In November 2008 Mallya fired Gascoyne from his job as technical director of the Silverstone team. At the time Gascoyne wanted to build the team up by investing in the necessary infrastructure, while Mallya decided that the best course of action was to buy in technology from McLaren. This strategy has made Force India look good in recent years, but the team now needs to make the investments that Gascoyne argued for if it is to maintain its position and get on to the tail of the big players.
When Mallya axed Gascoyne, the Englishman duly announced that he would sue Force India for costs and damages following the early termination of his contract, demanding $2.5 million for the last year of his contract, plus a percentage of the $5 million he would have earned with an option for a 2-year extension detailed in his deal.
When Gascoyne then went to work for the start-up Lotus operation, in league with Aerolab (which was also owed money by Mallya) things became a little more complicated.
Perhaps one should add the additional element of Lotus being run by successful Malaysian airline owner Tony Fernandes, an ethnic Indian, while Vijay Mallya’s efforts at running an airline, known as Kingfisher, were rather less successful. One might even conjecture that the last thing Mallya wanted was a F1 team owner of Indian extraction doing better than him in the sport – and in the airline business as well. Mallya has a well-developed ego.
Whatever the case, trouble began when Force India engineers saw a photograph of a wind tunnel model being used by Aerolab for the hurried Lotus project. The Force India argument that this was a big deal has now been rejected by the courts. The model was out of date and the car that had been built from it had not, in any case, been very competitive so it was a stretch to argue that this was some kind of espionage. Logic suggests that if you want to get a competitive car, you do not copy an uncompetitive one which is out of date. The conclusion drawn by Gascoyne and Jean-Claude Migeot of Aerolab, was that the legal action was simply designed to be a lever in the argument over fees that Force India owed to Aerolab, and perhaps in the separate dispute between Gascoyne and Mallya.
Whatever the case, Mallya now has to pay up considerably more money than Fernandes, with the award against Lotus/Caterham being paltry in legal terms. Gascoyne and Aerolab will have little patience with Force India now that this case is out of the way, and there is a danger that if payments are not made on time then Force India might become the target for injunctions that could, for example, leave the cars impounded.
This all coincides with Kingfisher Airlines getting into deeper and deeper trouble. The latest suggestion from India is that the airline could be facing the cancellation of its flying permit if the authorities deem that flight safety has been compromised during its recent cash crunch. The airline appears to be stuck in a downward spiral with money needed to pay debts but passengers being driven away because they are not confident that the flights will actually be operated. Mallya has been trying everything to find more funding, but no-one seems to be interested. One way or another, that situation is coming to a head and it remains to be seen what happens to Mallya’s F1 team if the empire begins to unravel.
joeblogsf1 
Joe,
is there not a conflict of interest in reporting on sensitive matters Caterham at the same time as you are a director of that company? It’s not that I necessarily disagree with your arguments, but your pro-Fernandes tone bothers me given that he ultimately decides who can be a director at his company and who cannot. Sorry if this looks like points-scoring; I really like your blog.
No, I do not believe there is a clash of interest. If I did I would not be doing it.
If you think the articles show bias, then go read something else. I always endeavour to be scrupulously fair.
I’d agree with Joe, nothing I have seen on his blog over the past year or so points to any bias in his reporting, and he has had plenty of opportunity to do so.
I believe that you can be a director of a company and still report factually without any bias.
I don’t. Of course they’re going to be biased, otherwise they wouldn’t be a Director of the company.
But then again in this case its not that critical.
Having said that some of Joe’s audience are probably the most adept individuals in the world at reading things into a statement that just isn’t there.
But overall it doesn’t matter – because the standard of his writing, his knowledge of the arena, the quality of the content, his ‘blog integrity’ and the pure love of his sport that comes through overrides everything.
In addition, what does it matter if he’s biased. Over time you’d soon find out.
I never knew you were a director at Caterham as you never disclosed it. Guess you were rewarded with the directorship after writing all those positive articles about them. It wouldn’t have mattered much to me, but disclosure would have been a good sign.
I don’t care whether there is a bias or not, but full & fair disclosure is very important for a journalist, as you keep calling yourself. You cannot play two roles without disclosures. Otherwise, you can call yourselves are blogger, magazine publisher etc., but not a journalist.
You have done similar things earlier with your Emirates praise. So please go ahead and keep writing blog posts but never call yourselves a journalist again.
You are wrong. Read Blog Rules. And don’t be so rude.
hahahaha….you say this: “, then go read something else.” …and I am being rude?
The reason I brought up the journalist issue, is that you gave this reasoning that a “journalist does become the story, he only reports it”, but the journalist also does disclosures. So if you are a journalist, then you should disclose and if you are not, then your reasoning for your Bahrain turnaround falls flat. I can understand your blog rules, if you accept that the reasoning for your Bahrain turnaround are purely economical and not ethical.
and actually going by tone and speed of my response, I probably look like a troll, so I got every right to be rude 🙂 (but I didn’t mean to be)
My views on Bahrain have not changed at all.
I have disclosed the necessary.
You just have not read it.
Shut up Hash. Being a bit severe don’t you think.
Joe and David have both disclosed the fact they are director’s of Caterham in GP+.
I haven’t detected any pro-Caterham/Fernandes bias in anything Joe has written about them. I didn’t even know he was involved with the company until I saw something Adam Cooper tweeted last weekend, and Joe’s writings about the team have always been dispassionate.
Thank you.
Agree. I haven’t detected any pro-Lotus/Caterham/Fernandes (or pro-anyone else for that matter) bias in this blog in the year or so for which I have been regularly following it. And in any event the case on which you are reporting relates to matters long before you were appointed so I don’t see any potential for conflict, let alone actual conflict.
As an avid reader, I appreciate the scrutiny your blog applies to the more murky corners of the F1 world and its inhabitants – something you just don’t get from “traditional news sources”.
It would be interesting to read something about what your role at Caterham involves – I note that you are not involved in the operation of the F1 team. I wonder if TF has missed a trick there!
It is an advisory role. If in involved any F1 operational activity I would not do it.
Because it would compromise your journalistic independence?
Yes. In that case I think it would be unsuitable.
OK, Advisory roles are excluded from my comments re bias.
If you’re in an advisory role and you have a directorship the bread and butter of your position is probably NOT being biased.
Otherwise it would probably be pointless you being there.
A shameless tout for business, but just in case your advisory role extends to suggesting to Caterham that in light of the FI and Lotus matters they may want to instruct new IP advisors, here’s my firm’s website . . . http://www.sandersons.co.uk
Cheeky I know, but worth a try!
I was simply trying to explain something.
Jerry, if you read back a bit, and there were quite a few paying attention the time, perusing this blog would have saved a heap of trial costs for both sides of the Lotus mess. Some very quick changes were made following. An amusing decision, but played out exactly as predicted. (well before trial, with little information, I add) Forgive me, I am ever too tempted to tease practitioners, and there aren’t so many posturing cases come up in F1 which are not part of the FIA system, but please stick around. I’m always surprised how widely this blog is read. There’s fun and realpolitik here just as in IP law. I reckon that’s enough hinting without invoice from me, but F1 is a fascinating cauldron of things lesser companies or aggrieved inventors would fight tooth an nail for. Okay, one for free: upgrade your “Case Studies” part of your website to include some effective law, you know, if not cited stuff, then what you can do kind of thing! Actually I mean that not so much as a commercial criticism as to help you find young minds by giving them something to think about. all best from me – j
John – my “pitch” was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, I hope it came across so, and my apologies to Joe and anyone else if it didn’t. I would love to get involved with F1 in any way on a professional level, but in reality I know this is fairly unlikey as given the money involved the teams are likely to go to the big boys in London rather than a small provincial firm like mine. I should also add that I am not a litigator – my practice is focused on obtaining patent protection for clients at the pre-grant level. In practice, despite the constant innovation going on in F1, my understanding is that the teams rarely if ever apply for patents, probably for two main reasons: firstly, the time scales involved. It typically takes around 3 years for a patent to be granted, by which time the technology will be obsolete in F1 terms. And secondly, the process requires full publication of the invention before any right is granted, which would give all the other teams a “heads-up” as to what they are doing.
Thank you for your comments re the website – I know it is out of date and needs attending to! I’m glad you went to have a look at it, I didn’t really think anyone would!
Not just here, but in many other publications, there seem to be a few different categories of content:
– Reporting
– Opinion
– Blog
Reporting should be factual (not necessarily “fair & balanced” that balances idiotic stuff). GP+ is clearly absent of slant (noting that AirAsia ads are now absent). Opinion, in GP+ is clearly labelled as such, yet it is in no way pejorative. Blogs are the purview of the blogger… “it’s my blog so I will write what I want”. So, not inappropriately we perceive a little tetchiness toward some… yet I don’t see any sign of favoritism either. Being extremely correct I think.
Always correct unless you incur the wrath and “go read another blog”.
Joe, I agree with you. Your Directorship of Caterham Group is in the public domain, as required by law, and all you have to do is to google your name and there it is. The Internet is not regulated for content an long may it stay that way. Were you reporting the same story for the BBC or Sky it would be different, but you are not. The responsibility for checking the source and credibility anything found on the Internet is with the reader, whether found on Wikipedia or your blog.
It is all in the Blog Rules
Well… it’s usual to declare your interest so that your readers can take this into account. As an example, whenever I read an article in the Economist that mentions the Financial Times, it always states that the parent organisation of the FT also owns the Economist.
Of course we can go read something else if we don’t like it , but your reputation of journalistic integrity is your most valuable asset, and by not declaring your interest, you leave yourself open to charges of bias whether deserved or not.
Blog Rules. It is all there.
I stand corrected – although to return to the Economist example, they do it in every article in which they have a potential interest.
That is an option, but do you really wish to read that on every article? Once you know, you know. My readers tend to be regulars.
Joe,
I have no problem with your comments or you being on the board of Catherham, as I am sure is the same with other readers, but I don’t recall you making a statement on the blog declaring the interest. Seems it would have been worthy of a small story on the blog, like what persuaded you to accept and what role you will play. That alone could be very enlightening for your readers who likely have never sat on a board or understand the workings of a F1 team’s management and directors.
I don’t think full disclosure is a lot to ask for or reason to beat up on those of us who found out from other sources. Seem like your blog is the first place your readers deserved to find out. “Go read something else” seems a little harsh in that light.
If I missed an announcement on the blog then I apologize, but I read regularly and don’t believe I missed anything.
In fact I would say Caterham might be hoping for a little more mention of them, so no bias is not suggested by me, but full disclosure might seem like something you owe your loyal readership?
Read the Blog Rules. It is all there.
Joe,
Now I take exception. Saying it is in the Blog Rules is a huge cop out. The appointment is new, correct?
So why no article announcing the appointment in the Blog when it happened, so it was out there for all the regular readers to see and not just new comers that MIGHT check the rules? Do you think the regulars read the rules every day – really? If so how many hits have you had on that page before today? It says RULES not Disclosure! I am sure as a wordsmith you understand the difference, correct?
Handleling things this way makes it look like you don’t want people to know. No I am not being rude before you say that, I am expressing a measure of disappointment in someone I believed could have done a whole lot better in this situation. For me it is compounded by the fact that when I made a comment last week in response to another story, my comment was never accepted. Can you assure me that is not further evidence of trying to minimize this as a story? I commented then to give you an oppertunity to get this out in public (because we all dont go to compaines house everyday), but you did not take the oppertunity.
So what is the advisors role, what is acceptable and unacceptable TO YOU, I think it is now a legitimate question given how badly you have handled this.
PS While you are so sure that Blog Rules are visible to everyone I noticed something distinctly odd on the web page. That the search box and Blog Rules ONLY appears when you pass a mouse over the banner, so otherwise, in my browser, it is hidden. So guess what, that explains why I have never seen the Blog Rules! I did a quick search with some internet tools and found that it has always been there, but it is hidden from normal view. Again this does not have the appearance of full disclosure and I am telling you as something you may care to fix.
It is not hidden. It is quite public. I have made the necessary disclosure. That is it. If you don’t think it is enough then fine, do whatever you want to do. It is posts like this that make me wonder why I ever bother giving fans anything. Really, it is tiresome to play it straight and then get insulted by people like you.
There have been a few people who have made comments about my role as a non-executive director of Caterham Car Group Ltd. Most of these comments are based on a limited knowledge of the Caterham structure. I guess that it is best to explain that in detail. The Caterham Car Group Ltd is the parent company of Caterham Cars Ltd, the firm which manufactures Caterham road cars. It does not own the Formula 1 team – 1Malaysia F1 Team (UK) Ltd. Caterham Car Group Ltd and 1Malaysia F1 Team (UK) Ltd are two of a number of different enterprises that are owned by a holding company called Caterham Ventures. The others include Caterham Composites, Caterham Enterprises, Caterham Hotels, Caterham Merchandising and Caterham Technology and Innovation. Each one does a different job. I agreed to be involved in the road car company in an advisory capacity because I felt it was a terrific opportunity to be part of an exciting project, which was very different to my usual beat of Formula 1. Yes, the Caterham F1 team exists to publicise Caterham road cars, but that does not mean that those involved have anything to do with the racing. They do not. It is very interesting and I am sure that in the fullness of time you will see the plans that are being developed.
People say that in F1 perception is reality, but that is only true up to a point. Performance is reality. If I change my ways and write differently about the F1 team then you can judge me accordingly, but it is my aim to continue to cut through the complexities of F1 and tell it exactly as it is. That is how I have always done my job as a Formula 1 reporter and how I am still doing it. The Caterham Car Group is certainly not the first company that I have given advice to in the last 25 years. Most of the time I give it for free and I have watched people make millions (quite literally) based on ideas that I have had. I do not begrudge them that. They do what they do, I do what I do. I have consulted with sponsors, teams, clubs, TV companies, educational establishments, you name it. I do not believe that any of that has come across in my writing. In fact, I think it adds to one’s understanding of the business to see how things work from more than one angle, which in turn helps one to explain the sport. The arrangement with Caterham is not hidden and I believe that there has been sufficient disclosure to alert readers to the situation. In the “Blog Rules” section of my blog it says: “As a freelance reporter Joe pays his own expenses. He works for publications all over the world. He occasionally writes material for promotional publications and from time to time acts as a consultant for companies involved in F1 – if asked to do so. This does not affect his views as a journalist.”
I think it is a great compliment that Tony Fernandes asked me to help him with the car company. Tony is not doing this to try to influence my opinions. If I do not agree with him, I will tell him. He wanted some experienced, independently-minded individuals with a bigger picture and connections in the automotive and motorsport worlds.
The key point, however, is that I am comfortable with what has been done and if I am not comfortable with it, then I will not do it. In the past I have seen people who have asked for help and they have thought that they can buy my loyalty. That has not worked because I am not for sale.
I could sit here for hours writing about all the F1 journalists I know who have had financial arrangements, received gifts of free travel from teams, sponsors, drivers or whatever. The key point is not that such things exist, but rather whether their reporting has been fair and honest. One must accept a certain amount of snide comment from fellow scribes: some are jealous and some simply enjoy being disruptive. Most of the teams seem to understand that there is no reason that such an appointment will make any difference.
As for the fans, well, all I can do is to do what I have been doing and show that it makes no difference. There will always be people who will read things into articles that are written, but that was true before this happened so it will make no difference.
If you want to quibble over Blog Rules and disclosure and all the rest of it, feel free. It will make no difference. Everything has been done in a perfectly correct fashion. You can disagree with that if you wish but it will change nothing.
Joe,
Thank you as someone who pushed for this, really thank you. I wish that you had done this up front as a blog entry when it first happened. Written largely as you have done here it would have been clearer. The word that was out elsewhere (not your site) did not say anything about your role being the road cars, it was saying Caterham and the assumption is F1. That is an important fact that has now been made clear. I appreciate the candor of what you have said above. Again thank you for the clarification.
Money launderers call this “layering”.
Joe, you are still involved. Any time you comment on anything related to Caterham you should declare an interest.
I suggest ask every F1 journalist to declare all their interests.
Yes. But to be fair, it has only been there since word got out.
It is no secret, and never has been.
Id like to add to this…
If you arent aware of this, it means you havent read the blog rules, which in turn means that you have very little to complain about because as a commenter it should be your duty to be aware of the environment you are using to express yourself.
Its your own fault If you have completely ignored the guidelines. You have accepted the privilege of commenting without acknowledging the rules (which isnt fair in my opinion).
This is silly. I knew about all this quickly without trying.
One cannot claim that one’s ignorance is lack of forthrightness in others.
Annoyed – these posts / my responses are making me feel almost sycophantic. Certainly not.
Yes Joe, but would it not be scrupulously fair for you to disclose up front in articles relating to Tony Fernandes that you are on his payroll?
It was a surprise to read that you had accepted the Caterham position and continue to write with influence on topics close to Fernandes such as GL/Genii, and this current story. Whether there is bias or not, doesn’t it give an impression that you are unable to be completely objective?
Read Blog Rules. It is all there.
I’m off to read the blog rules. Apparently, it is all there
This Blog Rules bit is interesting….
I’ve now no way of knowing, but were the Blog Rules modified at the time of appointment, what was it sometime in November 2011, or after, say, the passing of the word by Pitpass?
Comment to the Blog Rules seems to have pretty well dried up after April 2011.
Slipping the announcement into the Blog Rules clears you for disclosure however it comes across as an attempt to pull the wool over.
Only mildly curious is all.
Judge me as you wish. What you should be doing is judging by the content.
But pretty wrapping excites little children at Christmas. Often moreso than the toy.
Almost . . .
I am (was, they are grown up) a horrible step dad and step uncle, because i get the “it’s a book, right?!” thing 100% predictable both sides, and so i really tried with the packaging!! Okay, I confess, I am cruel with presents, tradition for me to hand out only on my birthday or new year. (and I adopted more of those various calendar dates, oh my . .) I wrote asking not to be sent any more when i was little because my i knew dad was lucky to have anything, and it felt wrong. I was still spoiled.
The reason I’m saying this, is because the internet, the nicer parts at least, are a vast and rich present to others. Also one of the few parts which allow people to reciprocate and add something hopefully of value to everyone’s experience. We simply did not have this before.
But the moment you set to write publicly, in this way, you have to allow you write towards anyone. I would prefer rather than to say “like it or lump it”, instead, “can you see how this works, and that everyone else gives freely?”. And then who is acting ungrateful has something to wonder.
I know you have your regulars, Joe, and many others who support you who never pass a word via this blog, but the concept of regulars is somewhat exclusionary, and a bit sad to let the simple choice of a word suggest to others they might not participate.
To everyone:
I do wish I could say to who reads here to please work out what is nice in expression, no matter how hard the truth you wish to convey. Indulge your time also to think before you post if your view is contrary, that holding a contrary view does not require taking Joe to task. I mean write it well, and leave alone ad hominem. Joe saved my backside in terms that I had forgotten long ago to write what I felt. That was more than a casual thing for me, as i found myself needing to talk and think plain real fast because i fell for a girl hard. I needed the kick in the pants, by example. Try the same hereabouts. Let’s Be Plain and Blunt And Polite and Erudite. Or try, says me excusing myself!
just read the blog rules….funny, when I looked before, no mention of Caterham. Have the blog rules just been re-written? It’s all there tho…
Joe is quite explicit about his Caterham connection in the blog rules. Read them please.
Joe Saward cannot be bought. End of story. You only need to read the blog for several years to understand that he has scruples.
If you doubt that, ask yourself why he operates independently rather than as part of a large media organization.
Totally agree with you on that one, a shame as I really enjoyed following this blog and even purchased one of joes books which was great, conflict of interests and bias is an understatement!
If you write something like that, not only do you not understand the structure of the companies, you do not understand me, which as a reader of the blog you really ought to have done by now. Still, there is nothing I can do about it
Some of this would be clarified by an explanation of the difference between executive and non-executive or outside directors. Not all directors are created equally and not all readers perceive the distinctions between board seats (significant here – outside directors are not employees or owners and provide more of an advisory and governance role, without involvement in business operations).
In any event, onwards….
Look everyone, its not that bloody difficult. And Caterham for gods sake.
Use your brains and don’t just read Joe.
Here’s an idea. Get your data from as many sources as possible and then (ohhhh no, this is the tricky bit) FORM YOUR OWN OPINION – its what sentient beings do. It makes us ‘not monkeys’.
Whats the worst that can happen. Brainwash by Joe overload.
Do you really think that other journo’s are clean and pure ?
I suggest that you view all written words with as much suspicion as you all seem to want to apply to Joe’s comments re Caterham.
I read the earlier post “finding Team Lotus (now known as Caterham) and Aerolab liable for copyright infringement and using confidential information” and groaned. Glad I have now read the rest.
I think most of us wish the actual teams well and that this unpleasantness, from some, be put away.
Thanks Joe, once again, it all makes sense now.
Simple business practice seen it time and time again.
When you owe money the best way to delay payment is to attack when a company starts using these tactics you know they are in trouble as they use the legal system to hide behind but as we all know that eventually runs out
And the piper needs to be paid.
joe, great blog, keep up the good work. This really could spell the end of mallya? If it does it will be a great shame for all the employees at the factory and the team for their sterling effort in recent years….
Joe.
Looking further ahead, should Force India go the same direction as Kingfisher, how many (if any) potential buyers would be out there for the team if it came onto the market in a hurry?
I am sure that someone would buy it, but the team has a history of eccentric owners. It deserves better. The people at an operational level (ie under Mallya’s yes-men) are good people. The problem is that the deal with McLaren has bought a certain level of success, but to make further progress there must be serious investment to match the kind of infrastructure that the big teams have. Buying technology is a quick way to get to a certain level but it is perhaps wiser to adopt a more sensible long-term investment strategy. But interesting argument. Let’s see how the team does.
If we could only get David Richards to be interested as a buyer for Force One India (I know, it’s not for sale…. yet). The cachet that Aston Martin could bring to that team would be great. I know that DR has been bitten a couple of times, and is probably not even looking in this direction. Ah, but what if?
Good on you for your other work (Caterham). It’s all a storm in a teacup; people with nothing better to complain about. It’s not like you make living from this blog. Do people realize that you do this service for free? As an independent journalist, I’m sure that one needs do have many irons in the fire just to pay the bills. I rely on your work and respect your opinions.
Please, keep up the good work, and don’t let the busybodies get you down.
Joe,
thanks for the info. I’m sorry that some may see your comments as a “conflict of interest” but then did you ever state you were now on the Board of Caterham? In hindsight (if true) it might have been wise to give a heads up?
I only read that from another website and NOT from “PeePass” so my apologies if I got it wrong.
(personally I don’t care anyway but some might)
SO much S@@@@t on so many sources etc… Treat many with the “proverbial”…….
Bottom line, no BS, what might this mean to FI and Caterham? Frankly to me, it’s history, let the legal vultures circle for a few mins, and then lets go racing. Lets be honest, in 2010 or 2011, were Caterham (nee Lotus) anywhere near Force India so why care (legal issues/$$$) aside?
Ian B
Read Blog Rules.
Interesting stuff, lot’s of typos though…
What are you a spelling bee contestant
You mean mistakes like “lot’s” instead of “lots”?
heh heh
To the point and factual as always. Amazing how one can upset people by telling the truth Joe. Congrats to you and DT on the the directorships, I feel the pair of you have a natural fit with Caterham. Even if one would struggle to get in one!! H.
Oh please get a room
Thanks Joe for the insight, great blog as usual
You get in that room too
Why don’t you get another blog to read? You may feel your comments are amusing, but they are just irritating.
Not my problem – seems to be yours though
PS – Sorry TimW
Feeling a bit antsy tonight. Long day out.
Kingfisher has stopped international flights and cut the number of domestic flights http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17454806
Joe, thanks for the clear analysis of this news. Please could you explain more about the FIA involvement in this? What would happen next? Would they (if they see fit) apply their own penalties to either Force India, Caterham or both?
A casual observation from my own point of view is that anything that does happen with the FIA is now more likely to be neutral rather than reflecting certain clear bias. What if this had involved McLaren and had been a few years ago under a different regime?
As far as I can see there is no FIA involvement.
There are a few sites, James Allen being amongst them, that say Force India has referred the judgement to the FIA.
Or is this just part of the bluster. After all, both sides are claiming victory in their various statements. A read of your posting above debunks most of that though…
While I sympathise with your views about Mallya, I think we should acknowledge that the team has done very well whilst he has been in charge, especially compared to how it was doing for several years before that. If the key reason for this is that he rejected Gascoyne’s DIY approach in favour of buying expertise from McLaren, it seems that he was right. His team has moved from a poor 9th place to 5th/6th, while Gascoyne’s is firmly rooted in 10th.
You say that “the team now needs to make the investments that Gascoyne argued for if it is to maintain its position and get on to the tail of the big players”, If that is your view, then we have all come to respect your view, but you haven’t given any supporting evidence for it.
I have the sense that Caterham’s DIY approach hasn’t actually worked. It is made to look more successful than it really is by the fact that there are two teams in F1 that should never have been allowed in and are completely lacking in what is required. Forget them, and it looks as though it is Caterham that isn’t getting much closer to 9th place and needs to make changes to get on the tail of the big players.
As far as Force India is concerned, I’d be interested to know why you feel the link with McLaren is untenable in the longer term.
I suspect that buying in McLaren technology is and remains a good idea – I think the argument might be that you can’t fail then to invest in building an overall structure similar to a top four team and just cover up the gaps by buying in technology endlessly.
At some point FI has to pony up the cash and decide it’s going to build a long term operation that can sustain a permanent assault on the top four end of the grid or it accepts it’s a well placed mid-field runner with bought in technology and that’s not something that might sustain a team should there be a sudden problem.
Mike Gascoyne doesn’t seem to have a problem with bought in technology given the Red Bull back end purchased for Caterham. It’s probably more a clash between buying short term success over investing in long term structure – he definitely seems to be the 10-20 year plan sort of guy who never gets to finish!
I think that Force India’s results haven’t been that impressive, it’s clear that the tech deal with McLaren has brought benefits, but it will only ever be a quick fix. It’s obvious that a team has to go its own way and start to do things themselves if they want to move forward. FI’s finishing positions have been 10th, 9th, 7th, 6th, and 7th. This shows initial progress but then they have found a level and stayed there. The team hasn’t looked like repeating the 2nd place finish at Spa in 09 and isn’t showing any signs of having a quick car this year. It is of course difficult to judge after 1 race but there would seem to be a danger of FI falling behind Williams and maybe even STR this year. It would seem that buying in knowledge, rather than building your own, will get you so far in F1 but not to the top.
P.s your comment about Caterham being rooted in 10th is a bit silly, they have only done 2 seasons and as a team that started from scratch it is unreasonable to expect them to catch up with the established teams that quickly.
Great piece, thanks Joe.
Mallya must be seething with this decision, having Force India’s design valued at £25k and he’s still got £800k to pay! I know it’s not that simple but it’s a good way to look at it.
it is also worth noting that mike Gascoyne is very unhappy about some of the other reports circulating this morning which suggests his guilt.
I think to end is fast approaching for Force India and Mallya’s empire.
I also think that your blog is always impartial and had it not been for the comments above i would not have known about your role at Caterham. Keep up the good work.
Nice way of looking at the FI/Cat’m situation Ross.
It doesn’t make sense to FI apparently they are referring it to FIA for consideration. see autosport
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/98237
Obviously throwing a tantrum, I don’t generally bet but I could bet the FIA stays way clear of this
We will see, but I tend to agree with you.
” then go read something else.”
So, in other words, fuck off? What a nice thing to say to your readers!
Your words, not mine. And it is not at all what I think.It is a choice you have. I am not telling you to get lost. If you don’t like what you get here, then do not read it. I am just trying to give you the truth. If you do not want it then there is nothing I can do.
Heh heh heh.
@joe ur very good at writing negatives about mallya as ur close to dat frog tony. im not a mallya fan but what he done to his country is great and he is the force behind sahara forceindia f1 team.
This malli person has been quite rude in this and other posts… are you trying to make a point regarding free speech? I for one wouldn’t mind not reading this kind of post… there are better ways to express oneself…
You will not be reading any further remarks from this halfwit. I am a patient fellow but he became too offensive in comments (that were not posted). How someone can lecture on disclosure and then put a fake email address is beyond me. It made me laugh.
Literacy would be a plus – but then again the illiteracy is probably fake
Why swear on a public blog? All a bit unnecessary!
You come into somebodies home as a guest and criticize their cooking… your host has every right to take offense. Of course they could always take the high road as Joe has, and tell you to find a nice restaraunt that suits your needs, and come back some other time for pizza.
I would not be as accomodating. I would have told you to “F*** off”, just as you have incorrectly accused Joe of doing. The fact that Joe does not do the same shows great character on his part. You get to read, for free… some of the best material available to Formula One fans. The fact that you would question this hospitality for a single second speaks volumes to your terrible character. Joe does not owe his readership a damn thing. This is a free service that you take advantage of, and then have the nerve to insult the provider.
Despicable.
I would assume he owes his livelyhood to his readership ? (unless the money from Uncle Tony covers it these days…)
How much do you pay me for the blog?
You assume wrong.
related story
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/uk-kingfisher-airlines-idUSLNE82K02020120321
Hi Joe,
More of an over inflated ego than a well-developed ego, perhaps.
Peoples ego and character development begin at childhood and is a combination of their nature and the environment they grow up in. Do we know anything of Mr Mallays childhood to understand the personality we have today?
The Formula One paddock has had many characters and personalities over the years. The interesting question is, who has the biggest ego since you started writing about the sport?
cheers
p
I would say that the ownership of property remains with the seller, until the purchaser has fully paid the agreed terms. Force India didn’t have a leg to stand on.
Also once you have leant something is isn’t easy to unlearn it!
must agree with you. every invoice i ever received when i was still allowed to have a job (before i was 65) it said on it ownership of goods remains with the supplier until payment is made in full.
FABULOUS BLOG joe please keep blocking the idiots
thanks
ian
So is Tony Fernandes about to buy the Force India team? That would be one way of settling outstanding debts.
sahara roys business is 10 times grater dan dat of tonys business. tony is a kid infront of mallya.
And?
I love it. I live for this.
Always seems like you have an axe to grind Joe, especially when Mallya is involved!
No, I write this stuff because I fear for the jobs of the team.
As a long time reader I can see very obviously that you don’t see eye to eye with Mallya. Sure he is a slime ball LOL but it’s clear that you don’t care about writing negative journalism when it comes to him. I would imagine you would not do the same to a Domenicalli or Whitmarsh or Ecclestone (God Forbid any journo should say ANYTHING bad about him),if they for example,Said somethin out of context, or broke a driver’s contract or two through fear of them being unwilling to work with you in the F1 Paddock.
It’s just an observation, I completely understand the point of view and actually admire your honesty…just wish you would admit you flatly don’t like Mallya LOL
Keep it up m8.
gascoyne is a worst technical director, force india made very good progress after his dismissal. gascoyne is with lotus for 3 years and team never made a step forward. sahara forceindia is in the hands of sahara roy whos turnover is 10 times greater dan dat of tony fernandes business and mallyas ub group is larger business comparred to tony airasia.
and your point is ?
PS – Gascoyne is pretty good
Sorry for not being down with the kids,but some of us here in ” da Joe posse” are having trouble reading your presumably otherwise eloquent posts and well structured arguments due to the fact they’re written in 1990s ghetto text talk.
I guess it does prove you have opposable thumbs though, so that’s a bonus.
No. I think its opposable brain lobes – just
Thumbs come next
mallya fired gascoyne bcos of no progess not bcoz of the reason u mentioned.
Wrong
“Because” ” Progress” “You”.
Learn these words and their proper spelling. You will sound more intelligent, even if you happen to be full of crap.
you forgot “that”!
Hehe… I did not notice that Tim. Stupid has a way of rubbing off on you quite quickly it would seem. You must fight it every day.
Sorry I’m still learning but is bcoz the same as bcos? Or did you mean the past tense, bcuz?
Now that’s funny thanks for the laugh when I woke up
@ Dale D, nikcoleman & Garry T: Ditto the humor appreciation, made a shit Friday A.M. a bit brighter! There’s also more opportunity with “Bciz” and “Bcaz”.
I thought Joe had banished this guy from his blog?
Man I is glud you hod a gr8 lrf at it innit an everyfink.
Next time Schumacher gets hit up the rear by say, Pic, I so want the culprit to stand up in front of the press and say ” yup it’s a fair cop, I was texting Nico Rosberg to ask if it was him in front of me”
This has got to be one of the best threads. Laughed. Thanks all
And I am surprised you never reported this story:
http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/kingfisher-airlines-mallya-force-india/1/23177.html
According to this, Mallya is investing more money in the Force India team despite his other troubles. Wonder why you didn’t mention it even once while continuously disparaging him about his financial troubles?
OK, and the money come from……………………..?
Re-read the article, it was for December 2010, that the amount was put in. Well before the current troubles he has.
Hash, your comment shows that you didn’t bother to read the article beyond the first paragraph, or possibly even just the title. FI’s own spokesman pointed out that all of the funds quoted are pre December 2010 and relate mostly to multi-year sponsorship contracts running since 2008. The article does not say anything about investment in the team in the last 16 months beyond 20 million from Sahara.
If you want to criticize somebody for bias, you had better make sure you have your fact straight.
Agreed
Joe – good article and also thank you for taking the time to reply to the comments on here. In my view, your position has always been clear for those that bother to read up on a subject before expressing an opinion.
Director at Caterham, huh? Can you get me tickets or a nice pass for the CDN GP, this year? ( In the interests of full disclosure, I did meet Bernie, once.)
–a loyal, reader–
I would prefer not to see the ‘I am right and you are wrong’ back and forth messages. To me, as an interested reader, it does not add any value.
Joe S. focussing on content and writing about it is why I come to this blog.
Thx Joe for your (with a emphasis on ‘your’) opinions and information.
Joe KEEP WRITING – sorry for shouting
Joe, obviously this is your blog (and you can do as you please with it!), I just think people would have preferred a small standalone article with full disclosure (and not a discreet update to the blog rules) about your Caterham director position in the interests of full disclosure. You’re always saying F1 needs to better present/be clearer with its image so this is the same sort of thing.
People may just feel like they’ve been had the wool pulled over their eyes if things aren’t disclosed in a clear/up front manner is all, especially since (rightly imo) Mallya and Lotus often get a good going over on here.
You provide a free service and for that I am eternally grateful, I am just trying to put across to you why some people have responded rather “snappily” to this. Please keep up the good work … you may now tell me to Read Blog Rules. 🙂
that horse is well; and truly dead, stop flogging it now!
Agree with Tim W.
Sadistic, bestial necrophiliacs need not apply
Joe,
My gut tells me this is going to get bloody and messy before Aerolab and Mike Gascoigne ever see a penny of what is owed to them.
Maybe we will now see who the actual owners of Force India are and where Mallya fits into the structure of this company. If someone is going to put in around a $100M or whatever the figure was or going to be, then these legal issues would have been highlighted. I would think therefore that Mallya is on his own with this bill.
Joe – do you know who the owners of Aerolabs are, as this name has appeared a few times in F1 chat over the years.
Jean-Claude Migeot I believe owns it, but the Rumi Family may still have a share.
Joe,
Do you think given the alleged amount of funds owned plus associated costs, if I read the court reports correctly, then it is a sizeable sum of money, plus the “frosty” feelings between Mallya and Mike Gascoyne, that he and maybe with AeroLab go after a seizer order of the teams cars and equipment, once the F1 Circus returns to Europe, as it would be a lot easier grabbing them when they move between the different countries.
We have seen this tactic been used before for unpaid bills, and even used to hold / imprison major sponsors, like David Thieme – Essex Lotus partnership. Yes I know his was dealing with a Bank / funding issue on his companies and the oil market at that time, but it also saw the sponsorship disappear from the Lotus cars as a result of his short stay in Switzerland.
It looks like the judge appreciated the free lunch and good vintage red at that anonymous restaurent not far from Vauxhall Cross…
Cheers Joe it’s always nice to come here for a daily fix of decent F1 news. Shame some people don’t value it as much as others… keep up the good work!
Keep doing you thing Joe, it’s a blog, an opinion piece not a sworn affidavit.
Mallya is a big boy and I’m sure he won’t be crying because you’ve criticised him – plus criticism of the VJ empire is a bit like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.
The day you tell us that the Caterham is the greatest car on the F1 grid then I will be suspicious.
I would say that Fernandes is as bad as Mallya given that his airline pulled out of London, Paris and India earlier this year. That should really be said to balance this out because Fernandes clearly has problems:
http://www.theborneopost.com/2012/01/31/airasia-x-making-arrangements-for-30000-cancelled-online-bookings/
In F1 (not airlines) it is very obvious who is more successful and it is not Fernandes.
We are all entitled to our views.
AirAsia X is a separate franchise of AirAsia not wholly owned by Fernandes, and has cut the unprofitable routes as any smart business would do to keep going… I don’t think this is signalling the end of the whole business, but hey don’t let that get in the way of a good beat up..
Can I just say, ignoring the whole first post malarkey…
Well done for getting the job with Caterham. It is great to see that you are respected and trusted enough for business owners to go to you asking for your knowledge.
I found out a few weeks ago but you haven’t written much on Caterham since then, but well done Joe.
And I for one am glad the blog contrinues.
Im with asa,some of these people need to take a long walk down the hall of mirrors! keep up the good work.Joe
We are entitled to our own views, but don’t let the views of a few wankers deter you from continuing your fabulous blog. We ❤ you (My hat's currently marinating in teriyaki..might actually taste good come November…..)
Jonathan – what cut of hat have you chosen for the feast? What wine is appropriate?
Keep up the excellent work Mr. Saward, let the detractors go elswhere ! As a Caterham 7 owner, hopefully I’m really excited about the road car future. hopefully we might get some early insights from your blog ???
I know you 😉
Apologies, too many “hopefully’s”
Bizarre to have more traffic on Joe’s directorship than the subject matter.
None of us have any reason to criticise Joe or his private dealings, whether or not they affect what he writes here, it is his own personal matter.
I think that some should all step back for a minute and think about what they are doing in relation to a private individual who posts free information for their consumption.
It is not any of your business, your comments detract from the purpose of the blog and spoil it for many others, most of whom don’t post here, and in general are unwelcome by the majority of Joe’s regular readers.
Quite right and well put Peter!
You wouldn’t be a lawyer would you,
from Norfolk & Chance?
All the best
p
No, just an enthusiast who also runs a Forum….
Hear hear
Very well said. Also some of the critics need to note the preface “Non Executive” Now let’s all put this to bed and get on with the real business of beating up folks who post on Joes blog using txt tlk which we all h8.
Cheers all!
The views of the partially informed are of little value when the truth comes out many years later.JOE.
It is a little like fox news viewers shouting their opinions.
You are a man of history.There are many such cases from history;EG. Wheels {Australian magazine} Car Of The Year The Leyland P76,or TIME magazine MAN OF THE YEAR 1936 Adolf Hitler. ECT.
I do not wish to draw comparison between Vi jay and Adolf,but,one is left to think if he was a good operator,money to support his business would be easily available.
The evidence will eventually come out.Any way that you choose to view it,it does no good to improve the image if Indian business principals.
JOE Do not give up because of the vitriolic minority.
Just wanted to thank you Joe for all your efforts. See a lot of people are sniping at you here and think its a little un justified. The amount of time and effort you put into this blog and considering its free its a wonderful resource to see whats going on behind the headlines in F1, and I for one have felt a lot more closer to the sport! Dont let the these people get you down, and keep blogging!
As a teacher of journalism at an undergraduate college in Amsterdam, I have to smile about this confusion about Joe’s role on this blog. Many years ago, may people proudly announced the end of newspapers and professional journalists because, with the internet, ‘everyone’ would become a journalist.
Right…
I think that Joe Saward has written unbiasedly, profoundly and honestly about this Caterham/Force India dispute. The articles themselves are worthy to be printed in a real newspaper. However, Joe’s assurance that the rules of the blog apply to the content, take the journalistic fuse out of the story. Which stresses against the importance of ‘real’ journalism. Which makes me smile, again…
So Joe, given the choice……. unhappy Schumacher fans or unhappy Force India fans 😉
Love the blog, keep up the good work and retain that sense of humour!
Joe,
Is it your contention that whilst Force India is currently more successful, this success is built on technology bought in, and long term they still do not have a particularly strong plan. Whilst Caterham whilst weak at the moment, is planning for a long stay in F1 with a gradual improvement in performance on the back of their own technical know how?
Some people cannot be bought, but most can be rented.
I fail to see how integrity is essential in gossiping about a game (a game like racing or football), but I wonder why you have to tout so loud you have it. I wouldn’t but I’m pretty Latin in my customs, so maybe tropical weather has caught me.
Having said that, I read Saward not for his integrity (as I’m sure he has as much and lacks as much as I or anyone do), but because he writes well and I’m entertained by what he writes. Simple.
There is no transcendence in reporting about a legal dispute between Caterham and Force India, two small potatoes teams in a niche sport.
I also wonder why people tout so loud about the necessity of it in a world where fast cars and cheap girls are the goals and capitalist barons like Fernandes or Mallya are the rulers. Is it really necessary to argue for hours about that?
Let Saward write whatever he wishes and, frankly, disclose whatever he needs or feels he has to. Of course, also, let people show how emotionally moved are by his articles when they, dying of envy, point to spots in what they assume should be the white mantle of Saward integrity. Britons are funny seen from down here, let me tell you.
Bloody hell.
This has been a great laugh… (sorry Joe, always like your work) –let’s see, it was in 1978 that I mentioned to the late B. Cahier that it must be a bit difficult being a journalist/photog –to several publications and, at the same time, a top Racing PR guy for Goodyear (on the payroll) and he laughed at me across a glass of Vin Rouge.
Later that season, in a conversation with my then boss, Mr. E, I mentioned the phrase “conflict of interest’ in that FOCA was representing the teams and their wages, whilst Bernie was the organizer of the venue he was negociating with!!!
Bernie didn’t laugh –but he accused me of have old-fashioned American sensibilities and this quote which will stay with me always- “there is no such thing as a conflict of interest –there is only consolidation of interest.”
and that’s how I’ve looked at it every since —
Steve
Nice story!
now that things seem a little calmer hereabouts, I’ll let out my thoughts, mostly shorthand:
More Bias Please!
These appointments are worthy of note.
I was surprised they were not mentioned, despite not being about F1, because of the broad interest in all things motorcars here, and because the strong personal support means many if not all readers are surely interested to hear what Joe is up to. I listen to strong coherent voices here in the comments from the British motor engineering scene.
I do think these things should be disclaimed, but for entirely different reasons apart from editorial concern. I can wrap up those reasons by referring you to the above clamouring. Why give snipers a shot?
I do think connexions – this is what we are dealing with, not a conflict – ought to be disclaimed. Not because of manners or reasons of editorial integrity, but because what Joe writes is being held to the highest standard. Some of the disappointment expressed, nit picking, is simply backhanded praise. Readers do want to hold Joe to the highest standards, because they expect that or have come to expect that.
Putting my PR hat on, I’d never have been shy about such an appointment, and I think this has been poorly handled. I was going to say very poorly handled, but I think of Joe as a writer – historian foremost, and thereafter as a Industrialist Manqué, rather than a journalist. Joe, if there’s a PR man in you, shoot the bugger, he’s got no style.
There’s not a single reason to keep such matters in the dark, nor any reason to believe they will have any influence in any way on how the blog and magazine continues or was before. It must be self evident to any regular reader that Joe was speaking a lot with TF – we got direct feedback – and therefore if there was bias, why was it not called out then?
A few cheap shots do not criticism make, nor do they prove a thing. However they are something to note. Once a situation changes in any way which may be construed by a detracting party to support their conviction, one ought to be alert.
I remember the cheap shots, and also that there was not one single coherent argument put forth contrary to any position Joe took overall during e.g. the Lotus tmark issue.
Well, there was one of mine, in dissent, as to that particular matter, that the mark was effectively a dud, but I forget if I couched that in terms of it not being protectable or the invalid state of the origin of the claim used by 1Malaysia or just generally in terms of the futility of the cases. TF got a short sharp lesson I think, and made a clean getaway from what continues to be a mess.
That aspect could have benefited more examination, but since to the outside world it was a like it or lump it decision almost certainly taken in private, there was no inside track to report. Nevertheless, I read as much into silences as any would be detractor might. I simply assumed instead, to be rudely honest, there were dry bushes rolling in the wind between TF’s ears at the time. So, nothing to report, no cover up, even with a private ear to the game.
I know what the detractors are banging on about. It’s the gaps. It’s the bluntness, same bluntness most readers appreciate. Not to mention the “gotchya” aspect of keeping all of this mum, when there was no need. That was a mis-step. Looking back, that whole Lotus naming thing I think was grander mis-steps, leading inevitably to TF wanting help and a sounding board, even if nothing to do with F1. That charade inevitably meant people started to look for spin. This should have been foreseen. It doesn’t matter a whit, until magnified. Like a bum note in a chorus and I think it was Herbert von Karajan who once screamed fury on a replay that 3rd or whichever string second row was bowing the wrong way. Once you aim for perfection, every little thing stands out. Now that was slagging the Berlin Phil . .
But Karajan was being pro-active. No-one heard that wrong bowing, and the rumor itself stayed within the industry, as far as I know, my late partner worked with most big names there. More primadonnas than F1, oh my!
Anyhow, none of this hurts. Not unless it is compounded. But if absolute top tier journalism, above any measure, is what is expected, then that must be noted, and there are dangers too in income sources and lack of advertising diversity in publications as to how they are perceived which I have worked on all my adult life to mitigate. That is another story.
I think I have about 18 months to go on my wager the airline industry will rout everyone, TF included. But as for the whole personal arguments between those characters, it is getting tiring bashing a dunce. Almost nobody gets to run a conglomerate and survives. Branson does it on govvy subsidies, and is tiny anyhow. Buffet reveres Singleton. But otherwise the kinds of structure favored by these new entrepreneurs without industrial experience or hard deal histories before easy money are financial Matroshki, precariously created in perpetual flux. It is one thing to admire wheeling and dealing – who does not enjoy a good Bernie story? – but what is built? Not a sausage, it’s all leased, and mostly rehash of business theory well expounded before I was born, just with a marketing veneer. (and you can then understand why teams are saying they are disinterested in whatever equity might be tabled) That in particular is why maybe just maybe anything to do with Caterham is of considerable interest to readers who like to make things.
far far from my complete thoughts, but will have to do, so all best to all – john
Where’s the 15% I don’t understand?
I’m confused too!
Do you mean 100 less 85 for teams to take out, per one idea to settle this putative equity mess?
Or do you mean implied the 15% commission for a salesman, which is way off that for deals which don’t repeat? Maybe I’m being a little sensitive as 15 is the trad number bandied around adland and i hope I was not pitching anything – or if I was, well, then where is my 15%?? !! (and who pays me then??!!)
For real, no shucks, I am right confused RShack. For what it is worth any more, I have no shake in F1 or anywhere within a drunken country mile of it commercially. If I ever have a clue, I post it up here. Maybe not sour schmaltz, but hardly genius stuff. Mind you, would love to be confused for someone with a clue in this game, keep everyone off what I pay the milk bill with! 🙂
Scratching my head, well, getting back to that when i am done typing! 😉
– j
Seems this may cost Caterham a LOT of money. This is the same as McLaren Spygate, exactly the same.
Of course you havent mentioned this Mr Saward. But then, we know why that is.
It’s no wonder you try to keep your Caterham directorship under wraps (which,as much as you like to kid yourself that your open and honest,is exactly how it is. Directing us to ‘blog rules’ where there is NO mention of anything Caterham, Puh-leeease.)
Seems dis-honesty runs within the company, you should fit right in.
Now tell us all how Caterham have cheated and will likely be torn apart by the FIA please.
Several points:
Read the judgement, which is public information. It is rather long and has a lot of long words, which you may find hard to understand.
However, if you can get through this, you will see what the judge thinks about the whole affair.
If you do not read this, then you can only expect to have your opinions torn into little pieces and thrown away.
If you cannot find a mention of Caterham in the Blog Rules, you are not very observant.
I would not go around accusing people of dishonesty because if you cannot prove such claims with facts you are committing something called libel (if written) and slander (if spoken). I suggest that you talk to a lawyer person and then ask me nicely to remove this comment before someone takes legal action against you.
@Cristobal: That is completely out of order and quite probably libellous.
@Joe, I’m amazed and impressed you even allowed this through moderation. Your written response is entirely appropriate, but I would simply have banned him. That kind of abuse is unacceptable.
I want people to understand that I am not trying to hide anything. If this person wishes to abuse me (and Caterham) then he should back it up with fact. Obviously he has not idea and is just another bottom-feeder mouthing off.
I understand – but I’ll bet it’s not doing your blood pressure any good.
You don’t really need my advice, but for what it’s worth, don’t feed the trolls!
Gossip says Caterham are not running in the aerolab tunnel since december roughly and looking for a way out. Joe any news on this? seems funny the way caterham have been moving about….