About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[WhiteBlue]

I call 26 years of exclusive licensing a massive precedent for the ability of the FiA to exclude teams. Take for instance the case of Prodrive. The FiA intended to license them for 2008 although Prodrive's intention was not to comply with the Concord agreement constructor requirement. A legally binding concord agreement was in force between Williams, Ferrari, Red Bull, FOM and the FiA. Williams forced the FiA to honor the contract by threatening to sue at the British High court. The FiA had to back track and revoked the license they had promised to Prodrive. It is a clear precedent that private contracts can lead to an exclusion from the championship. Prodrive were excluded because they did not comply with the constructor requirement. A team in violation of the RRA can be easily excluded as well. The FiA sporting code: §151c) Any fraudulent conduct or any act prejudicial to the interests of any competition or to the interests of motor sport generally. Cheating with the RRA can easily be understood as fraudulent conduct.

[WhiteBlue]

All the tech and sporting rules from 1982 to 1998 had an exclusion clause which required all participants in the FiA F1 world championship to be signatories to the Concord Agreement and keep to the provisions of that contract. It means that any applicant who failed the criteria of the concord like for instance the constructor principle could automatically be disqualified.

Again, how did Tyrrell, Williams and McLaren participated in 1997 season without signing the Concorde?

Exclusion is an option which obviously wasn't exercised. The teams who did not sign the 1997 Concord were temporarily excluded from the F1Commission and from the money distribution by Ecclestone. They were later compensated when all debated issues were settled in 2005/2006. FOM and FiA had no immediate interest to ban the 1997 non signatories although the FiA would have had the power to do so.

[Pingguest]

The RRA is legally binding, as any other signed contract. The penalties for breaching the rules stated in the RRA and thus actually breaching the contract, can be enforced. However, the kind of penalties imposed determine the practical enforcement possibilities.

[andrew]

So how do you demonstrate an overspend, especially where F1 is not the reson detra for the team in question?

[marcush.]

as i understand the Teams have to pay 100000 each for the checking of their books by Fota.
That should allow for a real deep look into the spending and human recources situation of each team.
Lets say a consultant will charge 150€per hour to check the bookkeeping and the administratative affairs like payrolls etc...thats 66 hours per month ...so the guy could be in your company every other week for the whole week....and would pretty much know after a while how many people come to work etc etc..don´t you think so?
To charge the same for the smaller teams than the big ones 100000 € seems like a travesty ...considering you have already spent 100000 Fota memebership fee..thats 2or 3 people paid who can do alot of work in your team..

[andrew]

as i understand the Teams have to pay 100000 each for the checking of their books by Fota.

Still a bit of a loophole for teams to hide additional spending over that allowed by the RRA. I think my suggested method (see yesterday) of the FIA holding each teams cash for the season, with each team submitting an application for each withdrawl, is the only way for the FIA to get a handle on each teams spending. Even then there is still the loophole of cooking the books and taking funds from other business secotors but the loophole would be tiny compared to waht it is now.

Until such time that the FIA take such an approach, having the RRA in place is completely useless and a waste of time as it cannot be accurately policed.

[WhiteBlue]

Until such time that the FIA take such an approach, having the RRA in place is completely useless and a waste of time as it cannot be accurately policed.

It appears that massive parts of the paddock disagree with your opinion.

[Pingguest]

Until such time that the FIA take such an approach, having the RRA in place is completely useless and a waste of time as it cannot be accurately policed.

It appears that massive parts of the paddock disagree with your opinion.

A group being the majority don't make them being right.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Until such time that the FIA take such an approach, having the RRA in place is completely useless and a waste of time as it cannot be accurately policed.

It appears that massive parts of the paddock disagree with your opinion.

But the only thing they can say is if you spent 300 million in 2010, you have to spend less in 2011. Its vague I think is what most people are saying.
There are no concrete figures as to what is allowed, or penalites as to what can be done.
Only staff numbers have been drawn up, and do Red Bull and Ferrari really have 400 staff this year???
Outsourcing work can be done by manufaturers, and hidden within their organisations.
Smaller teams and non manufacturer teams will not have this ability, and this is the sticking point.

[marcush.]

outsourcing is restricted to 30mill€ for 2011 ..a massive figure .
how much was allowed for in 2010? Is RedBull Technologies a outward source in that context?
If you have it all in house recource wise you could employ around 300 workforce as subcontractors the whole year..I´d guess RedBull and Mclaren are likely canditates to
employ such a subcontractor scheme calling it outsourcing.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Marcush, the point I have about "outsourcing" is for example if Mercedes GP gave Mercedes-Benz a huge portion of work to that could be disguised as passenger car R&D.
Ferrari Renault and possibly Mclaren could do that, but not the rest.

Red Bull Technologies may just have been set up for this eventuality...

[WhiteBlue]

If the F1 and the parent company do research in the same field you will never be able to stop some "free" exchange of information. I don't think that is the biggest concern for F1. The teams simply try to steer the technology in such a way that automotive teams cannot get a run away effect from technologies their parents pioneer. Candidates for this are engine and KERS development. KERS is probably an area where it will not work very well. MHPE Ltd. will probably do a huge amount of research for the e-cell program or there will be a similarly tasked unit at Mercedes Benz. It will be difficult to erect a fire wall between the e-cell and the F1 KERS people when it comes to batterie research. Then the only help would be maximum transfer prices for customers and supply duty on demand.

[andrew]

Until such time that the FIA take such an approach, having the RRA in place is completely useless and a waste of time as it cannot be accurately policed.

It appears that massive parts of the paddock disagree with your opinion.

The paddock or you? Care to back-up this claim?

I find it hard to believe that such a large body of highly educated, intelligent people disagree with simple reasoning and a method of policing the RRA that will offer a certain amount of protection against claims of overspending.

Right now, the loophole in the RRA is so large I could sail the Emma Maersk through it with a good few metres to spare on both sides!

[WhiteBlue]

For starter all the Teams agree with the RRA because they have signed it. Of the journalists I have not really found one negative report that I remember. Criticism comes mainly from outsiders like fans who are not well informed about the objectives or simply don't recognize the need to contain cost.

[andrew]

For starter all the Teams agree with the RRA because they have signed it. Of the journalists I have not really found one negative report that I remember. Criticism comes mainly from outsiders like fans who are not well informed about the objectives or simply don't recognize the need to contain cost.

So no references/sources to back up claims?

The blatantly obvious point that I am making and you are continually missing/ignoring is the lack of policing of the RRA makes it easy for teams to flout thus rendering it useless.

I am not commenting from an ill informed position and fully understand the objectives of the RRA. I don't agree with cost cutting but it's going to happen regardless of my own opinion.

Can you not see the laxity in contol of the RRA renders it useless?