89 replies to this topic

[Disgrace]

Bet you never thought you'd ever say that did you? I do to, almost, Todt might have been a good team boss but he's been a disaster as FIA president. He can't leave soon enough in my opinion.

 

Let's wait for Blatter to snuff it first...

[ninetyzero]

Let's wait for Blatter to snuff it first...

 

Let's face it, he's probably not much worse than Bernie...

[andrewf1]

He is way too powerful to F1 than Blatter was to FIFA. I just want him to retire to be honest.

 

It'll be a cold day in hell when that happens. Bernie will never retire.

 

Heck, his retirement age was around when half of this forum wasn't even watching F1! (20 something years ago)

[Wingcommander]

So, first he creates the strategy group and now he wants to get rid of it. 

[Laster]

I oddly find myself agreeing with Bernie. The F1 teams are too selfish, their influence in strategy meetings is for their own ends rather than what is best for the sport. However I do not want Bernie having any more power and influence on the direction of F1. He has some truly terrible ideas for the direction of the sport, and seems very quick to discard what fans of the sport think. So I guess what I'm saying is - great idea Bernie! But let's wait until you leave F1.

Edited by Laster, 03 June 2015 - 19:21.

[KingTiger]

Teams aren't perfect, but the alternative is worse. FIA are completely incompetent under Todt and theres just no need to comment on Bernard.

[Paco]

Problem with this concept of old Bernie like dictator running the decision causes the age old issue of Ferrari like favoritism that Bernie and max used to be labelled with and in some cases rightfully. You can't have a one man show and then complain about favoritism... As it will always go hand n hand,

[Timstr11]

Sure, but the teams involved in the F1 Strategy Group have been picking old rules out of a bucket at random and haven't done any research before voting on things.

 

All we've heard from the teams this year about the future direction for the sport is them wanting "more power and bigger wheels". They've been a complete joke.

 

Bernie's ideas on customer cars might not work, but at least he seems to have put more thought into his ideas than the teams have been.

 

I would not lump 'the teams' together.

Proposals are coming from different members of the strategy group.

The renewed customer car proposal came from McLaren according to reports. 

The 'more power' and 'more noise' idea was pushed by Bernie I think

Wider rear wheels was an old proposal by Mercedes and Pirelli that has resurfaced.

All parties seem to agree to make the cars look more spectacular as of 2017 with higher speeds.

 

I agree that it's not backed up by proper research, but again, excluding teams from the decision making process is not going to improve things. It's about the methods and processes you use to make decisions.

 

Personally I'm not too concerned about the proposed changes (apart from customer cars).

My main concern is the business model of the sport which unfortunately is outside the remit of the strategy group I believe.

[Wuzak]

I disagree with those who say teams should not have a say.

 

They are major stakeholders in the sport with big investments carrying big risks. It would be very wrong to sideline the teams.

 

As far as I'm concerned the flaw is not in the teams having a say, the flaw is in the organisation and process they use to formulate a strategy and identify areas for improvement.

 

And another thing, do people think that if you remove the teams from the decision making that all of a sudden we will have a better F1?

What is that thinking based on? Enlighten me.

 

The teams should absolutely be consulted, as with the engine manufacturers. 

 

But they should not be dictating the direction of the Sport.

[Atreiu]

So, first he creates the strategy group and now he wants to get rid of it. 

 

If he wanted to demoralize the teams as far as decision making entities on behalf of the sport and buniess, then he deserves an A+. It has worked perfectly.Whatever credibility the teams ever had is gone.

[ardbeg]

Ideally the rules should be made by FiA alone, the players can be advisor’s but nothing more. In reality though, the removal of the strategy group would change very little. The most notable change would be that the teams would seek loyalty, and pay for it, among those in FiA that would set the rules. More lobbying, more corruption and even smaller chance for the smaller teams to be treated equal.

With the strategy group there is some transparency at least.

[Timstr11]

The teams should absolutely be consulted, as with the engine manufacturers.

But they should not be dictating the direction of the Sport.

They can't dictate because individual teams are often not in agreement and put together they only have one third of the votes in the strategy group.

It's 18 votes with 6 votes for the 6 teams.
Bernie has 6 votes.
The FIA has 6 votes.

Edited by Timstr11, 04 June 2015 - 05:28.

[Rocket73]

F1 seems to be in such a mess...not only do we change the rules more and more often but now we are changing the WAY in which we change the rules more and more often.

This endless desire for profit is strangling the sport. Bernie is the main culprit and it's plain to see that not one person in this thread has any confidence in him. Maybe in the whole forum.

[Nonesuch]

This endless desire for profit is strangling the sport. Bernie is the main culprit ...

 

Is he really? The money FOM spreads around, albeit unequally, seems to contribute significantly to the budgets of the teams.

 

Would the teams really be happy for Ecclestone to take it easy on hosting fees, broadcasting rights, and the like? I somehow doubt it.

[Rocket73]

The teams, amongst many others, are always going on about getting more money from the sport. What about all the circuits getting squeezed out of all the game because the deals Bernie imposes on them? Then they have to pass it on to the fans.

 

Let me add the reason that I think this is important is that if Bernie has more control of the rules then we will see changes made purely to increase profits. Think WWF rather than F1.

 

Who knows he may even bring in rules like mandatory PR gurus assigned to all drivers and TPs that aren't doing enough to promote the sport. 

Edited by Rocket73, 04 June 2015 - 08:07.

[Timstr11]

Is he really? The money FOM spreads around, albeit unequally, seems to contribute significantly to the budgets of the teams.

 

Would the teams really be happy for Ecclestone to take it easy on hosting fees, broadcasting rights, and the like? I somehow doubt it.

 

CVC is pocketing too large a proportion of the profit.

Edited by Timstr11, 04 June 2015 - 11:15.

[Mohican]

Max selling the FIA's commercial rights for 100 years or whatever is the original problem. Of course the commercial rights should have been exploited for the benefits of the FIA, the circuits and the teams only. Not for third parties.

 

The commercial rights being Bernie's to sell - for his own enrichement - in the first place was simply wrong. It has always surprised me that the original sale from the FIA has never been subject to more scrutiny.

[Loops]

It should be challenged, but it seems there is no will for that fight. Apparently Max's friend in the EU helped out, or so I read. People will go after driver wages and the teams, but CVC are the ones draining money out of F1. Drivers and teams are actually what F1 is about, they directly add to the value, appeal and success. CVC and other "investment" groups are just parasites.

[Petroltorque]

It's no surprise the strategy group is a failure but it was Ecclestone who.set it up in the first place. It's just another of his litany of poor ideas. Customer cars is the last thing out of the strategy group. I see how it works for Ecclestone and the big 4. By selling on their technology the generate more income while destroying the competition's infrastructure. In addition I don't see Ecclestone paying any customer team as a constructor so a bigger cut of the pie for him and the big teams. When Todt took the 30 pieces of silver to give up the co.trol of F1 he literally sold the sport down the river. As Wilde said " ambition is the last refuge of failure". That just about sums Todt up.

[redreni]

I seem to recall Mosley saying, when the cost cap row was brewing, "F1 is an FIA Championship. We make the rules for that" and, because it was Mosley saying it, it was obviously outrageous.

 

But the last couple of seasons has seen Bernie and the Strategy Group playing an absurd game of one-upmanship where they compete to see who can make the FIA look the more stupid by having the most outrageously half-baked, ludicrous and whimsical idea fast-tracked into the rule book. And it is genuinely hard to tell which was worse for the sport. Were standing restarts a worse idea that the team radio restrictions, or were they both equally poor ideas? It's difficult to say.

 

The FIA may not be perfect, but at least it usually leaves the rules alone unless there's a reason to change them, like closing loopholes (or attempting to).

 

It's a novel suggestion, I know, but why not go back to the previous governance arrangements that required consensus and sensible lead times for rule changes, with the FIA being the only one that could act unilaterally and immediately, and even then, only on the grounds of safety?

[chipmcdonald]

Ultimately, it's CVC and Bernie that profit from whether F1 is successful or not.  I do not see why anyone else should be making the rules, whether one likes that or not.

 

Obviously the teams can't make the rules.  The problem you have with the FIA is that they have no actual stake in the *commercial* success of F1, and in turn have no motivation to make it something that resembles "car racing that a lot of people want to watch".

 

Furthermore, the FIA is raft with an assemblage of people who would be targets of political machinations that go beyond what we can see.  We would not get a good outcome from the FIA/Todt making the rules.

 

I pick the CVC and Bernie.  I'll take his medals idea if it also means we have big V10's and no DRS again.

[Rocket73]

Well the FIA do quite well with other series don't they? I am already disillusioned with F1 and if it went to medals, sprinklers, short races, customer cars and the increased corporation emphasis that goes with those then it may be a real game changer for me.

I am more interested in the TT than Canada atm.

[CoolBreeze]

Bernie should get rid of himself. 

[pUs]

Too bad Max didn't stay a bit longer. He was perfectly right about the cost cap ten years ago, just a shame that he actually thought the teams would be able to sort it out themselves. 

[Clatter]

Didn't Mad Max sell the rights to FOM for 100 years for a stupidly small amount of money?

FIA got a very small payment, but MM got rewarded quite handsomely via the backdoor.

[redreni]

Ultimately, it's CVC and Bernie that profit from whether F1 is successful or not.  I do not see why anyone else should be making the rules, whether one likes that or not.

 

Obviously the teams can't make the rules.  The problem you have with the FIA is that they have no actual stake in the *commercial* success of F1, and in turn have no motivation to make it something that resembles "car racing that a lot of people want to watch".

 

Furthermore, the FIA is raft with an assemblage of people who would be targets of political machinations that go beyond what we can see.  We would not get a good outcome from the FIA/Todt making the rules.

 

I pick the CVC and Bernie.  I'll take his medals idea if it also means we have big V10's and no DRS again.

 

I don't think it's reasonable to argue the FIA is too political to be allowed to make the rules when the alternative rule-making authorities are more political, and in a worse way, than the FIA is.

 

The main reason you cite for not wanting the FIA to set the rules - lack of direct commercial motivation to get viewership and profits up - is the exact reason why I hope they get at least some of their influence back. You see, I don't think either CVC or the manufacturers' attempts to increase viewership have been very successful, nor are they likely to be. They want to make a change, manufacture a late lead change or a close finish, and see a direct impact in terms of raising the profile of the sport, and that's too simplistic.

 

Better, in my view, to go back to a system where everyone has a say in rulemaking, where changing the rules is quite a slow and cumbersome process so that you don't get frequent, knee-jerk changes, and where this stability enables people to start taking the sport a bit more seriously again. That way, although there's a risk things might be boring, at least there's a chance that we'll get real as opposed to manufactured excitement.

[pRy]

Bernie should get rid of himself. 

 

What's he doing that you don't approve of? F1 as a sport is in sound financial health.. although some teams are struggling. Not Bernie's fault. The racing isn't very exciting but again that's not Bernie's fault. Some of the tracks are a little empty but it can't be denied F1 visits all parts of the world now and some locations such as Singapore have been brilliant inclusions on the calendar.

 

Bernie's point is the teams will never agree. He's right. Today we have yet more evidence of this with the 2016 tyre rules on the brink of collapse because the teams can't agree. There are too many people involved.. too many self interests in play.. too much discussion. F1 needs to be told what rules it will follow based on advice from people who don't have any self interest such as Ross Brawn. That way F1 has a chance of actually moving forward rather than going around in circles like it is currently doing.

Edited by pRy, 05 June 2015 - 13:02.

[Wuzak]

Ultimately, it's CVC and Bernie that profit from whether F1 is successful or not.  I do not see why anyone else should be making the rules, whether one likes that or not.

 

Obviously the teams can't make the rules.  The problem you have with the FIA is that they have no actual stake in the *commercial* success of F1, and in turn have no motivation to make it something that resembles "car racing that a lot of people want to watch".

 

Furthermore, the FIA is raft with an assemblage of people who would be targets of political machinations that go beyond what we can see.  We would not get a good outcome from the FIA/Todt making the rules.

 

I pick the CVC and Bernie.  I'll take his medals idea if it also means we have big V10's and no DRS again.

 

The FIA is a not-for-profit organisation.

 

And it is bigger than F1. And it's more than motorsport. It is a motoring association.

 

The problem with leaving rule making to those who are in it for the profit is that their rule making will be to their benefit - and not necessarily for the betterment of the sport. And remember that Bernie/CVC don't really promote the sport, as they are supposed to. 

 

And the FIA didn't sell the commercial rights - it leased them. Unfortunately for 100 years.

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Probably a bit O/T but looking at your second point there....If it disappeared up its own fundamental, would it, as a motoring association even be missed?

[Petroltorque]

What's he doing that you don't approve of? F1 as a sport is in sound financial health.. although some teams are struggling. Not Bernie's fault. The racing isn't very exciting but again that's not Bernie's fault. Some of the tracks are a little empty but it can't be denied F1 visits all parts of the world now and some locations such as Singapore have been brilliant inclusions on the calendar.
 
Bernie's point is the teams will never agree. He's right. Today we have yet more evidence of this with the 2016 tyre rules on the brink of collapse because the teams can't agree. There are too many people involved.. too many self interests in play.. too much discussion. F1 needs to be told what rules it will follow based on advice from people who don't have any self interest such as Ross Brawn. That way F1 has a chance of actually moving forward rather than going around in circles like it is currently doing.

I don't know by which metric one can claim that F1 is in sound health. CVC takes money out of the sport to fund repayments on existing loans rather than investment.
European promoters are unwilling to pay extortionate hosting fees and usary multipliers. Before Ecclestone killed off the Concorde agreement and replaced it with a bilateral agreement only $30 millions was paid to Ferrari as a premium payment. Now that fee has been upped to $250 millions to 5 teams.
Looks like the House of Cards will be coming down anyway as the EU launch an investigation into FOM/ CVC. Customer cars was probably the trigger. If anything was anti competitive that would be it.

[CoolBreeze]

What's he doing that you don't approve of? F1 as a sport is in sound financial health.. although some teams are struggling. Not Bernie's fault. The racing isn't very exciting but again that's not Bernie's fault. Some of the tracks are a little empty but it can't be denied F1 visits all parts of the world now and some locations such as Singapore have been brilliant inclusions on the calendar.

 

Bernie's point is the teams will never agree. He's right. Today we have yet more evidence of this with the 2016 tyre rules on the brink of collapse because the teams can't agree. There are too many people involved.. too many self interests in play.. too much discussion. F1 needs to be told what rules it will follow based on advice from people who don't have any self interest such as Ross Brawn. That way F1 has a chance of actually moving forward rather than going around in circles like it is currently doing.

 

What's he doing? Well for starters, he's going to places where they are rich in oil, boring circuits and leaving the proper traditional circuits behind. He got rid of Germany, and now he's threatening Monza..

 

Let's not kid ourselves...SIngapore is only brilliant, because of the night time settings. Its a bland typical Tilke circuit. 

[Atreiu]

FIA got a very small payment, but MM got rewarded quite handsomely via the backdoor.

 

 

 

 

;)

Edited by Atreiu, 08 June 2015 - 17:40.

[ninetyzero]

FIA got a very small payment, but MM got rewarded quite handsomely via the backdoor.

 

Please don't ever say 'Max Mosely' and 'backdoor' in the same sentence again, doing so conjures up all kinds of horrible images and thoughts....  

[Nemo1965]

Well the FIA do quite well with other series don't they? I am already disillusioned with F1 and if it went to medals, sprinklers, short races, customer cars and the increased corporation emphasis that goes with those then it may be a real game changer for me.

I am more interested in the TT than Canada atm.

 

I agree. If we look at most racingclasses, the FIA is doing an outstanding job. Whenever great championships are ruined (CART, Formula 2, Formula 3000), it is usually commercial 'smartasses' like Tony George and Bernie Ecclestone getting their way...

 

Regarding Mosley: it is hard to admit, but it is true: he did not do half a bad job. And I am beginning to wonder if Jean-Marie Balestre did such a bad job, all things considering (even the fact that he wore a very troublesome uniform during 40-45...)

Edited by Nemo1965, 08 June 2015 - 20:58.

[SophieB]

 

 

Regarding Mosley: it is hard to admit, but it is true: he did not do half a bad job. 

 

He was the absolute worst. So many of the massive problems being ineptly grappled with by the SWG now stem directly from his own actions like his the working with Bernie to sell away the F1 rights out of the sport for some magic beans. Also annoying that none of the people interviewing him on TV say stuff like 'hang on Max, didn't a whole bunch of teams collapse or leave under your watch so what makes you qualified to spout forth now?'

 

I would rather have literally anyone else running things. He is useful to me only in that he reminds me that however bad things are under Todt, at least he's not Max Mosley.

[oetzi]

The FIA should revoke the 100-year agreement

Is that agreement under French or English law?

[Felix]

Is that agreement under French or English law?

EU ratified

[pRy]

Also annoying that none of the people interviewing him on TV say stuff like 'hang on Max, didn't a whole bunch of teams collapse or leave under your watch so what makes you qualified to spout forth now?

 

Which teams collapsed/left due to Max? He had been banging his budget cap drum since 2007.. no one would listen. The teams just wanted to spend spend spend. He wanted technical freedoms for those who lived within the cap and the big teams rejected it. And so when we have teams like Caterham falling over because they've run out of money.. who's fault is that?

 

The trouble with the current setup is there are too many cooks. The teams should never be given as much of a say as they have now because they never agree and they are all driven by their own personal commercial interests. Toto is an example of this. He says he loves motorsport and wants a show but deep down his main priority is Mercedes Benz. He's not going to agree to a rule change that risks threatening their position in the sport. Nor are the other top teams.

 

So you need someone who can make the decisions for them and tell them it's their road or the high road. And importantly this person also needs a good working relationship with Bernie so they can both work together to ensure things are done for the good of the sport. Because the teams simply can't be trusted in this regard. They all have conflicts of interest. I can't recall who said it at the weekend.. might have been Christian.. but Jean Todt just doesn't have that authority. And his working relationship with Bernie isn't as good as it could be either. So no one makes any decisions. The teams all disagree with each other and nothing changes. Meanwhile teams slowly go under financially because they're spending far too much money.

 

I always felt Max had the best interests of the sport and the smaller teams at heart. Even now in 2015 he is still speaking up on behalf of the smaller teams. When was the last time Jean Todt did that? I can't even recall when he was last interviewed by the BBC. Anyone?

[SophieB]

Which teams collapsed/left due to Max? He had been banging his budget cap drum since 2007.. no one would listen. The teams just wanted to spend spend spend. He wanted technical freedoms for those who lived within the cap and the big teams rejected it. And so when we have teams like Caterham falling over because they've run out of money.. who's fault is that?

 

The trouble with the current setup is there are too many cooks. The teams should never be given as much of a say as they have now because they never agree and they are all driven by their own personal commercial interests. Toto is an example of this. He says he loves motorsport and wants a show but deep down his main priority is Mercedes Benz. He's not going to agree to a rule change that risks threatening their position in the sport. Nor are the other top teams.

 

So you need someone who can make the decisions for them and tell them it's their road or the high road. And importantly this person also needs a good working relationship with Bernie so they can both work together to ensure things are done for the good of the sport. Because the teams simply can't be trusted in this regard. They all have conflicts of interest. I can't recall who said it at the weekend.. might have been Christian.. but Jean Todt just doesn't have that authority. And his working relationship with Bernie isn't as good as it could be either. So no one makes any decisions. The teams all disagree with each other and nothing changes. Meanwhile teams slowly go under financially because they're spending far too much money.

 

I always felt Max had the best interests of the sport and the smaller teams at heart. Even now in 2015 he is still speaking up on behalf of the smaller teams. When was the last time Jean Todt did that? I can't even recall when he was last interviewed by the BBC. Anyone?

 

I cannot agree, pRy. Did he have the best interests of the sport at heart when he worked with Bernie to bring about a situation whereby about 50% of the money flows into F1 flies right back out the door onto the yachts of venture capitalists? And McLaren are part of the sport - did he have their interests at heart when he nearly put them out of business and settled for stripping them of their construction points and a $100M fine? (And what WAS 95% of that fine for again?) And Michelin and the Indianapolis GP and, and and...

Now, obviously I cannot know the full background and context to these and all the other controversial actions of Max's tenure as FIA president from his point of view. But what comes across to me in the cheap seats was a man who was highly partial and massively divisive when it came to protecting the interest of the sport so I dispute he's likely to be this Solomon figure, rising above the conflicts of interest that arise in F1.

 

No,I agree with you about the actions of the Strategy Group not remotely inspiring confidence, and I share your misgivings about Jean Todt but the idea this is leading people to look wistfully back at the Mosley era fills me with deep dismay. The sport really doesn't have to restrict itself to seeking direction from people who have done the job before. The world is full of clever and dynamic business leaders, we don't need Max anywhere near it. 

 

Edited to add: Dieter Rencken's article for subscribers sets out the historical context, as he sees it, of Max Mosley's previous actions and where those actions are having an impact on current events and is well worth a read in my view: http://plus.autospor...0634.1429773030

[chipmcdonald]

The problem with leaving rule making to those who are in it for the profit is that their rule making will be to their benefit - and not necessarily for the betterment of the sport. And remember that Bernie/CVC don't really promote the sport, as they are supposed to. 

 

 

(edit: I've never seen a "non-profit organization" where the people running it are not actually making a pretty good living while it's not making a "profit"....)

 

 

 This presumes the description of what the FIA is supposed to be about and reality are 1:1.  It's not - politics and money are at play, but it's bureaucratic.  "We must make some more rules because that's what we do, we make the rules".  "I've got to make some more rules because I'm here, and it's my job, if I don't do something then maybe I won't have my job?".

 

"Protecting" the sport is what keeps it popular.  I do not have any delusions that the FIA have some sort of interest in protecting the sanctity of "Formula One Racing" beyond their immediate job lifespan.  CVC and Bernie, on the other hand, would like things to be a popular as possible.

 

Given those two options, I pick the later.  Maybe it's not what I *want*, but it's *the choices on the table*. 

Edited by chipmcdonald, 10 June 2015 - 15:23.