Breakaway series is go!

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

23rd June 2009, 13:00
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

I wasn't whining mate, just airing my thoughts that I thought were valid...

Sorry, it did sound like a bit of whining to me. My apologies if it wasn't.
23rd June 2009, 13:01
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Agreeing the regulations may be a bit more long winded but with agreement from all parties, could be done.

I think they are going to keep the 2009 regulations for some time in order to have some real cost cutting for once.
23rd June 2009, 13:03
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by henners88

The only problem I can see is the fact that the majority of F1 fans are based in Europe as a core figure. You may get good races in these venues but with poor turn-outs in the US combined with races at lonely tracks in South America, I think it will be harder to achieve the quality we are used to.. I was personally pleased to see the back of Fuji and Indy so that would not appeal to me one bit.

Allow me to quote myself from the very post you were answering:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

All the current European F1 tracks are free to host any racing series they want!

They need to have races outside of Europe too, because the series needs to be a world series in order to properly rival the maxie formula, and to give them a chance to crush it properly.
And ofcourse they are willing to get a world wide exposure for the involved manufacturers!

And even more important, there are at least as many fans outside of Europe as there are in Europe.
23rd June 2009, 13:05
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Maybe I'll have to post it another hundred times before it sinks in:

All the current European F1 tracks are free to host any racing series they want! Thank you EU Commission for making this possible! :)

I think you will have to continue posting then because I'm not sure you are correct.

If I was Bernie, I would give a contract that stipulated they wouldn't run a direct competitor series.

As there wasn't one, it's a no brainer to sign but if it were me, I would have that clause in to protect myself from this scenario.

It's got nothing to do with the EU.
23rd June 2009, 13:08
Mark

I think that leaked schedule is just made up by some random person. It seems to change depending on what site you look at.

Having said that it does make some sense, apart from having two races in Australia?
23rd June 2009, 13:11
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knock-on

I think you will have to continue posting then because I'm not sure you are correct.

If I was Bernie, I would give a contract that stipulated they wouldn't run a direct competitor series.

As there wasn't one, it's a no brainer to sign but if it were me, I would have that clause in to protect myself from this scenario.

It's got nothing to do with the EU.

That's exactly what Bernie tried but, a couple of years ago there was a little problem with an American series wishing to run on a European tack and being hurt by Bernie's exclusivity contracts. So they turned to the EU Commission who swiftly ruled that Bernie's contracts are illegal under the European laws and they asked him to amend all his contracts with EU based tracks, which he swiftly did because he was not going to pay billions in fines.

PS: You can try having such clauses if you wish, but be advised you will have to empty your bank account once they get to you. Microsoft and Intel already experienced it on their own back.
23rd June 2009, 13:14
Mark

Ioan is right. You can put whatever you like in contracts; but if that particular clause is against the law it means absolutely nothing!
23rd June 2009, 13:19
Knock-on

I would be interested to see a link there ioan.

As for MS and Intel, theirs was slightly different. Both companies were guilty of anti-competition practices in a free market.

There is no monopoly in a race series awarding a track a contract to run an event for xxx years as long as they don't run a series that would jepodise the arrangement. I have a national agreement in the UK with a global email archiving company that says they will not appoint another reseller for a set period. This is similar to what we are discussing and perfectly legal.
23rd June 2009, 13:19
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Ioan is right. You can put whatever you like in contracts; but if that particular clause is against the law it means absolutely nothing!

I don't think it is and would like to see this link.
23rd June 2009, 13:20
markabilly

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

That's exactly what Bernie tried but, a couple of years ago there was a little problem with an American series wishing to run on a European tack and being hurt by Bernie's exclusivity contracts. So they turned to the EU Commission who swiftly ruled that Bernie's contracts are illegal under the European laws and they asked him to amend all his contracts with EU based tracks, which he swiftly did because he was not going to pay billions in fines.

PS: You can try having such clauses if you wish, but be advised you will have to empty your bank account once they get to you. Microsoft and Intel already experienced it on their own back.

and is just another reason the little beggar crawled to china and other such places

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page