Drivers threaten Silverstone strike
#51
Posted 18 June 2008 - 16:28
drivers should pay for their license, but that should be the same for everybody and certainly not 200.000e a piece
Advertisement
#52
Posted 18 June 2008 - 16:32
The track operators then have to comply with those standards and bill the teams for their track time (by the day not lap!)
The drivers should not be picking up the tab for this.
#53
Posted 18 June 2008 - 16:47
Originally posted by kar
Same reason why someone with a salary of £75,000 should pay more tax than someone on £18,000. Why should someone on a driver salary of say €100,000 pay 10% of their salary when someone on €10,000,000 only has to pay 0.1%?
Personally speaking I think the FIA has and does spend a lot of money making sure drivers are safe. I think it is eminently fair that they pay (and it's a pittance as a percentage) of their salary to contribute to that expense.
Lewis Hamilton splashed out what, £200,000 on a stupid number plate, it's very, very rich for him (and I don't know that he is here to be fair) to complain about paying less than that for the right to race in a safe, very lucrative racing series. If they are really pissed off, they should just negotiate into their drivers contract reimbursement for their super licence fees.
Preaching to the choir here :-)
Good topic Kar. The only problem is you can't just resist having a dig at one particular driver who you don't like and who is not even a member of drivers association though he contributes, which makes your point open to other bashboys. to spoil what would have been a good thread:down:
#54
Posted 18 June 2008 - 18:23
#55
Posted 18 June 2008 - 18:49
#56
Posted 18 June 2008 - 19:12
#57
Posted 18 June 2008 - 19:39
the most highly paid would pay more, no matter how successful they are.
#58
Posted 18 June 2008 - 20:05
Originally posted by Josta
Nobody would win. Lewis would ram Kimi who would in turn ram Sutil, then Massa would bizzarely spin off the road whilst unchallenged by anyone.
#59
Posted 18 June 2008 - 20:25
Originally posted by Blythy
There'd better not be a strike, I've been dying to go to a grand prix all my life. Not gonna let some ****ing suits ruin it. And it's costing me a fair bit as well.
might be worth getting insurance now before this news hits the British press
Advertisement
#60
Posted 18 June 2008 - 20:30
Originally posted by kar
Lewis Hamilton splashed out what, £200,000 on a stupid number plate,
Apparently he didn't
#61
Posted 18 June 2008 - 23:32
#62
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:08
#63
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:32
#64
Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:39
Originally posted by Hacklerf
to have a super licence you should be charged the same amount whether you are a Raikkonen a Sutil or a 7 times world champion
True. The FIA should figure out another allotment scheme for their work.
#65
Posted 19 June 2008 - 04:24
Originally posted by Blythy
Wan't the money from the mclaren fine supposed to be going to improving safety?
i thinkso, but not limited to F1, but road saftey too i guess.
good chance its protecting max's pocket though :
#66
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:15
FIA meeting in Paris proved that FIA is a social club for some gentlemen from remote countries who once in a while can feel themselves being involved in something motorsport related. Safety improvements seem to be made in a tiny slot of time left after restless political maneuvering. FIA cannot live without Formula One but it does not mean that the organization has to squeeze additional resources out of drivers.
And since the Federation has almost illegitimate president with apparently no real power (apart from his unwillingness to sign CA as the last resort) such tectonic movements as a possible drivers' strike are almost inevitable. This is another reason why Mosley should announce his immediate renunciation.
#67
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:16
#68
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:18
Originally posted by David M. Kane
Socialist bullshit same fee foe everyone. I don't believe punishing someone for success. The tax comparison doesn't work for me because I believe in a flat tax.
They should all get a flat income too.
#69
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:23
Originally posted by united
FIA meeting in Paris proved that FIA is a social club for some gentlemen from remote countries who once in a while can feel themselves being involved in something motorsport related. Safety improvements seem to be made in a tiny slot of time left after restless political maneuvering.
, especially the quoted part.
Regarding the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the drivers strike was somehow inspired by Bernie
#70
Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:28
#71
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:20
Originally posted by Josta
Nobody would win. Lewis would ram Kimi who would in turn ram Sutil, then Massa would bizzarely spin off the road whilst unchallenged by anyone.
#72
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:23
Originally posted by Lifew12
Drivers strike - sounds familiar....anyone else remember the last one?
Yes, but I think they had a reasonable case last time. Whilst I don't think the sliding fee is fair, I don't think their case for striking is particularly fair either. I wonder how many of these drivers actually have to pay the fee themselves anyway rather than the team.
#73
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:26
ie: Part of Raikkonen's Ferrari deal means Ferrari pay his superlicenece?
I mean, the teams pay for a host of other things beyond the cash for a retainer don't they?
#74
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:27
I find it hard to feel sorry for the lot paying 200k to be honest (well maybe a little for Massa, whose salary would not be at the same level as the other 3) since they are on squillionaire salaries.
The problems, really, are at the very top, and very bottom. Drivers in the bottom cars wouldn't be getting paid a huge amount, and if they freak a race podium all of a sudden a large chunk of their salary is taken up.
People like Kubica who (for now) have done well but aren't on astronomical salaries also have it tough.
Personally I think the FIA should make the drivers pay a flat fee, €5000 or something, and levy the teams the per-point charge that was formerly passed on to the drivers. Or alternatively, delegate the issuance of superlicenses to the GPDA for a flat fee and they can levy the drivers themselves however they see fit. Although that may cross the tenuous line into compulsary unionism, something I do not support.
#75
Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:38
#76
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:01
Originally posted by Owen
Nice little test for Max's leadership post-spankgate.
Unfortunately he'll relish in a drivers strike. He will appear 'firm' in the face of the whinging millionaires and the financial hit will be borne solely by Bernie.
#77
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:03
Originally posted by jcbc3
Unfortunately he'll relish in a drivers strike. He will appear 'firm' in the face of the whinging millionaires and the financial hit will be borne solely by Bernie.
Well, I dare say some drivers would be in breach of contract, and in any regard there would be more than a few drivers that wouldn't go on strike anyway.
#78
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:06
#79
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:07
Originally posted by kar
Well, I dare say some drivers would be in breach of contract, and in any regard there would be more than a few drivers that wouldn't go on strike anyway.
Get the scabs!!!
Advertisement
#80
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:19
Originally posted by jcbc3
I agree. There won't be a strike. But that doesn't change the 'fact' that Mosley would love one ;)
He would, but it would still damage him, building the impression that he's lost his grip on the sport.
It seems to me the drivers wouldn't miss the money but are p*ssed at the licence being used for fundraising and Max refusing to meet them or discuss it. It's not as if Max doesn't have $100m and plenty for various lawsuits, investigators and egm's. And in the background we can imagine Max's refusal being phrased pretty bluntly .
One point of view (among several possibles I admit) is that the employees are being asked to pay for their own safety measures. Normally, employee safety is down to the employer, as in "whose cars are being tested?".
Mind you, we haven't seen the story confirmed yet, have we?
#81
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:27
Finally we have people wanting to meet Max...but he doesn't want to meet themOriginally posted by undersquare
It seems to me the drivers wouldn't miss the money but are p*ssed at the licence being used for fundraising and Max refusing to meet them or discuss it.
It's a funny old world
#82
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:28
If this were to happen at a race weekend, say the top teams/ drivers whoever decide to strike and boycott the race weekend,
would the smaller teams and drivers seriously be in a position to go out there and race for a possible first win. I could only then see that as a catch twenty two situation for them, because if say sutil goes and wins the race, sure it'll be ag reat thing now, but in likely hood he may then be lumped with having to pay the extra costs for a superlicense next year, what would still likely be a much smaller salary.
So it would be a case of could he afford to go and win a race.
Like I said hypothetical as I cant honestly see them not racing, look at the indy 2005 backlash, do that at Silverstone where tickets can cost a good 4 or 5 times what they do at indy and you'd be looking at a full on riot.
#83
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:35
Speaking of Massa, I would bet that he left GPDA because of the looming strike and opted not to be involved into heavy-style politics during his fight for the title.
#84
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:37
To be honest since Schumacher left the GPDA has a been a bit impotent. They are seek confrontation all the time to get their way rather than working with the FIA and FOM/A. It's probably the politicisation and a desire not to be involved in that (not to mention the per-point union fees) that is quite unattractive to the likes of Kimi, Lewis and Massa.
I think the GPDA has a place, they certainly can bear credit for the massive advances in testing safety which they paid for out of their own pockets (at first). But they risk losing influence if they become a reflexively intransigent organisation rather than a pragmatic and multilateral one.
This current controversy is a good example of where they are going wrong. They are threatening strike action over something that could just as easily be discussed without that threat. It's hard to feel any sympathy at all for Kim, Lewis or Alonso forking out €250,000 from salaries in the double digit millions. But if they rather point to Anthony Davidson and Robert Kubica who have to pay > 10% of their incomes then that becomes a more compelling reason to sit down and work out something more equitable.
Threatening strike action if fees are repaid, that's just not an effective and productive way to negotiate. Why force the FIA into a position by going public before having even sat down and talked about the issue? And this seems the standard negotiating proceedure for the current generation of the GPDA. Threaten to throw the toys out of the pram first and negotiate second. It works the first and second time. But eventually you'll try it on over an issue in which you don't have so much widespread support and you're either going to have to put up (strike) or shutup (and get nothing). Either way you as a group lose out.
#85
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:45
#86
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:46
Originally posted by kar
Threatening strike action if fees are repaid, that's just not an effective and productive way to negotiate. Why force the FIA into a position by going public before having even sat down and talked about the issue? And this seems the standard negotiating proceedure for the current generation of the GPDA. Threaten to throw the toys out of the pram first and negotiate second. It works the first and second time. But eventually you'll try it on over an issue in which you don't have so much widespread support and you're either going to have to put up (strike) or shutup (and get nothing). Either way you as a group lose out.
I think the notion of a standard negotiating procedure is pretty perverted in case of Mosley.
#87
Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:50
Did the FIA discuss this issue with the GPDA before imposing the changes?Originally posted by kar
This current controversy is a good example of where they are going wrong. They are threatening strike action over something that could just as easily be discussed without that threat...Why force the FIA into a position by going public before having even sat down and talked about the issue? And this seems the standard negotiating proceedure for the current generation of the GPDA. Threaten to throw the toys out of the pram first and negotiate second.
Max announced the increased licence fee back in January. Do we assume there have been no discussions, or attempts at discussing the issue, between then and now?
#88
Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:52
Apparently in 2009 the fee will be the same, however Max is introducing 100 points for a win, 80 points for 2nd place, 60 points .....
Regards
Andy
#89
Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:56
Originally posted by AndyW35
I wonder what the rational is behind making the licence fee mainly be connected to the number of points you get in a year, apart from a way to generate income?
Most drivers are paid a bonus based upon the number of points scored. It makes sense if you're revenue raising to raise it in a manner that reflects the ability of the person being (effectively taxed) to pay.
The GPDA membership 'subs' are levied in the same manner actually.
#90
Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:59
#91
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:01
Originally posted by united
Do test-drivers pay EUR10.000?
Test drivers don't need a super license.
#92
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:01
Originally posted by united
Do test-drivers pay EUR10.000?
You do not need a superlicence to test. Unless you test in an official practice session on a gp weekend (and I'm not sure if there's allowed to be 'test' drivers on Fridays anymore).
#93
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:02
http://en.f1-live.co...619093846.shtml
An unnamed proponent of the threatened strike action said the FIA's fee increase is particularly harsh for drivers like Robert Kubica, the new championship leader.
"He is not yet earning an awful lot, but his license costs nearly a tenth of his income," the driver said.
#94
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:06
test drivers are allowed IIRC, however with the limits on cars and testing time in place no teams ever chose to run their test drivers..Originally posted by kar
You do not need a superlicence to test. Unless you test in an official practice session on a gp weekend (and I'm not sure if there's allowed to be 'test' drivers on Fridays anymore).
#95
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:10
Originally posted by kar
You do not need a superlicence to test. Unless you test in an official practice session on a gp weekend (and I'm not sure if there's allowed to be 'test' drivers on Fridays anymore).
I would imagine at least 10 of them (reserve driver for each team) would have one, just for the eventuality that they are called into a race seat at short notice.
So that's 100,000 euros min.
I know it's a couple of seasons ago now but PDLR scored a bundleful of points before reverting to a test-driver role so that kind of scenario could cause quite an expensive superlicense for a tester.
#96
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:13
#97
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:32
Originally posted by kar
Why force the FIA into a position by going public before having even sat down and talked about the issue?
I had the impression that Max has refused to meet them. His rule by dictat is a large part of the problem I think, doesn't go down well with Webber especially.
#98
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:33
#99
Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:05
Originally posted by paffett4F1
The FIA should specify the minimum safety requirements for tests, number of doctors, helicopters, ambulances, marshalls etc and licence the tracks in terms of physical characteristics, tyre barriers, run-offs etc.
The track operators then have to comply with those standards and bill the teams for their track time (by the day not lap!)
The drivers should not be picking up the tab for this.
This is purely a revenue raising measure by Maxxx, indeed "Mosley said the extra money raised would go "into the FIA coffers" "
Advertisement
#100
Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:08
As far as I remember test-drivers are also members of GPDA, so EUR10 000 (or even more for Liuzzi) is a substantial sum, really.