Jump to content


Photo

Drivers threaten Silverstone strike


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#51 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,784 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 18 June 2008 - 16:28

or the fia should take the money directly from the teams. afterall 1.7 mil paid by 10 teams is peanuts in f1.
drivers should pay for their license, but that should be the same for everybody and certainly not 200.000e a piece

Advertisement

#52 paffett4F1

paffett4F1
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 18 June 2008 - 16:32

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.

#53 jesee

jesee
  • Member

  • 1,674 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 18 June 2008 - 18:23

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.

#55 dank

dank
  • Member

  • 5,191 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 18 June 2008 - 18:49

Any other sources covering this story? I'll serious be peeved if it's true!

#56 PiquetPete

PiquetPete
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 June 2008 - 19:12

This explains why my hero Nelson Piquet isn't scoring any points - he's taking a principled stand against the fees! Well done Nelson! Start scoring when they change the rules! :clap:

#57 tre

tre
  • Member

  • 116 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 18 June 2008 - 19:39

maybe instead of fees based on points scored, they should have a system that taxes drivers contracts?

the most highly paid would pay more, no matter how successful they are.

#58 prxty

prxty
  • Member

  • 427 posts
  • Joined: March 08

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.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

#59 blackgerby

blackgerby
  • Member

  • 542 posts
  • Joined: September 03

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 paffett4F1

paffett4F1
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: September 06

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 GregAU

GregAU
  • Member

  • 524 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 18 June 2008 - 23:32

Risking their lives lol. Formula 1 these days is safer than freeway driving.

#62 Blythy

Blythy
  • Member

  • 960 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:08

Wan't the money from the mclaren fine supposed to be going to improving safety?

#63 David M. Kane

David M. Kane
  • Member

  • 5,400 posts
  • Joined: December 00

Posted 19 June 2008 - 01:32

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.

#64 OfficeLinebacker

OfficeLinebacker
  • Member

  • 14,022 posts
  • Joined: December 07

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 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,864 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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 united

united
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:15

The increase of the fee is ridiculous. Trulli was absolutely right in Canada when he said that while drivers are paying 5 times more safety standards in Montreal remain very low regardless of that.

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 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:16

The real reason is simply to give Max another set of balls to keep in the air --- eventually even the most skilled jugglers drop their balls.

#68 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,689 posts
  • Joined: August 99

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 VoidNT

VoidNT
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: April 04

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.


:up: , especially the quoted part.

Regarding the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if the drivers strike was somehow inspired by Bernie :D

#70 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 07:28

Drivers strike - sounds familiar....anyone else remember the last one?

#71 rookie

rookie
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: November 04

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.


:clap:

#72 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,585 posts
  • Joined: February 00

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 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:26

Wouldn't the top drivers have the superlicence fee built into their contracts?
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 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:27

I dunno, having read some of the posts here and some of the rationale behind the complaints I have changed my mind a little bit. The current regime isn't ideal and for _some_ drivers quite unfair.

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 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,688 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 08:38

Nice little test for Max's leadership post-spankgate.

#76 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined: November 04

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 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

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 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,137 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:06

I agree. There won't be a strike. But that doesn't change the 'fact' that Mosley would love one ;)

#79 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 :p .

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? :lol:

#81 Maldwyn

Maldwyn
  • Member

  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:27

Originally 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.

Finally we have people wanting to meet Max...but he doesn't want to meet them :drunk:

It's a funny old world :lol:

#82 y2cragie

y2cragie
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:28

Ok just a hypothetical situation.
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 united

united
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:35

Jarno Trulli - GPDA's leading light - was asked in Montreal very delicately: what are GPDA's three biggest achievements? He could barely remember only one issue - increased safety during testing (a dubious fact). GPDA's parteigenossen should at least make an attempt to prove that the organization is viable, especially after they have lost Massa.

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 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:37

Massa I think had an issue with the leadership of the organisation. The way Coulthard talked about him after the Australian incident _he_ largely caused, probably showed how seriously Massa is taken by the other senior drivers (not very) and so Massa voted with his wallet.

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 kamix

kamix
  • Member

  • 1,238 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:45

IMO they have a valid point. The FIA needs to sort out an income other than what is effectively stealing from people via rulesets. Max made himself what 250+ million through Bernies backdoor dealings yet the FIA resorts to fining competitors and charging them ridiculous amounts to compete in the first place. FOM should be shunting a considerable amount of their earnings accross to cover these basic aspects of the sport ... safety, governance etc.

#86 united

united
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: March 05

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 Maldwyn

Maldwyn
  • Member

  • 1,486 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 19 June 2008 - 09:50

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.

Did the FIA discuss this issue with the GPDA before imposing the changes?

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 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 3,454 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:52

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? A normal licence fee does not depend on how much you use your tv or how far you walk your dog.

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 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

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 united

united
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 June 2008 - 10:59

Do test-drivers pay EUR10.000?

#91 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,585 posts
  • Joined: February 00

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 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,309 posts
  • Joined: January 06

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 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:02

Dunno how true this is but thought I'd post it anyway as it's relevant to the discussion....

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 y2cragie

y2cragie
  • Member

  • 271 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:06

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).

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..

#95 secessionman

secessionman
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: October 07

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 paffett4F1

paffett4F1
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:13

The reserve drivers would need a super license in case they need to step in. In some teams that would be more than one driver as the first reserve occasionally has other commitments.

#97 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

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 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,784 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:33

kar do you pay for renewing your driving license a fee based on what you earn?

#99 paffett4F1

paffett4F1
  • Member

  • 452 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:05

I don't see why the safety regime should be any different from the one I proposed earlier -

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 united

united
  • Member

  • 814 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 June 2008 - 12:08

Judging by the fact that Giedo van der Garde could not obtain a super license last year and was not eligible for Spyker's official reserve driver position such drivers do need to pay up their fee. Which is a complete nonsense.

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.