FIA/FOTA-gate

thomasq · Post by **thomasq** » 04 Jun 2009, 09:42

I'm starting to think F1 would be better off for 2010 without the FOTA teams. For one, if the FOTA teams enter the 2010 season, it means that either the FIA or FOTA has bowed to the other and that's going to cause a lot of tension between the governing body and the competing teams, and that just means more politics. The sport is already drowning itself in a vast sea of politics, and it would be stupid to make it even worse.

Second, the technical freedom allowed under the budget cap will no doubt see some very interesting innovation - especially with ten or more potentially new teams all interpreting the regulations their own way.

Third, I think it would be good for Formule One to lose some of its "glamour" by letting in this batch of new teams. Let the drivers focus more on their on-track battles than having to face the media afterwards. Introducing these completely new teams will reset the field completely - there are no predefined Force Indias or Ferraris.

Right now I am actually inclined to think that racing under the budget cap will be better than if the FIA succumbs to the political and economic pressure of the FOTA teams. Maybe this is just me trying to look on the bright side of things.

BorderReiver · Post by **BorderReiver** » 04 Jun 2009, 10:22

It's a complex issue and one where I can see merits and stupidty on both sides.

In principal the budget cap is, I think, a good idea since the costs that F1 currently imposes on it's competitors are frankly unsustainable, economic crisis or no.

The problem is that Max has the subtlety of a drunkard psychotic wielding a sledgehammer, and his way of getting legislation through seems to be, the more radical it is the more you have to beat people into submission. The correct and obvious course would be to make this a phased reduction in cost over, say . . . five years? This would give the larger teams time to pare down their operations in a reasonable manner, rather than emasculating them overnight.

What is stupid however is the idea of a two tier championship, one for the capped, one for the uncapped, that simply can't fly without doing massive damage to the credibility of the sport. It must be one set of rules for everyone, that's what a racing series is.

What worries me is that Max has this morning played the "If you lot want to breakway, just go!" card. Stupid and not worth risking. What would kill Formula One and the World Championship dead with the same certainty as a bullet to the brain, is a CART/IRL style Civil War, where FOTA claim one World Championship and the FIA another. Whatever the outcome that must me avoided at all costs.

thomasq · Post by **thomasq** » 04 Jun 2009, 10:49

I can see what you mean, and it is indeed worrying that if the 2010 regulations stand and all thirteen entries are filled, Mosley will only be stronger than before this mess. I agree too that the budget-cap should be introduced gradually over a four- or five-year period, but I honestly don't see that happening. Even the 100m euro budget cap suggested by the FOTA teams for 2010, followed by a 45m budget cap in 2011, seems more like an attempt to sway Mosley and buy more time for bargaining, rather than a realistic road to the 45m budget cap.

johnston21 · Post by **johnston21** » 04 Jun 2009, 16:17

I expect that the FIA will reject the 9 FOTA Teams entries (as a whole).

Those (former FOTA) teams still wishing to participate may have to purchase one of the new team entries for an open "slot" if these new (many) teams get approved by the FOA.

FOM (Bernie) wins because new teams are not intitled to % of earnings during first year.

...just my guess how this will play-out.

LukeB · Post by **LukeB** » 05 Jun 2009, 11:56

BorderReiver wrote:What worries me is that Max has this morning played the "If you lot want to breakway, just go!" card. Stupid and not worth risking. What would kill Formula One and the World Championship dead with the same certainty as a bullet to the brain, is a CART/IRL style Civil War, where FOTA claim one World Championship and the FIA another. Whatever the outcome that must me avoided at all costs.

Max is just pushing FOTA into a corner. Not much risk, there won't be a breakaway championship and everyone knows it. Even apart from the fact that the Cart/IRL split demonstrated that a split would likely cripple both prospective championships, which of the teams are likely to go with FOTAs new championship?
Toyota, BMW, and Renault are making noises about getting out of F1 sooner rather then later, what's the chances that they'll want to throw more money into the furnace by setting up a competeing championship that is likely going to fail?
Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Brawn, and Force India would benefit from being in a low-cost F1 rather then a FOTA championship with the rules dictated by huge companys with very deep pockets.
I guess we'd get a thrilling McLaren-Ferrari FOTA championship. We all win! No competition for them, no dreary ultra-professionalism-zero-personality teams for us.

Yannick · Post by **Yannick** » 05 Jun 2009, 18:17

As long as there is a path leading through the gate, I don't care what the gate is called, because when there is a path, there is a way out.

thehemogoblin · Post by **thehemogoblin** » 05 Jun 2009, 21:50

Yannick wrote:As long as there is a path leading through the gate, I don't care what the gate is called, because when there is a path, there is a way out.

-Gate

So, that'd be ALATIAPLTTGIDCWTGICBWTIAPTIAWOG?

Salamander · Post by **Salamander** » 05 Jun 2009, 22:01

thehemogoblin wrote:
Yannick wrote:As long as there is a path leading through the gate, I don't care what the gate is called, because when there is a path, there is a way out.

-Gate

So, that'd be ALATIAPLTTGIDCWTGICBWTIAPTIAWOG?

That's brilliant! :lol:

johnston21 · Post by **johnston21** » 09 Jun 2009, 22:13

LukeB wrote:Not much risk, there won't be a breakaway championship and everyone knows it.

...Don't be too sure.

This weeks episodes of the F1 Circus soap opera has the drama in "high-gear!" :mrgreen:

Fitch · Post by **Fitch** » 10 Jun 2009, 05:14

I can actually see the FIA ignoring the "Conditional" terms of the FOTA Entries and allowing certain FOTA teams in and not others.....

Which begs the Question.....What happens to FOTA if some of the teams are accepted and the others aren't??

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 10 Jun 2009, 07:37

Fitch wrote:I can actually see the FIA ignoring the "Conditional" terms of the FOTA Entries and allowing certain FOTA teams in and not others.....

Which begs the Question.....What happens to FOTA if some of the teams are accepted and the others aren't??

One of the conditions is that if one team in FOTA is accepted then all teams in FOTA are automatically accepted. It's basically all or nothing.

Alianora La Canta · Post by **Alianora La Canta** » 10 Jun 2009, 14:34

If the FIA does that it's broken its own regulations, which means that it could be sued by any team (FOTA or not) that hasn't been accepted. If the FIA forces them all down the cost-cap path, even those accepted could sue.

Yannick · Post by **Yannick** » 10 Jun 2009, 17:12

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:
thehemogoblin wrote:
Yannick wrote:As long as there is a path leading through the gate, I don't care what the gate is called, because when there is a path, there is a way out.

-Gate

So, that'd be ALATIAPLTTGIDCWTGICBWTIAPTIAWOG?

That's brilliant!

LOL! Actually, that applies to every Gate.
Anyway, are we having an acronym competition? ;-)

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 11 Jun 2009, 13:50

Le Mans in 2011 could be good --- http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76014

Nin13 · Post by **Nin13** » 11 Jun 2009, 14:20

FOTA could be in for a shock as another two members, Red Bull and Toro Rosso, have reportedly signed up unconditionally for next year's Championship.

On May 29th, FOTA handed in a block entry for next year's campaign, signed up all the teams excluding Williams who had put forward their own unconditional entry and were therefore booted out of FOTA.

Less than a week later, Force India were also suspended from FOTA after Vijay Mallya followed Williams in submitting an unconditional entry.

Now it appears FOTA have lost two other members with the British press reporting that Red Bull and their junior team, Toro Rosso, have broken ranks.

[b]'(Bernie) Ecclestone has Red Bull, Toro Rosso, plus Williams and Force India who have entered the Championship, signed until 2012,' claims the Daily Express.

Neither outfit, though, has confirmed the report.

From: http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954, ... 71,00.html

It looks like another blow to FOTA. Now I think all will make unconditional entries.

Mclaren, Brawn are next........

Toyota, BMW, Renault, Ferrari will be lost out, I think.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 12 Jun 2009, 01:53

If Brawn cross the floor, the FIA will have the current leader of both championships on its side, and they on't need the other teams as much anymore. Ferrari, yes, McLaren, probably, but the other three may find their bargaining power is no longer what it was.

BB01 · Post by **BB01** » 12 Jun 2009, 01:57

Captain Hammer wrote:If Brawn cross the floor, the FIA will have the current leader of both championships on its side, and they on't need the other teams as much anymore. Ferrari, yes, McLaren, probably, but the other three may find their bargaining power is no longer what it was.

For sure Toyota, Renault and BMW would not have much power on their own. If either McLaren or Ferrari switch sides, it would probably be a fatal blow to FOTA.

Robbie · Post by **Robbie** » 12 Jun 2009, 04:06

All I can say is that yet again politics have taken priority over racing.

I love Formula One, it was my goal when younger to be a driver someday; but oh my god, reading anything about this stupid Mosleygate makes me sick to my stomach, quite literally.

I hope the teams break away, just to show Max up.

Fitch · Post by **Fitch** » 12 Jun 2009, 04:23

Wizzie wrote:
Fitch wrote:I can actually see the FIA ignoring the "Conditional" terms of the FOTA Entries and allowing certain FOTA teams in and not others.....

Which begs the Question.....What happens to FOTA if some of the teams are accepted and the others aren't??

One of the conditions is that if one team in FOTA is accepted then all teams in FOTA are automatically accepted. It's basically all or nothing.

Yes that was the Conditions laid down by FOTA......the FIA runs Formula 1, NOT FOTA.........the FIA can accept and deny whomever they want, just because FOTA says it's all of us or none of us, means nothing...........

So we get back to my original Question...What happens when the FIA only accepts part of the FOTA Teams??

BB01 · Post by **BB01** » 12 Jun 2009, 04:36

Fitch wrote: Yes that was the Conditions laid down by FOTA......the FIA runs Formula 1, NOT FOTA.........the FIA can accept and deny whomever they want, just because FOTA says it's all of us or none of us, means nothing...........

So we get back to my original Question...What happens when the FIA only accepts part of the FOTA Teams??

They certainly can accept whoever they damn well like but they can't make the teams abide by the rules if they haven't agreed to follow them, which is what they are asking them to do by making an application.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 12 Jun 2009, 06:09

Fitch wrote:So we get back to my original Question...What happens when the FIA only accepts part of the FOTA Teams??

Are you simply not paying attenton? Or are you finding it difficult to read because all our reponses are not filled with random capitalisations and ellipses like yours? Because I'm an English major and I have serious difficulties reading your posts sometimes. I'm just wondering if it's a two-way street.

As was said, the FIA cannot take one FOTA team and ignore the others. If they attempt that, one of two things will happen: either the team that was accepted will refuse to particiapte in 2010, or the other teams will launch legal action against the FIA for violating the terms of the entry. But this won't be a problem because the FIA aren't going to pick an choose from those teams: they'll either take all of them, or take none of them. Which was kind of the point of the mass entry in the first place; FOTA don't want the FIA to try and find some middle ground.

johnston21 · Post by **johnston21** » 12 Jun 2009, 11:53

Captain Hammer wrote:Because I'm an English major...

That's not very good grammar... I didn't think a sentence was to begin with Because.

...anyway, "easy does it, it's all good."

The sneaky FIA did except all FOTA entries, but with the exception Ferrari & the 2 Red Bull Teams (being disputed by those teams themselves), the FIA has excepted the other FOTA entries as "conditional" that they drop their demands, or it gets resolved by next Friday, hence they did not treat all FOTA entries the same. "Nice lob back in to FOTA's court Max!"

Note: re: below, sp of grammar has been corrected. Even on this side of the pond, we Canadians make spelling errors too. :mrgreen:

Faustus · Post by **Faustus** » 12 Jun 2009, 12:06

johnston21 wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:Because I'm an English major...

That's not very good grammer... I didn't think a sentence was to begin with Because.

...anyway, "easy does it, it's all good."

That's not very good spelling, come to think of it. 'Grammar' not 'grammer'.

There is a so-called “rule” about never beginning or ending a sentence with a preposition and it comes from Latin grammar. In Latin grammar, the word order of a sentence didn't matter; subjects and verbs and direct objects could appear in any sequence. However, the placement of prepositions was very important. A Latin sentence would quickly become confusing if the preposition did not appear immediately before the object of the preposition, so it became a stylistic rule for Latin writers to have objects always and immediately following prepositions. This Latin grammar "rule" meant that a sentence would never begin or end with a preposition. When English grammarians in the 1500s and 1600s starting writing grammar books, they tended to apply Latin rules to English, even though those rules had never been applicable before. They wanted to make English a more scholarly language, like Latin.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 12 Jun 2009, 12:23

Faustus wrote:
johnston21 wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:Because I'm an English major...

That's not very good grammer... I didn't think a sentence was to begin with Because.

...anyway, "easy does it, it's all good."

That's not very good spelling, come to think of it. 'Grammar' not 'grammer'.

There is a so-called “rule” about never beginning or ending a sentence with a preposition and it comes from Latin grammar. In Latin grammar, the word order of a sentence didn't matter; subjects and verbs and direct objects could appear in any sequence. However, the placement of prepositions was very important. A Latin sentence would quickly become confusing if the preposition did not appear immediately before the object of the preposition, so it became a stylistic rule for Latin writers to have objects always and immediately following prepositions. This Latin grammar "rule" meant that a sentence would never begin or end with a preposition. When English grammarians in the 1500s and 1600s starting writing grammar books, they tended to apply Latin rules to English, even though those rules had never been applicable before. They wanted to make English a more scholarly language, like Latin.

Wot ??

Personly I dont care Much about gramma and spolling.

But I think we Ought to keep the Forum Polite and not start flaming people because they can't use keyboards well or write in perfect English.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 12 Jun 2009, 14:05

I was a French major and agree that good grammar and spelling make posts much easier to read but also agree with civility over the issue and so long as the posts are coherent then occasional lapses are OK.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 12 Jun 2009, 14:12

johnston21 wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:Because I'm an English major...

That's not very good grammar... I didn't think a sentence was to begin with Because.

I'm less about the grammar and more about the creative writing.

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 12 Jun 2009, 14:14

Captain Hammer wrote:
johnston21 wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:Because I'm an English major...

That's not very good grammar... I didn't think a sentence was to begin with Because.

I'm less about the grammar and more about the creative writing.

After all, you do aim to misbehave... :lol:

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 12 Jun 2009, 14:42

This whatever-gate is SO interesting, we have to resort to mild flaming just to keep the thread going... :mrgreen:

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 12 Jun 2009, 16:26

You mean we just hurl random abuse at each other, until by some miracle the boring-gate dispute resolves. What, behave like team principals !

OK.

@*#*#!*ck's to the lot of you .

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 12 Jun 2009, 16:35

Ross Prawn wrote:You mean we just hurl random abuse at each other, until by some miracle the boring-gate dispute resolves. What, behave like team principals !

OK.

@*#*#!*ck's to the lot of you .

Thanks Ross. I believe that you can never have too much @*#*#!*ck's. Always keen to have more.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 12 Jun 2009, 16:46

dr-baker wrote:
Ross Prawn wrote:You mean we just hurl random abuse at each other, until by some miracle the boring-gate dispute resolves. What, behave like team principals !

OK.

@*#*#!*ck's to the lot of you .

Thanks Ross. I believe that you can never have too much @*#*#!*ck's. Always keen to have more.

Now, for the first time ever, we are in perfect synchro with the world of F1. We're even using Patrick Headisms! :lol:

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 16 Jun 2009, 22:07

Actually '@*#*#!*ck's to the lot of you' is a fair summary of Max's FIA press release today.

An extremely depressing document it is made up in equal parts of:-

- An interesting and rational analysis of the mess F1 has got itself into with the gap between rich and poor teams.

- A dalek like 'resistance is futile' philosophy. Anyone who does not subscribe to the FIA's plan is an idiot to be exterminated.

- A thorough explanation of why Luca de Montezumolo is the Antichrist, set on the destruction of F1 and the whole of western civilisation.

- More general ranting and slagging people off.

The basic conclusion I took from it is that the FIA and FOTA have now both thrown all of their toys out of the pram. The agenda now is to blame the other side for the upcoming disaster, rather than try to avoid the disaster itself.

Depressing

TomWazzleshaw · Post by **TomWazzleshaw** » 17 Jun 2009, 06:12

And I say no more except Bruno speaks the truth yet again.

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 17 Jun 2009, 06:58

Ross Prawn wrote:- A dalek like 'resistance is futile' philosophy.

That was the borg, not the daleks.

God, I'm a geek.

Ross Prawn · Post by **Ross Prawn** » 17 Jun 2009, 14:34

Captain Hammer wrote:
Ross Prawn wrote:- A dalek like 'resistance is futile' philosophy.
That was the borg, not the daleks.

God, I'm a geek.

Ok the borg then. I did wonder at the time.

Although the daleks, cybermen and vogons have all been heard to utter similar sentiments. Does raise the question of which power crazed race of intergalatic viliians most resembles the FIA.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 17 Jun 2009, 15:16

Ross Prawn wrote:
Captain Hammer wrote:
Ross Prawn wrote:- A dalek like 'resistance is futile' philosophy.
That was the borg, not the daleks.

God, I'm a geek.

Ok the borg then. I did wonder at the time.

Although the daleks, cybermen and vogons have all been heard to utter similar sentiments. Does raise the question of which power crazed race of intergalatic viliians most resembles the FIA.

What, in the name of the holy pneumatic valve, are you people on about? I could google it, but I'm afraid it might be contagious. :lol:

DonTirri · Post by **DonTirri** » 17 Jun 2009, 15:19

Wizzie wrote:
And I say no more except Bruno speaks the truth yet again.

Awesome pic

Tho it has one flaw: Brawn, i.e Button and Barrichello are siding with FOTA not FIA

Captain Hammer · Post by **Captain Hammer** » 18 Jun 2009, 05:11

CarlosFerreira wrote:What, in the name of the holy pneumatic valve, are you people on about? I could google it, but I'm afraid it might be contagious.

The daleks are recurring villains in DOCTOR WHO. The borg are recurring villains in STAR TREK. I don't know who the cybermen or vogons are; I don't watch either show - I like my science fiction to be of the Joss Whedon variety - but popular culture is ingrained in my personality and I shoot off referenes left, right and centre.

CarlosFerreira · Post by **CarlosFerreira** » 18 Jun 2009, 08:40

Captain Hammer wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:What, in the name of the holy pneumatic valve, are you people on about? I could google it, but I'm afraid it might be contagious.

The daleks are recurring villains in DOCTOR WHO. The borg are recurring villains in STAR TREK. I don't know who the cybermen or vogons are; I don't watch either show - I like my science fiction to be of the Joss Whedon variety - but popular culture is ingrained in my personality and I shoot off referenes left, right and centre.

Oh, if you try Discworld, I might keep up. But I've never seen an episode of Doctor Who and Star Trek is strictly off-limits. :roll:

dr-baker · Post by **dr-baker** » 18 Jun 2009, 12:00

Captain Hammer wrote:
CarlosFerreira wrote:What, in the name of the holy pneumatic valve, are you people on about? I could google it, but I'm afraid it might be contagious.

The daleks are recurring villains in DOCTOR WHO. The borg are recurring villains in STAR TREK. I don't know who the cybermen or vogons are; I don't watch either show - I like my science fiction to be of the Joss Whedon variety - but popular culture is ingrained in my personality and I shoot off referenes left, right and centre.

Cybermen are recurring villans in Doctor Who as well. Vogons? No idea. May as well be aliens from another world for all I know...