Ecclestone, the concord and break away plans

[Scotracer]

Just found this. Nothing really that new but some more quotes from the big man.

Bernie Ecclestone has admitted that a Formula 1 breakaway series could be a possibility if a new Concorde Agreement remains unsigned.

Speculation over the F1 supremo and the teams splitting away from the FIA has been rife since Max Mosley won his vote of confidence earlier this month to remain as the governing body’s president following lurid tabloid allegations about his private life.

Four of the grid’s manufacturers had originally called on Mosley to consider his position following the revelations, while Ecclestone also urged his long-time friend to stand down.

Ecclestone has, however, previously played down suggestions about the possibly of a breakaway threat and wrote to all FIA member clubs last week insisting that his preference is simply to conclude a new Concorde Agreement.

But he now says that until that document – which binds the teams, Formula One Management and the FIA together – is renewed teams are currently free to make their own decisions.

“What the FIA doesn’t have, which is the most important thing for them, is an agreement with the teams which they would have with a Concorde Agreement,” Ecclestone told The Times newspaper.

“The teams can do what they like.

“At the moment what we are trying to do, to keep sponsors happy, is say we can’t break away, but it could well be that that will happen.

“There is no agreement between the teams and the FIA.

“There is a commercial agreement that has been signed by the teams and FOM, so the teams can do what they like.”

Ecclestone told ITV Sport over the Canadian Grand Prix weekend that it was vital that the negotiations over a new Concorde Agreement were swiftly completed between the three parties involved so that the teams knew where they stood for the future.

In the newspaper interview, he said that the lack of an agreement wasn’t good for F1’s commercial interests.

“If you are a big, big organisation, you don’t know what decisions to take,” he said.

“I am responsible to our shareholders, the teams and the manufacturers, who have an awful lot of money invested.

“Max is responsible to the people in wherever who have got no money invested and nor has the FIA got money invested – all they’ve got is money that comes from Formula 1.

“If there was no Formula 1, the FIA would be in serious trouble.”

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=43007

I believe the manufacturers who aren't happy with current regulations/proposed ones will be more than happy to split. An example is Honda who don't like the engine freeze.

[ben_watkins]

Same stuff covered before the ITV article on BBC Sport..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 456405.stm

Perhaps the break-away [GP1 possibly] will really showcase development and engineering to the highest degree, within stable guidelines, if the constructors/manufacturers are involved and signed up to a sport that can make investments in their staff/research instead of having to lay off very talented people?

[WhiteBlue]

Well, I'm not sure who's mistaken. As far as I understand it, Formula One is not a brand. It's a sport...

This disregards that all of this posturing is about power and money and not about sport. Even Bernie has admitted that the F1 brand is owned by the FIA and cannot be used by a break away series. he should know.

The F1 brand is legally and financially tied up in a Gordian knot of huge dimensions. The only chance to unravel this by a forcefull solution is by a split where tracks, CVC, teams and manufacturers almost entirely back Bernie against the FIA.

This is as unlikely today as it was last week. There are simply too many different interests to be satisfied to get this kind of support. So my view is that there will be a lot more ink spilled to very little effect until Bernie starts making compromises towards the FIA position. That will certainly mean a big move away from the concord voting mechanism and towards the current modus.alternatively we could see a big swing in the other stakeholders position which looks unlikely.

It could well be that Bernie will run out of steam before the High court case against the NotW is dealt with in July. He may find that his position by that time has considerably worsened.

[Scotracer]

I believe that too. This is nothing more than a spineless threat thrown around in the midst of a battle. I WANT a break-away series to happen (bring back engineering into F1!) but the chances are so slim

[WhiteBlue]

how about this one?

can't decide if Bernie is extraordinarily shrewd or if his thoughts and actions are so random that he just confuses his opponents into submission.

ROFL

[mcdenife]

WhiteBlue wrote:

This disregards that all of this posturing is about power and money and not about sport. Even Bernie has admitted that the F1 brand is owned by the FIA and cannot be used by a break away series. he should know.

The F1 brand is legally and financially tied up in a Gordian knot of huge dimensions. The only chance to unravel this by a forcefull solution is by a split where tracks, CVC, teams and manufacturers almost entirely back Bernie against the FIA.

Not sure what you mean by brand but AFAIK it is not owned by FIA. On a practical level, The FIA cannot stop anybody from hosting an F1 race as long the country/host etc has no affiliation to the FIA. In effect it is the teams/FOM/tracks etc who grant the FIA legitimacey and not vice versa. If they all decided they want to go their own way there is nothing the fia can do (as long as the Teams and FOM agree. The tracks will follow or become worthless). Putting it another way, the teams/F1/track can and will survive (even prosper) without the FIA, the FIA however will struggle to survive without F1. A huge percentage of the FIA's income comes from F1 and not from subscriptions/license holders etc. Mike Lawrence keeps saying follow the money but too offen he is following the wrong one (or trail). F1 has become a cash cow (relatively) and Max wants more of it. Max virtually gave away the "crown jewels" for a pittance (relative to today's value)and knows this (also that this is what he will be remembered for). To be fair if Max had not sold the rights, F1 wont be worth what it is today. But that just goes to show that regardless of what you may think of him, Bernie made F1 the sport/brand/business it is today not Max nor the FIA. IMHO the real losers were in fact the teams. They are/were the real owners but through sheer blind greed (perhaps with the exception of Dennis and Tyrell) - allowed themselves to be cheated out of their "birth right" by both Bernie and Max. The championship should move on without the FIA. why should they continue to fund it? That just unecessary baggage.

[Scotracer]

Hypothetically, if there was a split...how quickly do you think would the new series be in a runnable state and what would happen to the current season? Would it be nulled?

I ask this because currently teams are spending a lot of resources into their 2009 cars but if something happens in the next few months well...it might be moot.

[nae]

imho

i would guess they would either race this years cars or carry on with next years cars
for the foreseeable future or at least things settle down

again imho its all just posturing and even if there is a split they wouldnt deviate to far from the current expected development cycle however in the mid to long term i would hope for fire breathing engines(1000+ bhp), slicks and massive wings (or no wings i cant decide)

one can only dream

[Scotracer]

To be honest, I am not too fussed with the aero regulations proposed (as long as the slicks take up the slack) but what I do want is engine development to return. I don't really care too much what configuration they run, but they have to be allowed to develop them. Look what happened to the V10s in 6 years between 1998 and 2004, they jumped from around 700BHP at 16,000rpm to 950BHP at 19,000+. I want more of that! No stupid engine freezes.

Again, we're all dreaming here. I don't want F1 to go crazy (1000BHP is a bit much lol), I just want the innovation to return (what we had in the 90's).

Two scenarios I would like to see:

-Return to 2003 aero regulations (the cars could still overtake)
-Keep the 2.4 V8s but allow development once again
-Bring back slicks but not those proposed -- a more modest compound

or

-Go back to 2004 full regulations and allow us to undo the last 3 years of ugly, hard to pass monstrosities.

[WhiteBlue]

just for the information I have linked an - 2007 version of The Concord Agreement here.

One can see that it is incredible copmplex in terms of the rules making and voting mechanisms of the working groups, the F1 commission and the permanent buro of the F1 commission. actually it works out pretty much to a 80% - unanimous voting requirement all of the time to get anything done. It almost never worked.

compare that with the 2006 agreed voting schedule defined in the 2008 sporting regulations in appendix 5

APPENDIX 5
RULE CHANGES
1. Changes to the Technical Regulations will be proposed by the Technical Working Group (TWG)
consisting of one senior technical representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the
FIA.
2. Changes to the Sporting Regulations will be proposed by the Sporting Working Group (SWG) consisting
of one senior representative from each team and chaired by a representative of the FIA.
3. Decisions in the TWG and SWG will be taken by a simple majority vote. The FIA representative will not
vote unless the teams’ representatives are equally divided, in which case he will exercise a casting vote.
4. Proposals from the TWG and the SWG will go to the Formula One Commission consisting of six
representatives from the teams, five representatives from the race promoters and one representative
each from the Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA. At least two race promoters must be from Europe
and at least two from outside Europe. Decisions of the Commission will be by simple majority. The FIA
will have a casting vote in the event of equality.
5. The Formula One Commission may accept or refuse a proposal of the TWG or the SWG, but not amend
it. A proposal which is refused may be sent back to the relevant Working Group for further
consideration.
6. Proposals accepted by the Formula One Commission will be put before the World Motor Sport Council
for a final decision. Proposals which are not accepted by the World Motor Sport Council may be sent
back to the Formula One Commission and the relevant Working Group for further consideration.
7. Changes required for safety reasons will be considered separately by the FIA, which will take into
account any representations made by the TWG or SWG.

this is simplicity in itself and it seems to work. note that FOM has very limited influenece because the TWG and SWG have resolved all issues so far and the F1 commission is just a rubber stamping body that has never made a negative decison so far as we know. it looks like stuff goes mostly straight from the working groups to the WMSC for ratification.

another important point to note in the tech and sporting regs is the missing requirement that competitors must have signed the secrete concord agreement. this basically opens F1 to new competitors by a complete set of public sporting and tech rules.

the FIA, with this document has effectively separated commercial and rule making portions of the F1 contract world and repeated the structure in the 2009 rules.

it is now possible for the FIA to sit back and let FOM sort out any issue with regard to money without linking it to rules issues. a huge advantage in my view.
this makes it possible for the FIA to denie any rule changing mechanism to a new concord agreement. in actual fact it would be contradictory to include that in a new concord.

one can be fairly sure that this is at the core of the current conflict between the FIA and FOM. all of Bernies interviews confirm that he wants to maintain the old structure which goes back to the time when separation of commerce and regulations had not occurred. he basically wants to have his cake and eat it. exclude the FIA from all commercial issues and keep his extraordinary rules making powers.

of course it also has to do with issues as:

• the change of control clause (denying sale of F1 without consent of the FIA),
• constructor definition,
• paddock passes,
• traditional race venue veto and
• garage allocation.

[Chaparral]

just for the information I have linked an - 2007 version of The Concord Agreement here.

Errr how come it says 1997

[WhiteBlue]

just for the information I have linked an - 2007 version of The Concord Agreement here.

Errr how come it says 1997

because the concord agreement always ran over many years. this one expired end of 2007. it was indicated by - 2007
I could have referred to start date
I was assuming that interested parties would take care to read the header document which talks in depth about the versioning.

when I post such heavy stuff in the future I will obviously have to add a warning that it is not intended for the good folks that restrict the reading to NoTW

[Chaparral]

because the concord agreement always ran over many years. this one expired end of 2007. it was indicated by - 2007
I could have referred to start date
I was assuming that interested parties would take care to read the header document which talks in depth about the versioning.

when I post such heavy stuff in the future I will obviously have to add a warning that it is not intended for the good folks that restrict the reading to NoTW

No took another look - definitely states Concorde Agreement 1997 - certainly not 2007 [-X


Dont be a arrogant dick WB with the NOTW crap - I can draft contracts with the best of them - this is quite plain compaired to some music artist contracts

[WhiteBlue]

as allways the truth is found by opening the eyes. of course the total period of the document is 1997-2007. to refer to this abbreviating by - 2007 may require chunks of brain power.

in all honesty one has to add that there were some additions made in 1998 which are not covered by this document and would make it even more tedious to read. As far as I know they havn't been published in a consistent version.

for the purpose of this discussion it doesn't matter anyway. what was shown is the incredible spagetty heap of commercial, regulatory and monopoly issues all rolled into one secrete agreement that goes back 25 years in its structure and is totally inappropriate to the requirements of the modern days.

F1 has completely changed from that departure point in the last 10 years. where initially a lack of marketing savvy for the sport was a big concern we now have the serious issue of too much money chasing too few teams.

in my view the monopoly of the teams needs to be adressed. F1 should be opened to talented new teams and I don't see how keeping to the basics of the old concord will do that.

Bernie has done a great job of marketing F1 in the past, no doubt about that. I reckon that we are not in a great danger of loosing interest of global television in F1. there are more pressing issues. the point is that much of the money coming into the marketing organization dissapears into financial institutions and into Bernie's family fortune.

while banks and entrepreneurs need to profit it disregards the needs of the series to bring in fresh engineering and team building talent and give them a bite at the cherry. Super Aguri did not deserve to go down in comparison to the pathetic team that Nick Fry has made of BAR. Prodrive with Dave Richards would have deserved a chance at running this year. shame on the established teams that they try to maintain their monopoly instead of being sporting and open some of the funds to the new challengers.

Gerhard Berger made a good proposal saying that all teams should equally participate in the TV pay out. that would be a step in the right direction. It still falls short of adressing the monopoly structure of teams in F1. the FIA seems prepared to adress this by the customer cars initiative and by recognizing that too much money is taken out of the sport by the commercial rights holder.

In my view money should be taken away from the top teams and from the CRH. limiting the CRH takings to 30% instead of 50% would be a good thing to do. distributing the current 50% equally to the potentially running 12 teams would redistribute some of the excess cash from the top teams to those in need. with the excess cash coming from the CRH new entrants should be supported by way of a relegation/promotion scheme between F1 and GP2.

[mcdenife]

whiteblue wrote

In my view money should be taken away from the top teams and from the CRH. limiting the CRH takings to 30% instead of 50% would be a good thing to do. distributing the current 50% equally to the potentially running 12 teams would redistribute some of the excess cash from the top teams to those in need. with the excess cash coming from the CRH new entrants should be supported by way of a relegation/promotion scheme between F1 and GP2.

I agree in the first instance, ie reducing the CRH's take (I think even 20% is still too much if we want to bring in more teams). However with the exception of Ferrari, why should money be taken away from the top teams? Their share is based on a percentage determined by their position in the championship. Taking money away from them defeats the purpose of competition and winning.
With regards to have a relegation/promotion scheme, you only have to look the disparity between the budget of the lowest/smallest F1 team and the biggest (best or best funded) GP2 team to see why this is very impractical.