86 replies to this topic

[JPW]

Jean Todt indicated today in the Gazzetta dello Sport that the FIA is planning for some kind of licensing system for F1 team managers.

"We will re-visit the matter; particularly on the subject of licences, we'll make sure that all team managers must have one."

I think it's a good thing that by introducing such a system FIA has an effective way to remove (or deny access to) undesirable elements from F1. Preferably I would like to see this license system to be extended to owners, driver's agents/managers and certain key personnel in F1 too.

Surely Flavio challenging his punishment has triggered FIA taking action but earlier events have shown us that it's difficult, but certainly desirable, to be able to ban certain elements from our sport, think of Stepney, Coughlan or thinking further back people like Andrea Sassetti or Jean Pierre van Rossum.

Can't see FOTA having a problem with such a rule, now that some objectionable team bosses have left we have a bunch of OK guys managing the teams with nothing to fear from such "fit and proper person test".

[Gilles4Ever]

And extend it to any team personel that require passes for FIA events, like races, testing etc

[Ben]

Clearly the lawyers have decided they need to license them if they want to punish them as they did to Briatore.

I doubt FOTA would be keen. Maybe FOTA should issue licenses to presidents of governing bodies?

Ben

[Clatter]

Will be interesting to see how they intend to judge and by what criteria who should get a license.

[mclarensmps]

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this one, to be honest. It gives them too much control (not that they have enough already)

[Gilles4Ever]

Will be interesting to see how they intend to judge and by what criteria who should get a license.

I don't think its about getting a license. It's about being able to take it away and effectively banning someone - no license no dealings with other license holders kind of thing

[gincarnated]

I say let the teams hire whomever they want at their bases. If the FIA want to stop certain people from stepping foot of track premises then so be it.

[JPW]

Will be interesting to see how they intend to judge and by what criteria who should get a license.

Surely it will have to be drafted carefully, one thing I think of is that for example it would be forbidden for team bosses to be driver agents/managers as well.

BTW here are some of the disqualifying events the UK Premiership has in it's fit and proper person test.

http://news.bbc.co.u...rem/6923831.stm

[Just waiting]

I don't think its about getting a license. It's about being able to take it away and effectively banning someone - no license no dealings with other license holders kind of thing

Sounds like anti-trust....the whole f1 set up of franchises and so forth, strikes me as being an anti-trust violation, if not technically, then in the spirt of those laws by preventing people from competeting and then keeping a very big piece of the revenue for themselves (and apparently an even bigger piece for ferrari under the table in years past)

Do not get me wrong, banning someone for cheating and making it efffective is a good idea, but all this regulation as to who can compete and who can not, and who gets what part of the pie, just keeps making me think that it is only a matter of time before someone puts a big antitrust lawsuit on the whole thing

[senna da silva]

Maybe FOTA should issue licenses to presidents of governing bodies?

[Dragonfly]

Hmm, this smells of corruption, dictatorship and authoritarian regimes.

Clearly the lawyers have decided they need to license them if they want to punish them as they did to Briatore.

I doubt FOTA would be keen. Maybe FOTA should issue licenses to presidents of governing bodies?

Ben

That may well balance the grim perspective above

Edited by Dragonfly, 09 February 2010 - 15:20.

[wdh]

Will be interesting to see how they intend to judge and by what criteria who should get a license.

Hmm... I'm not too sure about this one, to be honest. It gives them too much control (not that they have enough already)

The devil is in the detail.

They'd have to set out the criteria on which licenses could be issued and withdrawn.

It wouldn't be acceptable to just leave things "to the ultimate discretion of the FIA President".

And precisely how the test is formulated really does matter.
Even before his french court 'triumph' the UK football association couldn't ban Flabbio from Queens Park Rangers because technically he hadn't been banned by the FIA. They had merely banned others from dealing with him, and THAT didn't seem to fail the FA's 'fit and proper persons test'.
And Al Mirage (of Portsmouth fame) seems to have passed the Premiership test despite possibly not existing!
It might sound strange, but I think motor racing has a lot to learn in this regard from horse racing.

Edited by wdh, 09 February 2010 - 15:25.

[Sakae]

Clearly the lawyers have decided they need to license them if they want to punish them as they did to Briatore.

I doubt FOTA would be keen. Maybe FOTA should issue licenses to presidents of governing bodies?

Ben

I think so too, altghou I do not see it any more complicated than issuing pit pass, but it simplifies legal matters when you encounter situation as one with Mr. Briatore; which BTW I think triggered this initiative. I would also think that FOTA was already consulted, because I cannot see JT wanting a new public contraversy, should FOTA dig heels against that.

[Budvar]

Would Mr. Todt have lost his for race fixing had they been in place when he was the Ferrari boss? Funny how things change over time.

[wdh]

I say let the teams hire whomever they want at their bases. If the FIA want to stop certain people from stepping foot of track premises then so be it.

That's also relevant to horse racing.
They don't want shady characters, who might dope a horse, anywhere near the stables. (Quite unlike Flabbio, really!)
So they make sure that they are properly 'warned off'.

However, its rarely a life ban, from what I understand.

[Matti Poika]

How to crush voices of dissent – Lesson 1

Hold the threat of their livelihoods above them.

I understand the Flav case is the reason for suggesting this but it is such a monumentally bad idea. It’s a dictators dream but everyone else’s nightmare.
How long would most of the team bosses lasted in the Max years if this had been in place?

[alg7_munif]

I thought that Todt is a breath of fresh air but he still has the same shitty smell. This is just laying a foundation for the next "Max Mosley" to come and use it against the next "Ron Dennis".

Edited by alg7_munif, 09 February 2010 - 15:36.

[Seanspeed]

Would Mr. Todt have lost his for race fixing had they been in place when he was the Ferrari boss? Funny how things change over time.

Whats so funny? There was no rule against team orders at the time.

Anyways, it seems a sensible idea. The details definitely need to be addressed, but there does need to be some way of banning people who order their drivers to crash, dont ya think?

Edited by Seanspeed, 09 February 2010 - 15:39.

[timknott]

As much as I think this is a good idea in princable, without the correct checks and balances it could well be used incorrectly, especially with the F! structure being biased in favour of certain individuals as it is at the moment (Bernie, Todt.)

The reality is that some of the key figure in the sports recent past would have fallen victim to this if it had been around (Dennis, Montimizello, Todt himself, and undoubtably Flav, wouldnt be suprised if Sdoddart was there too) now for some of those people it may have been the correct decision, but until the decision making process in the FIA is less unilatral, and more transparent, the are going to be questions asked of this.

P.S yes, I know I cant spell...

[Demo.]

How to crush voices of dissent – Lesson 1

Hold the threat of their livelihoods above them.

I understand the Flav case is the reason for suggesting this but it is such a monumentally bad idea. It's a dictators dream but everyone else's nightmare.
How long would most of the team bosses lasted in the Max years if this had been in place?

A licence for team principles is a great idea and in the end will just bring F1 into line with most other major sporting bodies.
As for people who think like the post they clearly fail to understand some simple points.
If you formalise licences you also have to formalise the rules on what is considerd resonable and unreasonable conduct, not to mention the likely outcomes if you break those rules.
So everyone knows but further than that what some seam to miss is even if they had stupid restrictions on a license eg if you say Bernie is a money grabber you lose your license they would still have to prove it was a fair judgment to expell a person for saying such things.
Because no matter what the rules say they are only a guideline on if you do X we may do Y but you always have the right of appeal to outside courts just as flav the chav did.
No license removes that right.
What it does do is give F1 the power to protect itself from lowlifes like flav and also protects those who are in F1 from being removed without due cause.
In short if you dont break the rules no matter what someone like max thinks or wants he would not be able to remove you.

[senna da silva]

A licence for team principles is a great idea and in the end will just bring F1 into line with most other major sporting bodies.

Which other sporting bodies require managers to be licensed?

[undersquare]

A licence for team principles is a great idea and in the end will just bring F1 into line with most other major sporting bodies.
As for people who think like the post they clearly fail to understand some simple points.
If you formalise licences you also have to formalise the rules on what is considerd resonable and unreasonable conduct, not to mention the likely outcomes if you break those rules.
So everyone knows but further than that what some seam to miss is even if they had stupid restrictions on a license eg if you say Bernie is a money grabber you lose your license they would still have to prove it was a fair judgment to expell a person for saying such things.
Because no matter what the rules say they are only a guideline on if you do X we may do Y but you always have the right of appeal to outside courts just as flav the chav did.
No license removes that right.
What it does do is give F1 the power to protect itself from lowlifes like flav and also protects those who are in F1 from being removed without due cause.
In short if you dont break the rules no matter what someone like max thinks or wants he would not be able to remove you.

Solid theory, but it didn't prevent Max from using driver licences as a weapon, like when DC criticised Monza or when a couple of test drivers wanted to race in a non-FIA event. If Max had had a licence weapon for Ron he'd probably have used it.

So far only Flav has used outside courts to challenge FIA decsions, and that was after he was out anyway.

I don't think the teams will like it. Unless they have a voice I suppose.

[One]

Puur BS. Another bureaucracy for none sense.

Honestly FIA need more open path to choose the head. That is more urgent.

[JPW]

What it does do is give F1 the power to protect itself from lowlifes like flav and also protects those who are in F1 from being removed without due cause.

Exactly apart from it being a useful tool it also adds some transparency to F1 which isn't a bad thing imo.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Which other sporting bodies require managers to be licensed?

in soccer the coaches need a license. (outdated source: http://www.ucs.mun.c....rces/cert.html)

The system could work, but then formula1 must be cut loose from the FIA. The teams must be able to vote for the president/chairman/whatever. Otherwise this whole dictatorship style of governing can only get worse.

Edited by Ruud de la Rosa, 09 February 2010 - 16:52.

[senna da silva]

in soccer the coaches need a license. (outdated source: http://www.ucs.mun.c...rces/cert.html)

The system could work, but then formula1 must be cut loose from the FIA. The teams must be able to vote for the president/chairman/whatever. Otherwise this whole dictatorship style of governing can only get worse.

That license is based on training and isn't the type of license that the FIA are talking about. Companies should be able to hire who they want when they want, it is a reflection on them and only them. The FA do not license EPL managers for example.

BTW your link is broken.

Edited by senna da silva, 09 February 2010 - 16:48.

[primer]

Huge potential for abuse.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

That license is based on training and isn't the type of license that the FIA are talking about. Companies should be able to hire who they want when they want, it is a reflection on them and only them. The FA do not license EPL managers for example.

BTW your link is broken.

When they interfere with race strategy they have similar function as a soccer coach. I don't follow it closely but the managers of the teams Players need a license to right?

Edited by Ruud de la Rosa, 09 February 2010 - 18:01.

[New Britain]

A licence for team principles is a great idea and in the end will just bring F1 into line with most other major sporting bodies.
As for people who think like the post they clearly fail to understand some simple points.
If you formalise licences you also have to formalise the rules on what is considerd resonable and unreasonable conduct, not to mention the likely outcomes if you break those rules.
So everyone knows but further than that what some seam to miss is even if they had stupid restrictions on a license eg if you say Bernie is a money grabber you lose your license they would still have to prove it was a fair judgment to expell a person for saying such things.
Because no matter what the rules say they are only a guideline on if you do X we may do Y but you always have the right of appeal to outside courts just as flav the chav did.
No license removes that right.
What it does do is give F1 the power to protect itself from lowlifes like flav and also protects those who are in F1 from being removed without due cause.
In short if you dont break the rules no matter what someone like max thinks or wants he would not be able to remove you.

A bit like the specificity of the technical regs, which despite their excruciating detail have been manipulated time and again for a political purpose?
Or perhaps like the restriction allowing the FIA unilaterally to change the technical regs only for safety reasons - such as because V8s were "safer" than V10s?
It matters not how clear the rules are, if the persons applying them are corrupt. It used to be said that the most democratic national constitution in the world was that of the Soviet Union, but that didn't help the millions who were put in the gulags.

[New Britain]

Exactly apart from it being a useful tool it also adds some transparency to F1 which isn't a bad thing imo.

If we're going to have transparency, how about if we start by making the Concorde Agreement public, and follow that by making public all stewards' discussions and all WMSC meetings?

[senna da silva]

When they interfere with race strategy they have similar function as a soccer coach. I don't follow it closely but the managers of the teams need a license to right?

Do you think Sir Alex Ferguson is required to have a license?

[Demo.]

try horse racing or gymnastics or most MANAGERS of professional team sports.
They require THE MANAGERS to be licensed by the professional sporting body.
remember we are talking about managers not coaches.
But even most sports also require the coach to be registerd and licensed by the governing body.
Heck even in amature sports it is becoming required more and more.

IMHO too many people are still just thinking its the FIA it has to be bad instead of just looking at how bad it COULD BE try looking at what good it also COULD DO.
instead of just thinking the rules will allow for them to be kicked out if they do x,y and z perhaps stop and think as it also says as well if you dont do those 'things' the FIA cannot kick you out.
The key point would be what those 'things' would be and without a doubt FOTA would have to agree what those things were, it would never happen without their agreement shame some fail to see that.

Edited by Demo., 09 February 2010 - 17:20.

[Sakae]

@NB: I am lost why a private business agreement needs to be made public? If we are at it, why not play Bourne Ultimatum, and releveal our salaries, address where we live, which school our childern attending, with whom we shaking on the side, Swiss accounts, and whatever else you want to know, including cell phone number. Besides, policy is not even implemented yet...

Edited by MiPe, 09 February 2010 - 17:24.

[wdh]

Do you think Sir Alex Ferguson is required to have a license?

Well, actually he IS required to hold a coaching "badge", and coaches CAN be banned.

See for example http://news.bbc.co.u...000/8311013.stm "Argentina coach Diego Maradona has been banned from football for two months by Fifa for his furious outburst after last month's victory over Uruguay.
Maradona, under pressure in the run-up to the match, directed an expletive-laden tirade, broadcast on live TV, at reporters and critics after the game. "

[senna da silva]

Well, actually he IS required to hold a coaching "badge", and coaches CAN be banned.

But that isn't the same as being licensed by the FA or the Premier League is it.

The primary function of a team principle is business, should we require them to have an MBA?

[Demo.]

But that isn't the same as being licensed by the FA or the Premier League is it.

The primary function of a team principle is business, should we require them to have an MBA?

but clearly we should expect that they know if they order someone to crash risking the lives of the drivers, marshalls and spectators that the person who does that knows there is no space in the sport for such people and that the rules of that sport also exclude such people from ever taking part in that sport.

[senna da silva]

but clearly we should expect that they know if they order someone to crash risking the lives of the drivers, marshalls and spectators that the person who does that knows there is no space in the sport for such people and that the rules of that sport also exclude such people from ever taking part in that sport.

How is being licensed going to change the probability of that happening? Doctors are licensed and yet malpractice occurs. Lawyers steal. F1 drivers park cars at Rascasse. A license isn't going to change a damn thing.

[wdh]

Perhaps more relevant is that football players' agents (their business managers) are required to be registered with the FA.
http://www.thefa.com...AgentsList.aspx

Superlicensed drivers' agents are unregulated.

[David M. Kane]

Jesus, they only people creating more paperwork and rules are Gordon Brown and Barrack "I"bama!

[wdh]

... A license isn't going to change a damn thing.

The point is that because Flabbio didn't require a license, that French court declared that the FIA had no right to punish him, even indirectly.
I'm not sure whether or not that will stand after the appeal, but a licensing scheme would be one way to deal with the court's objection.

[senna da silva]

Perhaps more relevant is that football players' agents (their business managers) are required to be registered with the FA.
http://www.thefa.com...AgentsList.aspx

Superlicensed drivers' agents are unregulated.

What would be more relevant is if the FA and EPL required Roman Abramovich to have a license. It's a joke and reeks of facism. What possible requirements could they have for granting a license to a team principle?

[VoidNT]

If Todt is serious about this, then we can clearly see his level of competence in management.

[wdh]

What would be more relevant is if the FA and EPL required Roman Abramovich to have a license. ... What possible requirements could they have for granting a license to a team principle?

Sorry, but they do require him (as a Director of Chelsea) to pass their so-called 'fit and proper person' test.

If they say he's too dodgy, they can require the football club to unload him (EDIT or vice versa!), or else the club gets thrown out of the league.
However, there remain questions as to whether their tests are tight enough - as evidence the farce at Portsmouth and approving Mr Thaksin's involvement with Man City.
http://www.mirrorfoo...icle312517.html

But the FIA has no such test AT ALL.

Edited by wdh, 09 February 2010 - 17:56.

[senna da silva]

Sorry, but they do require him (as a Director of Chelsea) to pass their so-called 'fit and proper person' test.

If they say he's too dodgy, they can require the football club to unload him (EDIT or vice versa!), or else the club gets thrown out of the league.
However, there remain questions as to whether their tests are tight enough - as evidence the farce at Portsmouth and approving Mr Thaksin's involvement with Man City.
http://www.mirrorfoo...icle312517.html

But the FIA has no such test AT ALL.

That's not a license it's a background check!

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Do you think Sir Alex Ferguson is required to have a license?

I meant managers of the players. sorry.

[Demo.]

I think it comes down to a simple question are people happy with ANYONE being able to become a manager or do they think its fair if the FIA AND FOTA were to agree to what is considerd basic ground rules about what is considerd right and wrong.
Now if others think its ok for managers to be able to demand others crash and are still allowed to demand yet more crashes shame on you i do not think its right or proper and i do think its right that F1 says we have basic rules that everyone should abide by them.
There is no place for cheats and those who are willing to put others lies at risk well please find another sport we dont want you here!

[JPW]

There is no place for cheats and those who are willing to put others lies at risk well please find another sport we dont want you here!

Exactly and a licensing system gives FIA just the tool to keep undesirables out of the sport, that is if they take it beyond team principals only.

People who order others to crash don't belong in our sport, people who steal or fence team secrets don't belong in our sport, just like senior managers who are found guilty of copyright infringements and industrial espionage don't belong in our sport.

In a way I guess we should be thankful that Flavio took his ban to court because it probably will result in much clearer and effective regulations to keep/kick people like him out of the sport.

[wdh]

That's not a license it's a background check!

Its a requirement for participation.

The FIA has no such requirement.

I meant managers of the players. sorry.

Players' business managers are called "agents" in the UK.
They must be "registered" (ie licensed) by the FA. See my previous link to the list of approved agents.

And to repeat, the French court decided that the FIA's rules did not allow them to decide who could (and could not - Flabbio) be a driver's business manager.
The idea is to give themselves that official authority - just as in UK football.

[New Britain]

@NB: I am lost why a private business agreement needs to be made public? If we are at it, why not play Bourne Ultimatum, and releveal our salaries, address where we live, which school our childern attending, with whom we shaking on the side, Swiss accounts, and whatever else you want to know, including cell phone number. Besides, policy is not even implemented yet...

It's not a question of "need", but it is a question of betterment.
The FIA is not a private business. It is a public organisation that has tried to position itself as the "governing body of world motor sport". As such, its obligations are public, not private.
The other signatories, the entrants and FOG, are of course private. Insofar as their private interests rely on the credibility of the activity that is their reason for being, they would quite possibly benefit from illuminating some of the secret facts surrounding them, of which secrecy the value is not obvious.
Btw, "Formula One" is owned by the public FIA, not by the private teams or the commercial rights holder. The public would like to know what is going on.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Its a requirement for participation.

The FIA has no such requirement.



Players' business managers are called "agents" in the UK.
They must be "registered" (ie licensed) by the FA. See my previous link to the list of approved agents.

And to repeat, the French court decided that the FIA's rules did not allow them to decide who could (and could not - Flabbio) be a driver's business manager.
The idea is to give themselves that official authority - just as in UK football.

Thanks. I agree that the FIA should enforce a system where they can ban people. The drawback is it gives the (president of the) FIA a lot of power, maybe too much power. I'm not all that worried about Todt, but who knows what the future will bring. These kind of jobs attract some major power loving people.