- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
=D>Ciro Pabón wrote:Some posts were removed.
xpensive wrote:Perhaps you misunderstand Rod, sometimes you can be that happy just see you own posts go away.
just ask goony! 
WhiteBlue wrote:Although the criticism is completely off topic in this thread I will briefly comment on it. You can transfer it to the thread where it belongs if you care to keep the discussion of the issue coherent.Ciro Pabón wrote:BTW, I agree with some members on the idea that invoking a "secret" report to give credibility to my posts will not give them any credibility, but, hey, that's me again.
The "secret" resource restriction agreement (RRA) is not a report, it is part of the Concord Agreement that runs to 2012. It is absolutely vital to the future running of F1 and that is why it is relevant to people working in F1 and to fans. It was at the core of the break away discussion in summer and only by finding a compromise for resource restrictions has the break away been avoided eventually. Without some resource restriction F1 would find it increasingly difficult to attract private teams to fill the grid which has been emptied of high budget manufacturer teams lately.
The interest in resource restriction is particularly true for engineers because their employment opportunities and conditions will be shaped by that agreement for the foreseeable time.
I did not invoke a secret report to give credibility to my posts. I quoted an industry participant who shed some light on the details of an agreement that undisputably exists. Are you saying that Norbert Haug or Ross Brawn lie when they refer to the RRA? Please read the following quotes that explicitly refer to the RRA.
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=47431
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=352300Haug is confident that with the carmaker now set to benefit from a share of commercial revenues, and the effects of the resource restriction plans agreed between teams from 2010, its target will be achievable.
“We have much, much better circumstances these days in Formula 1. A team gets more money from the commercial rights holder, there is a new agreement in place obviously, so this limits the spend of the teams and we will spend much less money than we used to do in the past.
I hope these quotations make it clear that an RRA does in fact exist. Before you make such unfounded and uninformed criticism as above you better read what was posted in the other thread. I think that you will have to make some corrections to your above post if you do.Brawn Grand Prix offers an altogether different explanation: "The background to this decision are the new terms and conditions for Formula 1. The 'Resource Restrictions' (the new name for Max Mosley's budget cap) set by FOTA and FIA effectively limit expenditure for the design, construction and running of the racing cars. In addition, there will be a significantly higher income available for a Formula 1 team generated by the commercial rights of the racing series following the signing of the new Concorde Agreement."
I agree that this is actually the best explanation why the teams made this a non issue in their official PR. Brawn and Haug had some explanation to do why the switch from McLaren to Brawn and from share holder to works team would be beneficial. In that situation they found it necessary to mention the effects of the RRA.Fil wrote:
i do wonder why the FOTA-organised resource restriction agreement is, in fact, still secret.
There was speculation that one of the sticking points of the defunct $40m budget cap was that sponsors would demand cheaper rates.
The idea was that due to the cost of F1 coming down, the exclusivity attached to F1 would be cheapened in image, hence a cry for equivalent lower sponsorship packages. This would result in the same problems as now, just at a lower price bracket, not to mention the damage to F1's image.
I wonder whether this is part of the reason for the secrecy again..?
It is secret because FOTA doesnt want to let the fans see how they are being shafted and how much of a better plan the FIA budget cap was.Fil wrote:i do wonder why the FOTA-organised resource restriction agreement is, in fact, still secret.
There was speculation that one of the sticking points of the defunct $40m budget cap was that sponsors would demand cheaper rates.
The idea was that due to the cost of F1 coming down, the exclusivity attached to F1 would be cheapened in image, hence a cry for equivalent lower sponsorship packages. This would result in the same problems as now, just at a lower price bracket, not to mention the damage to F1's image.
I wonder whether this is part of the reason for the secrecy again..?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80518The second reason was that I wanted to buy into a team with a lot of know-how, with a good infrastructure and the capability of coping with the new resource restrictions agreement. Williams has been operating with a significantly smaller budget to the manufacturers for some years.
I believe the issue is more about the existence of a headcount limit in said agreement. The idea is inconceivable for some of our members who tend to prefer a more robust all out approach to competing. A sport that works under resource restrictions can prevent rich teams with high resources to use aquired wealth as an element of keeping superiority and keep the small new teams out of competitive positions forever. This reflects Montezemolo's school of thought which prefers third cars to new independent teams with low resources and more drivers.ISLAMATRON wrote:I really dont know what all the fuss was about on this forum but I thought the Resource restriction agreement was pretty much common knowledge.
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/ James Allan confirming that a resource restriction agreement is in effect.On June 11, we had yet another meeting with FOTA. This time we agreed everything except the mechanism for the cost cap. But even here, we agreed that the target figures of their and our cost cap (or "resource restriction", as they preferred to call it) were virtually the same. We agreed to put our respective financial experts together to agree the methodology.
We understood Ferrari's reluctance to publish figures but we saw no real difficulty because all the detail of the FIA method for checking and enforcing the cost cap had been worked out with the team chief executives in a series of meetings in the first half of 2008, with only Ferrari dissenting. We were also happy for the teams' own auditors to certify compliance, with outside auditors involved only if there was genuine suspicion of cheating.
These sentiments were echoed by Richard Branson and the Virgin team today at their launch. The Resource Restriction Agreement has changed everything in F1.
xpensive wrote:I think the propsition to keep a team's headcount in check from the outside is simply preposterous, anyone who ever ran a business would perhaps agree with me. How about a limitation on working hours, temps, trainees, students, consultants, volonteers and coffe-breaks?
xpensive wrote:All this talk of headcounts is just crap by people who never even been close to run a business Chap, when anyone who actually has knows it can never ever be policed.
xpensive wrote:No they have not, there is no headcount agreement, when everyone involved knows it's neither useful nor enforceable.
http://www.paddocktalk.com/news/html/mo ... =8&catid=0xpensive wrote:Again, a headcount limit of an F1 team's employees will never happen, for the simple reason that everybody involved knows that it would be completely useless as well as unenforceable.
Clocking people going in and out of a team's premises would possibly been of value in the 60s or 70s, when you designed and manufactured every bolt and nut yourself, but today it would be simply stupid.
This concept was probably dreamed up by someone with --- for engineering xperience, like MrM or one from F1T perhaps.
It appears that Montezemolo proposes a crap idea, expensive? So has he never been close to run a business?Luca di Montezemolo wrote:Instead of that, and the budget cap, there should be a limit on "the number of people (staff) and the number of working hours, and within these limits everyone can do what they want", added Montezemolo.
This would put the 2011 headcount cap at 330 which isn't that far away from the 280 that Birrane has mentioned. The evidence is building up.The Wall Street Journal wrote:To rein in the sport'ssky-rocketing costs, Formula 1 recently installed spending caps, restricting test driving and the number of engines and gearboxes teams can build. Teams that employed as many as 1,000 staff in more freewheeling days will be allowed roughly a third of that by the end of next year. As a result, Daimler anticipates its participation in Formula 1 could soon cost the company less than €60 million ($85.5 million) a year, or a quarter of its Formula 1 budget in earlier days.
I believe that Anne actually got the 180 figure wrong. It is more likely to be the 280 mentioned by Birrane.Anne Proffit wrote:The new, limited resource F1 is playing into the hands of the USF1 Team quite nicely. With a total personnel limit of 180 and trackside liaisons confined to 45 people, Anderson and Windsor can hire the best to fit their parameters.