Exactly what has Ferrari and Red Bull signed up to?

Printable View

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

22nd June 2009, 22:29
Sleeper

I wonder, are Ferrari one of those teams that are apparently owed money buy FOM/CVC dating back as far as 2006? If thats the case then things will get very murky.

And as for the French court ruling earlier in the year, the French courts have always ruled in the FIA's favour because they see it as an internal matter for them and dont want to get remotely involved. As such it shouldnt really be seen as a precedent, particularly when this is likely to go to the European Courts.
23rd June 2009, 07:13
Koz

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

But they can't claim money as they didn't lose any.

Are you retarded?

Do you know what a NPO is?
It doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It only means that the PROFIT they make does not go into the pockets of the shareholders, but rather back into themselves. Ie, FIA makes a profit, and uses that money to help out F1, do road safety programmes, pay Max and his cornies.

NPO is like the government, they can make money but it has to be put back into the government... Like Police spend 100million per year on all policing work, but speeding fines make them 200million, so they do make a profit... You see where I am going with this? If you don't I'll come beat some sense into you with my boot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstillhere

Yeah, but they don't have to win any race by contract. I think there is no argument over that. So, they could just show up with some kind of a red car do one lap and retire (pretty much like this year).

So, if getting out their contract would be way too expensive, as somebody else said, Bernie can only force Ferrari to show up but that's pretty much ALL Ferrari will have to do.

That may or may not be true. I doubt it is.

Do you think Max, Bernie, the FIA or FOM are 8 year old kids?
Do you think they would have a contract saying "Teams must participate in every race." ?
They will have hundreds if not thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of pages of references, definitions, etc etc.

Law is not like Alley McBeal, it's serious, considering the billions involved you can bet it's about as serious as it gets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

Even after Max publicly stated that F1 doesn't need Ferrari?!
Talk about shooting himself in both feet.

Well, if it said it, it must be the case. I am sure some smarty pants lawyer could turn that into a binding oral contract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

It looks to me that Bernie is lost in this war. The events just went by to fast and I think he is relying totally on Max to clean up the mess, and his comments yesterday were pointing exactly to that.

He is being smart and staying silent, I am sure he has some cards up his sleeve.
In a worst case scenario, he has most to gain from this, because it will be he who sues everyone for lost revenue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by airshifter

The FIA would need fairly iron clad contracts to be able to recoup money from the teams. If it came to that point the teams could dummy up a team and call it their F1 team and race.

You're including a lot of big "ifs" for contracts we haven't seen the details of. I'm sure every team consulted with their legal teams before taking the actions they did. Considering the strength of FOTA I wouldn't say Max would have the upper hand, they have a lot of financial strength behind them.

Before anything else, you have to remember who Mister Max is. First and foremost he is a lawyer. And he has done what the FOTA are trying to do, don't you think he would have made sure what he has don't in the past can't be repeated against himself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by airshifter

It would be very difficult to prove future revenues of the series if none of this had taken place. Even then FOTA could put the issues back into the lap of the FIA, as it was rules changes that caused the entire issue to begin with.

They could predict revenue based on the last few seasons, but this would be harder now because of next year's budget caps.
23rd June 2009, 10:03
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by tamburello

And I repeat, I am not talking about FOTA teams, just the ones allegedly with an FIA contract until 2012.

Totally correct but Max was talking of sueing FOTA on telly.

I agree with you that he has recourse with a small number of teams. I think these are Ferrari, FI and Williams.

Now, I am relying on memory here but I thought there had to be a particular number of cars competing to hold a legitimate series. Even if everyone run 3 cars that would only be 9 at the moment.

Would FI be in a position to run 3 cars?

I think that if The Premier Series goes ahead, Ferrari will be able to wriggle out of the FIA contract because the series would be worthless.
23rd June 2009, 12:35
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koz

Do you know what a NPO is?
It doesn't mean they don't make a profit. It only means that the PROFIT they make does not go into the pockets of the shareholders, but rather back into themselves. Ie, FIA makes a profit, and uses that money to help out F1, do road safety programmes, pay Max and his cornies.

NPO is like the government, they can make money but it has to be put back into the government... Like Police spend 100million per year on all policing work, but speeding fines make them 200million, so they do make a profit... You see where I am going with this? If you don't I'll come beat some sense into you with my boot.

That may or may not be true. I doubt it is.

Do you think Max, Bernie, the FIA or FOM are 8 year old kids?
Do you think they would have a contract saying "Teams must participate in every race." ?
They will have hundreds if not thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of pages of references, definitions, etc etc.

Law is not like Alley McBeal, it's serious, considering the billions involved you can bet it's about as serious as it gets.

Well, if it said it, it must be the case. I am sure some smarty pants lawyer could turn that into a binding oral contract.

He is being smart and staying silent, I am sure he has some cards up his sleeve.
In a worst case scenario, he has most to gain from this, because it will be he who sues everyone for lost revenue.

Before anything else, you have to remember who Mister Max is. First and foremost he is a lawyer. And he has done what the FOTA are trying to do, don't you think he would have made sure what he has don't in the past can't be repeated against himself?

They could predict revenue based on the last few seasons, but this would be harder now because of next year's budget caps.

What a load of BS and rear side kissing. :rolleyes:
Reality check: Max isn't God and Bernie isn't St. Peter.
23rd June 2009, 12:52
pino

Guys let's watch the language and quit insults..thank you !
23rd June 2009, 13:21
Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Totally correct but Max was talking of sueing FOTA on telly.

I agree with you that he has recourse with a small number of teams. I think these are Ferrari, FI and Williams.

Now, I am relying on memory here but I thought there had to be a particular number of cars competing to hold a legitimate series. Even if everyone run 3 cars that would only be 9 at the moment.

Would FI be in a position to run 3 cars?

I think that if The Premier Series goes ahead, Ferrari will be able to wriggle out of the FIA contract because the series would be worthless.

I remember in the dying days of CART they had TV contracts which stated that a certain number of cars needed to take part, otherwise the contract will be null and void.

And I think you are right that under FIA terms to have a 'championship' rather than a 'cup' you need a certain number of regular competing cars, but I'm not sure what that number is, or if it is still relevant.
23rd June 2009, 13:38
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I remember in the dying days of CART they had TV contracts which stated that a certain number of cars needed to take part, otherwise the contract will be null and void.

And I think you are right that under FIA terms to have a 'championship' rather than a 'cup' you need a certain number of regular competing cars, but I'm not sure what that number is, or if it is still relevant.

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.
23rd June 2009, 15:17
Knock-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.

It may well be 16. Sounds familiar.

Will we get the FIA bribing teams to compete just to run a rag tag championship.

If so, Team Knockon will be fielding a Super7 running a Ford 2.0l pinto block and sponsored by Stella Artois

Let me at them Ferraris :D
23rd June 2009, 15:52
AndyL

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Will we get the FIA bribing teams to compete just to run a rag tag championship.

If so, Team Knockon will be fielding a Super7 running a Ford 2.0l pinto block and sponsored by Stella Artois

Let me at them Ferraris :D

I think the EuroBOSS series has been having some troubles, maybe they can pick up some cars and teams there ;)
23rd June 2009, 16:10
christophulus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

It was being mentioned last year after SAF1 went tits up that they need 16 cars on the grid in order to fulfill their commitments to the TV companies. I'm not sure they can force the teams to field 3 cars though.

All I can find is:

Quote:

5.7 An Event may be cancelled if fewer than 12 cars are available for it.

http://www.fia.com/EN-GB/SPORT/REGUL...mpionship.aspx

So Williams, FI, the three newbies.. Max would only need to add Prodrive and away we go! :(

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