Mercedes GP - Inauguration and 1st season

[segedunum]

Brawn GP had more money flowing into its coffers last year than Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Renault yet it didn't have a car manufacturer or a billionaire backing it. Remarkably, Brawn had even higher revenue last year than in 2008 when it was fully owned by Honda...

That's 'case closed' for all of those who were telling us that poor Brawn had no money and no resources for this year's car.........

That soup-to-mouth image they tried to cultivate last year was a total load of bollocks to mask the payments they were giving to themselves. That's what the staff cuts were really for, and it's doubtful they were ever critical to the development of the car. All that talk of Jenson Button going economy class was tosh as well. Jenson got £10 million as a settlement from Honda and the team.

I was intrigued by the attitude that Ross Brawn gave off in a couple of BBC interviews, as if to say "We'll try for next year but if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen". I now know why. He sees the team as Mercedes's problem now and I doubt whether he gives a stuff anymore. He'll then fleece Mercedes as he did Honda if the krauts then decide to sell up.

I never thought of Ross as much of a wheeler dealer, but I see him in a different light now.........

[zeph]

Brawn GP had more money flowing into its coffers last year than Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren and Renault yet it didn't have a car manufacturer or a billionaire backing it. Remarkably, Brawn had even higher revenue last year than in 2008 when it was fully owned by Honda...

That's 'case closed' for all of those who were telling us that poor Brawn had no money and no resources for this year's car.........

And case closed for those saying that Mercedes was secretly backing BrawnGP long before they announced the deal....

[xpensive]

What a preposterous horse-story, 101.4 MGBP unaccounted for, with the "clearest indication", they would come from FOM?

- MrE paid 100 MGBP to a new team which wasn't even allowed TV-money as they were considered in their first year?

- 92.6 MGBP from Honda was the same as would have been spent on redundancies, but it was ok for the new owners to drop 250 cost-free. So Honda gave their investment away with a cheque to go with it, shrewd businessmen in Japan, eh?

- 93.2 MGBP in the bank by the end of the year, why they sold the team to Daimler for less than that? Yeah right...

If all of the above was true, why didn't Honda just pass the team on to Aguri Suzuki, saving money as well as face?

[segedunum]

And case closed for those saying that Mercedes was secretly backing BrawnGP long before they announced the deal....

Errrrr, no, because we still don't know where that money actually came from.

The justifications in the article about how this miraculously appeared when other teams didn't have that kind of cash are a little thin. We still also don't know why Honda paid out 100 million. The article says that it was either that or pay to wind up the team, but 100 million sounds like rather a lot - especially when the team was also apparently getting money from elsewhere and cutting some staff as well. We don't know where that 'elsewhere' was - yet. The FOM money thing just sounds like speculation because they don't have any idea.

The whole thing smells more fishy than it ever did.

[zeph]

Errrrr, no, because we still don't know where that money actually came from.

source: http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_ ... t_id=42149

Thanks for the link, Andrew.

And here's a little Q&A with Ross Brawn himself:

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 11324.html

[segedunum]

Do you not understand or something, or can you just not read?

Yes, we know what the article says and we read it. The article's supposition as to this being FOM money is pure speculation because they can't explain it any other way. They have no evidence for what they are proposing and especially not how Brawn ended up with more than any other team - as a new team when the team that was Honda had ceased. xpensive highlighted the 'clearest indication' part.

The Q and A with Ross Brawn explains nothing. No only does he not explain this discrepancy in there so it's useless anyway, but he's also the wrong person to be getting information from. He merely re-paints this whole poor Brawn, soup-to-mouth image.

[zeph]

Do you not understand or something, or can you just not read?

Once again, I am going to try to not be offended by your demeanor.

I read the whole piece and it was clear to me. If it is not to you, I can't help you there.
I hereby invite you to provide data that backs up your claims.

I knew beforehand that the Brawn Q&A would be dismissed by you as meaningless, I put it there for the benefit of others who may be more open-minded than you.
Don't bother to reply, Seg, lest we engage in another back-and-forth. I know your POV, and feel no need to change your mind.

[segedunum]

I read the whole piece and it was clear to me. If it is not to you, I can't help you there.

It's clear to you because you want to believe what it says verbatim, but unfortunately what you quoted was what they themselves thought from an accounting entry. It's speculation with nothing to back it up. You might have picked this up had you been reading about dodgy and vague accounting practices around here. Read from the article:

"The clearest indication of who the biggest of those 'other sources' might be comes from the following line in the accounts."

That's before we've even touched on how on Earth Brawn got hold of that money, if we were to suppose it is FOM money, nor how they got more than any other team.

I hereby invite you to provide data that backs up your claims.

So you assume the article is fact without actually understanding what it actually says, and you want others to then debunk what you believe to be true?

I knew beforehand that the Brawn Q&A would be dismissed by you as meaningless, I put it there for the benefit of others who may be more open-minded than you.

It's an article that paints the picture of a poor Brawn last year, and when the messenger also writes the message it's hardly impartial and makes it meaningless. You and JET do that constantly in this thread but don't seem to get why it's a logical fallacy that backs up nothing.

You imply that the article backs up the former by putting the two together but don't explain how or why. Apparently, when Ross Brawn opens his mouth it's fact and it can't be questioned. JET actually seemed quite shocked that this isn't how the world works. It's only of benefit to others if they simply believe anything one person says.

But, we've been here before....................

[segedunum]

The sarcastic tone of some of the questions was quite amusing in that formula1.com article. This also gave me an out loud chuckle:

Q: So Bridgestone is to blame for Schumacher’s failed comeback?

RB: Of course not - and Nico is a fantastic driver and a real benchmark, aside from the fact that Michael found it difficult to adjust to these tyres. Next year we expect the Pirelli tyres will work better for Michael’s driving style and only then will we know if Nico really is quicker than Michael.

Things are not good..........

[aral]

The sarcastic tone of some of the questions was quite amusing in that formula1.com article. This also gave me an out loud chuckle:

Q: So Bridgestone is to blame for Schumacher’s failed comeback?

RB: Of course not - and Nico is a fantastic driver and a real benchmark, aside from the fact that Michael found it difficult to adjust to these tyres. Next year we expect the Pirelli tyres will work better for Michael’s driving style and only then will we know if Nico really is quicker than Michael.

Things are not good..........

I like the comment that Brawn "expects the Pirelli tyres to work better for Michael's driving style". does this mean that Pirelli are designing a tyre at Brawns request, and one that will therefore hamper all other drivers who do not drive like Michael.? Surely an experienced driver like Michael, should be able to drive with whatever equipment he is provided, and not need a specific trait in a tyre?

[andrew]

I think it means that Merv are looking to take advantage of the levelled playing field cause by the new tyres being a bit of an unkown factor. Are the tyres next year being designed to make the cars slide more as that would suit Schumachers style more?

There is also the standardised weight distribution which will make the cars a bit tail happy which should also suit Schumachers style.

[strad]

Ahhhh It's the tires,,,not the car...hahahaha

Mercedes GP team boss Ross Brawn is adamant that Michael Schumacher's talent has not diminished at all during his time away from Formula 1, and that it is only a lack of harmony with this year's tires that is holding the German legend back.

Schumacher's lack of success so far in his comeback has been one of the biggest stories of the 2010 season. The seven-time champion has been outpaced by his Mercedes teammate Nico Rosberg and has only finished in the top six on three occasions. This has led to suggestions that Schumacher's abilities faded in the three years between his original retirement and his return to the track, but Brawn thinks the true picture is being masked by the Mercedes' shortcomings and the Bridgestones' quirks.

"If you take the telemetry data in fast corners or his reaction time when the car breaks away, I don't see any difference [to before his retirement]. There he's still the old Michael," Brawn told F1.com. "But in the slow corners he cannot make full use of the tires as Nico can. Nico has put the bar very high in this respect. But I guess that's OK for Michael, as he clearly sees where he has to improve. I predict that in 2011 we will again see the true Michael – when we've delivered him a better car."

He reiterated his belief that it is mainly discomfort with the current front tire characteristics that is hampering Schumacher.

"Michael's driving style depends on a strong front tire that can withstand his hard braking and the steering maneuvers that he prefers," Brawn explained. "Nico has simply understood better how to handle these front tires.

"I have to say that this year's front tire is very uncommon. That stems from the fact that the FIA wanted to promote KERS and had asked Bridgestone to develop tires that would fit a certain weight distribution and thus create a specific tire characteristic."

Brawn admitted, however, that if anyone else was under-performing to the extent that Schumacher is this season, they would probably lose their drive.

"To be honest, probably not," Brawn replied when asked if Schumacher would have been retained on the basis of his 2010 form if he did not have such an incredible reputation. "But because we know Michael, we know that there is still a lot to come, because Michael is in many fields more talented than others – in driving and in the cooperation with the team. The team is very happy with the way Michael is contributing.

"If he were a rookie we surely would have asked ourselves if he has the capacity to advance. With Michael we know that he has."

He added that the only difference he could see in Schumacher since his comeback was that the German was handling adversity better.

"He has become more relaxed," said Brawn. "Five years ago he would have found it terribly difficult to handle such a situation. He's much cooler and much more mature – and that doesn't mean that he is less ambitious or committed. I am really impressed with how calm he stays."

[zeph]

I hereby invite you to provide data that backs up your claims.

So you assume the article is fact without actually understanding what it actually says, and you want others to then debunk what you believe to be true?

So you've got nothing, then...

:-"

[segedunum]

So you've got nothing, then...

Already been done sunshine. It was done above what you quoted. You know, the large bits that you simply left out? I know you tried not to get insulted by me implying that you couldn't read, but......

But, you obviously don't want to see it. You've merely assumed that what the article came up with to explain the discrepancy was fact, but it's merely some speculation on their part that you conveniently didn't bother to read - the part that I quoted.

Feel free to assume and think what you like, but if you're going to post inaccurate nonsense, try and pass off something that appears to say what you want as fact when it doesn't and post articles to try and back something up that are completely unrelated (the Ross Brawn Q and A) then you're going to be called out on it.

What was that stupid Ross Brawn article about by the way, apart from giving us a laugh, and how does it back up the Pitpass one?

[xpensive]

The bottom line for me is that when Mercedes bought "Brawn" by the end of 2009, the team already had some
100 MGBP of cash in the bank, obviously still unaccounted for. Why would they sell out for any less than that?