Time for some more documentation.
One should not forget that
Williams, Ferrari, Red Bull and Force India (then Midland) signed a 2008-2012 Concord agreement with the FIA and FOM.
For those who remember the unexpected change of mind in the customer car issue there should be little doubt that those four teams have a legal claim against the FIA to receive protection of the constructor status and certain revenues from FOM. Unfortunately the clauses of the 2008-2012 CA are unknown. It is fair to assume that some of the clauses must be simillar to the 1998-2007 CA. I believe that the leverage of the 6 party concord agreement lead to the compromise to accept customer cars until the 2009 season and require constructor status again from the 2010 season.
It is logical to assume that the FIA will not extend the conditions of the six party concord agreement to the other 6 teams, or we would not be in the situation we are facing now. It is also clear that FOM and the four teams cannot break away without being subject to legal claims and damages.
Bernie has given
an interview to the BBC
F1 boss 'could not endorse' split
By Andrew Benson
Ecclestone and Mosley disagree over the future of F1
Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone says he could not be part of any move by the teams to form a breakaway championship.
The teams are unhappy about the refusal of Max Mosley, president of governing body the FIA, to sign a new Concorde Agreement, which governs F1.
But Ecclestone told BBC Sport his Formula One Management company was contractually tied to the FIA.
"I told the teams, if they wish to break away, then do it, but we couldn't be part of it," Ecclestone said.
"What this has come down to is, if we don't get a Concorde Agreement, what is going to happen?" he added.
"[For the teams], it was simply, 'we don't have any links with the FIA, and if we want to do our own thing, we can always do our own thing'.
"But we couldn't [endorse that] even if we wanted to."
Ecclestone said it was imperative for the sport to secure a new Concorde Agreement "for stability".
"I believe the teams should write the regulations with input from the FIA."
The dispute threatening to split F1 centres on a disagreement about how the rules are made, he said.
The old Concorde Agreement, which was in force from 1981 until 2007, gave the teams a central role in the rule-making process through an organisation called the F1 Commission, on which Ecclestone and Mosley both sat, along with representatives of the teams, promoters and sponsors.
It effectively wrote the rules, which were then rubber-stamped by the FIA World Council.
But the teams and Mosley have been unable to agree a new Concorde Agreement, which has left the FIA with absolute power over the rules.
"Early on, one of the things we agreed was that it would be in its previous form," Ecclestone said.
"With the F1 Commission as it was, no individual party had control.
"(Mosley) has proposed something completely different, which the teams wouldn't accept. I don't see any need for compromise. They're just bad solutions. We want to continue with the Concorde Agreement as it was in the past."
Ecclestone said Mosley did not want to sign a new contract "because he wants to do what he's done this year - say these are the regulations you race under if you want to race in the FIA world championship".
Could the teams split from the FIA to set up a rival championship?
But the teams are still arguing over the exact nature of next year's rules, and Ecclestone said there was a risk some could quit the sport if Mosley tried to unilaterally impose rules they were not happy with.
"My argument has always been, if you let the teams sort things out between them, the big manufacturers aren't going to screw over the small teams," Ecclestone said.
"If it's in their hands to help them, they'll help them. They want them all to stay in business.
"But if the FIA puts a rule out that suits the four big teams, the other teams might go, and if it suits the lower-grade teams because it's cheaper, the big teams might go because they could say we don't want to be part of that, it's like GP2.
"I believe the teams should write the regulations with input from the FIA - providing they [the rules] conform to safety, and providing they [the teams] have been around for a long time and intend to stay a long time, and confirm they will, and confirm they will support the non-manufacturer teams."
He admitted there was a fundamental philosophical difference between himself and Mosley on this issue.
"We don't think [the FIA has the right to make the rules]," Ecclestone said.
"The police are like regulators, but they don't write the rules. They say, you did 40mph, it's a 30mph limit, you're nicked.
"I think the people who spend the money and participate are the people who should have much more input into making the regulations, and the FIA should control those things."
The FIA insists that it is consulting the teams on the regulations.
However, the sex scandal which has enveloped Mosley is making the situation more difficult.
Mosley has been under pressure since March, when the News of the World accused him of taking part in a "Nazi-style orgy" with prostitutes.
Mosley, the son of former British fascist leader Sir Oswald Mosley, accepts he visited the prostitutes but denies there were Nazi overtones.
The 68-year-old has launched a legal action against the newspaper alleging defamation and invasion of privacy, with the case due to start on 7 July.
Mosley won a vote of confidence of the FIA members on 3 June, but it is known that senior executives in some of the big companies involved in F1 are uncomfortable with Mosley staying on in a situation in which they themselves would have been forced to resign.
Ecclestone and Mosley appear to be at loggerheads over F1
Ecclestone said the issue could raise particular problems for companies that had Jewish executives.
"A lot of companies have Jewish people on their boards," said Ecclestone, who this website incorrectly described as Jewish on Monday.
"And as the Jewish community in the first place said Max shouldn't be there, I sincerely hope this would not affect their participation in F1, whether now or in the future."
He said the dispute over F1 would not have come out into the open had it not been for the Mosley scandal.
"The problem is, Max has opened the door with what's happened to allow them to say these things," he said.
"Before the vote, people were protecting their position as they did not know what the result of the vote would be.
"Had he not received a vote for him to stay, no-one knew who was going to be the president, what they would have needed to do."
The FIA was unavailable for comment, but Mosley wrote a letter to the FIA member clubs last month setting out his position on the Concorde negotiations.
He said that the FIA had two main concerns - to ensure a fair financial package for the teams and the championship, and to guarantee the independence of the FIA as a regulatory body.
He wrote: "A new Concorde Agreement would give the F1 teams a greater say in the rule-making process, including various rights of veto.
"Because of its influence over the teams (which comes mainly from its ability to offer favours in and around the paddock), [Ecclestone] sees a Concorde Agreement as another way to exercise control over the sport.
"I do not believe we should concede. The sport and the commercial interests should be kept separate. The teams and the CRH [commercial rights holder, which is Ecclestone and the venture capital company CVC] should be consulted and listened to at all stages, but it must be the FIA, not the CRH or the teams, which decides the regulations.
"My refusal to concede on this has led to a difficult situation."
This interview is pretty revealing. It shows that the current fight between Max and Bernie is primarily about the new rule making mechanism as introduced in 2006 with the appendix 5 of the sporting rules for this year. The Mosley sex scandal, the Nazi fabrication and the rubbish about Jewish investors is just a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention from the real issue.
Mike Lawrence wrote:If those self-same Jewish investors in F1 can put up with the growing Arab influence on the sport, it can certainly handle Max Mosley ratting about in a west London knocking shop with a Welter of Whippers.
It is obvious that Bernie cannot drive the break away himself. Compare the above link on the 6 party CA. The contractual situation with the FIA and the bond holding banks prevents him from doing this. So he is stirring up team resistence and hopes they will do the break away or use the break away threat to pressure the FIA and Mosley into concessions.
I believe that more and more people and sports media will understand the true nature of the conflict.
The sale of the commercial rights and the separation of commerce and rules justifies and requires a new way of rule making compared to 1981.
Obviously this new mechanism could not be introduced before the old concord agreement expirered. so the consultations about it started in 2005. in 2006 the teams all signed up to the new constitution by comitting to the 2008 championship based on the sporting rules including the appendix 5. they are legally bound to it as much as FOM is bound to marketing "The FIA Formula 1 world championship".
Any break away option they have is perhaps in 2009 and later. I do not think that they had to apply to successive championships past 2008.
Bernie says the FIA is making all the rules and under the old concord the teams were making the rules. LOL!!! Another red herring.
Under the old concord Bernie had voting rights in the F1 comission as had some promotors and teams. The promoters were completely dependand of him and he has always told them how to vote. The small teams have also been quite often in commercial and financial difficulties and he was the only one who could help them because he and the big teams had grabbed all the money. So he often was in a position to make them vote for him.
Under appendix 5 all the decisions are made by the team majorities. all other decision bodies are rubber stamping only. so effectively if 6 teams agree things will always go ahead. this means that some balance is needed for the small teams as there are 6 well financed big teams. it is obviously now an objective of the FIA to increase the number of the small teams to strengthen their voting power. their future share of price money is likely to come from FOM. by restricting the budgets of the bigger teams they will be able to play a bigger role in the rules process.
Bernie's strategy obviously is to conserve the old structures where an F1 comission was blocked most of the times to make any decisions by extremely high voting hurdles and veto clauses and he could influence votes indirectly. he is getting more and more desperate with this issue as he is running out of cards to play.
The sex scandal card did not work. The Nazi defamation did not work. The "We only want to keep what we had" card did not work. and the old break away scare is not going to impress much longer. I do not see his "FIA dictatorship" card working either. the teams have worked out the overtaking issues in a constructive way and this is proof that the rules can be developed effectively and cooperatively by appendix 5 modus.
So what is the next thing we are going to see from him? Perhaps he will eventually accept that the next commercial agreement will be based on the appendix 5 rules? In my view the FIA will be mad to sign off anything else. But will Bernie? I will not hold my breath.
