Daniel Carlsson exluded for the rest of 2007

[JAM]

You fail to see the point. It is not the rules that are the problem. It is the cost of competing in WRC. Remove the rule, it would have been still too expensive for some privateer drivers to compete. The FIA changing the rule will not bring Galli, Duval & the others back, when they do not have the money. If they do find a backer, then they have every chance open to them to enter however many rounds they can afford to do.

Moves are being made to shake up the costs for a WRC drive. It could from the outlook, allows for many more people to run at the top level. However, as WRC will continue to be the top level of rallying, it will still be more expensive than what some people can afford. There will always be the haves & the have nots.

If a M2/MT drive costs $X today, lowering the cost of WRC as a whole will mean that M2/MT drive will cost Y% lower. Cheaper & more affordable.

Carlsson could hypothetically then have competed all 6 or7 drives for the cost of the three he did this year?? It is a case of watch this space.

Hopefully in the not too distant future, the cost per rally at WRC will reduce & make it more affordable. That way more people can compete, either as full privateers or at the M2/MT level on the way up to works drives.

I agree with you that the costs are the problem. But if the so talked cost reduction don't come to light, then there are some moves that could be done to have more teams interested on the championship points. What i don´t like to see is a championship points table with 6 names, gives the idea of a failled champioship, as it really is.

I have no idea what the deal was for Kronos, none of us will know for certain & there will be differing sides to the tale if it ever is told. As for the parts issue or not, it is a common gripe between works & satellite teams. It may be the truth or just a scape goat. Who knows? It is too easy to over speculate.

It does not change the fact that his funding dried up & that is that. If there was outside influence, then that is a civil matter for Daniel to handle. It does not change the fact he was still bound to the commitment he made.

The banishment rule was designed to stop flash-in-the-pan pay drivers from creating a mess. Making promises that they can not fulfil. The sport is full of the debri that this bad behaviour has caused in the past.

I know that in motorsport we had a lot of drivers without money but full of promises that don't confirm. I don't think that Carlsson is one of that examples. That's why i'm compreensive in Carlsson's case and think that it was a suspension very hard. We have a lot of drivers that only started the rally and retired before SS1 and FIA didn't suspended him.

Motorsport is tough and is not a charity field, but when the championship is falling down, some flexibility to not create dificultes to the ones that are there could be a good strategy. Thats my idea. I like to see flexibility to try to run at the same level as the dificulties, but i don't like rules created as if the competitions would be full of health, when in fact they are not.

[swordsman]

Either that or he did a lousy contract with his sponsor about the commitment to fund his WRC adventure in 2007.

Contract with a sponsor? Hehe... It seems you are not really deep into the business In my world it's very uncommon with signed sponsor contracts.

[DonJippo]

Contract with a sponsor? Hehe... It seems you are not really deep into the business In my world it's very uncommon with signed sponsor contracts.

No wonder he ran out of money...