152 replies to this topic

[Raziel]

Petrov insists Alonso also a ‘pay-driver’

Ouch! I have to say that Petrov is one bada$$! Also don´t forget his outburst against Renault last year. I think he is one tough guy, bad boy of F1, he is not afraid of anyone.

[bub]

Petrov insists Alonso also a ‘pay-driver’

Ouch! I have to say that Petrov is one bada$$! Also don´t forget his outburst against Renault last year. I think he is one tough guy, bad boy of F1, he is not afraid of anyone.

Just speaking the truth. Everybody needs backing these days. Having backing does not automatically make you a bad driver.

[Oho]

Just speaking the truth. Everybody needs backing these days. Having backing does not automatically make you a bad driver.

Indeed they are all pay drivers in one way or another. Some bring their own sponsors, some attract sponsors but they all have to attract sponsor money to get and to keep their seats. Actually Alonso can even be classified as your vanilla pay driver in the sense that he seems to bring aboard a couple of pretty hefty sponsors, well at least one, which would follow him should he leave.

[cardin]

Petrov insists Alonso also a ‘pay-driver’

Ouch! I have to say that Petrov is one bada$$! Also don´t forget his outburst against Renault last year. I think he is one tough guy, bad boy of F1, he is not afraid of anyone.

Now they know where to look for when they want honest answers. The bit about alonso; no surprising revelations there.

[CrucialXtreme]

Just speaking the truth. Everybody needs backing these days. Having backing does not automatically make you a bad driver.

No there is a difference. Ferrari did not sign Alonso because he had financial backing. They signed him because he is a winner. A great driver with great potential, who also happens to have large financial backing. Caterham however, hired Petrov because he has financial backing, not because he's a good driver with great potential. He was hired because he brings lots of money to a small team. If Petrov was worth anything, he would've kept his seat at Lotus. GRO didn't bring in more money to the team. No he has greater potential and Petrov wasn't performing. As he said, it's easy to complain when you're losing.

[bub]

No there is a difference. Ferrari did not sign Alonso because he had financial backing. They signed him because he is a winner. A great driver with great potential, who also happens to have large financial backing. Caterham however, hired Petrov because he has financial backing, not because he's a good driver with great potential. He was hired because he brings lots of money to a small team. If Petrov was worth anything, he would've kept his seat at Lotus. GRO didn't bring in more money to the team. No he has greater potential and Petrov wasn't performing. As he said, it's easy to complain when you're losing.

There is no difference
They were both signed because their employers believe they have talent as well as financial backing.

[Flamini]

Ferrari wanted Alonso without Santander in 2002. Just for reminder:

"Alonso almost went to Ferrari in 2002. He had agreed a deal with Jean Todt to become the Ferrari test driver (ironically the role Massa then took) in the garden at Todt’s villa near Maranello. He was with his then manager Adrian Campos. But soon after he was persuaded by Flavio Briatore to join Renault with the promise of a race seat (Jenson Button’s) for 2003.

Alonso had not signed the Ferrari contract and he told Todt he wasn’t coming. Todt vowed that he would never drive for Ferrari as long as he was there. Alonso went on to win two world titles with Renault at a time when he would have been second fiddle to Michael Schumacher had he made his original move."



In 2010 he would be in Ferrari with or without Santander. He couldn't do it earlier because of Todt.

[nbhb]

There is no difference
They were both signed because their employers believe they have talent as well as financial backing.

No sh!t bro...

[bub]

No sh!t bro...

Tell that to the other guy

[CrucialXtreme]

Tell that to the other guy

You are not getting it, I guess it's because of your bias towards Fernando. For Ferrari, Fernando's talent was the number one reason. For Caterham, Petrov's financial backing was the number one reason. Why did Lotus get rid of him is he was so good & had so much talent?

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 14 March 2012 - 12:03.

[bub]

You are not getting it, I guess it's because of your bias towards Fernando. For Ferrari, Fernando's talent was the number one reason. For Caterham, Petrov's financial backing was the number one reason. Why did Lotus get rid of him is he was so good & had so much talent?

You don't know why Caterham signed Petrov.
I'm actually a big fan of Alonso. I didn't say anything negative about him. I just said having financial backing does not automatically make you a bad driver and that there is nothing wrong with having financial backing (as Alonso and Petrov do).
Lotus got rid of Petrov because apparently he made negative comments about them and wasn't performing to their standards, plus they are taking a big risk with Kimi & Romain

Edited by bub, 14 March 2012 - 12:34.

[Fontainebleau]

Petrov insists Alonso also a ‘pay-driver’

Ouch! I have to say that Petrov is one bada$$! Also don´t forget his outburst against Renault last year. I think he is one tough guy, bad boy of F1, he is not afraid of anyone.

“I see no difference between myself and Alonso”

And that short-sightedness explains why you think that Alonso is a pay driver

[Fontainebleau]

You don't know why Caterham signed Petrov.
I'm actually a big fan of Alonso. I didn't say anything negative about him. I just said having financial backing does not automatically make you a bad driver and that there is nothing wrong with having financial backing (as Alonso does).
Lotus got rid of Petrov because apparently he made negative comments about them and wasn't performing to their standards, plus they are taking a big risk with Kimi & Romain

Ok, let's clarify a couple of things, to see if we are all talking about the same thing here:

- the term pay-driver is used to refer to those drivers who are in a team mainly because of the financial support that they bring to said team, usually through an sponsor that is uniquely linked to that driver. Obviously, one would expect those drivers to be able to carry an F1 car around a track with more or less skill, otherwise the whole thing would make no sense at all.

- one of the characteristics of a driver labelled as "pay-driver" is that without the financial backing they bring the team would not give them a seat: they will either go for a driver who is regarded as a very good F1 driver per se, or to another pay driver with money.


Now, all drivers in F1 have a value attached to them because of skills, and a value attached to them because of how attractive they are for sponsors - that applies to Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Button, Schumacher and Raikkonen (the six WDCs). I have read in this same forums endless justifications from supporters of each one of those drivers as to why their driver is more attractive for sponsors and hence more likely to bring money to the team. As you say, Bub, nothing wrong with that. But those drivers are not "pay drivers": teams focus on them because of their skills, and not just because of the money they bring in. Is money a factor? Yes, it is - one of the reasons McLaren chose Hamilton as Alonso's teammate over De la Rosa (despite Hamilton's relatively poor performance in the first tests with Michelin) was that from the PR point of view McLaren was much better off with one Englishman and one Spaniard than with two Spaniards. Does that make Hamilton a pay driver? No, because that was not the only or even the main reason for him to get to F1.

That someone labells a double WDC who came into F1 from a country with (at the time) very little F1 tradition and no big sponsors a "pay driver" shows either very little knowledge or a lot of personal resentment on that person's side. That an F1 driver who has not yet achieved significant success does, shows a high level of arrogance too.

Banco Santander signed with Ferrari in 2009, almost a year after the team had reached an agreement with Alonso that he would join in 2011. Since nobody knows how the deal between Ferrari, Santander and Philip Morris is structured, nobody can tell how much money does Ferrari receive from Santander. But one thing is very clear: Ferrari wanted Alonso in way before Santander came into the picture (in fact, given Santander's links with McLaren and their lack of big business in Italy it was far from obvious that they would switch), and hence the most Santander helped with was with paying Raikkonen's package so that Ferrari could send him off one year sooner. But Ferrari knew that they wanted Raikkonen out way before that: in fact, Raikkonen supporters defend that the team had already marginalised the driver in 2008 choosing to support Massa instead, and that such attitude was maintained in 2009.

Alonso did not get into F1 because of his sponsors: his sponsors got into F1 because of Alonso. And that truth might hurt those who dislike Alonso, but truth hurts sometimes.

Edited by Fontainebleau, 14 March 2012 - 12:55.

[abulafiaF1]

Alonso did not get into F1 because of his sponsors: his sponsors got into F1 because of Alonso. And that truth might hurt those who dislike Alonso, but truth hurts sometimes.

Hmmm... that's not entirely accurate though, is it? Sure, Paul Stoddart was very happy to have a young and talented Alonso driving for Minardi in 2001, but it was actually Alonso who was paying for his seat and not Tarso Marques, who had no backing at the time. As a result, Alonso was demanding (and getting) the No1 car (which was very different to the No2 Minardi due to budget limitations) and poor Marques was stuck with the left-overs.

Having said that, I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that Fernando is a pay driver, or that he isn't a very, very good and spectacular driver who has worked hard and deserves his success.

[bub]

Ok, let's clarify a couple of things, to see if we are all talking about the same thing here:

- the term pay-driver is used to refer to those drivers who are in a team mainly because of the financial support that they bring to said team, usually through an sponsor that is uniquely linked to that driver. Obviously, one would expect those drivers to be able to carry an F1 car around a track with more or less skill, otherwise the whole thing would make no sense at all.

- one of the characteristics of a driver labelled as "pay-driver" is that without the financial backing they bring the team would not give them a seat: they will either go for a driver who is regarded as a very good F1 driver per se, or to another pay driver with money.


Now, all drivers in F1 have a value attached to them because of skills, and a value attached to them because of how attractive they are for sponsors - that applies to Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Button, Schumacher and Raikkonen (the six WDCs). I have read in this same forums endless justifications from supporters of each one of those drivers as to why their driver is more attractive for sponsors and hence more likely to bring money to the team. As you say, Bub, nothing wrong with that. But those drivers are not "pay drivers": teams focus on them because of their skills, and not just because of the money they bring in. Is money a factor? Yes, it is - one of the reasons McLaren chose Hamilton as Alonso's teammate over De la Rosa (despite Hamilton's relatively poor performance in the first tests with Michelin) was that from the PR point of view McLaren was much better off with one Englishman and one Spaniard than with two Spaniards. Does that make Hamilton a pay driver? No, because that was not the only or even the main reason for him to get to F1.

That someone labells a double WDC who came into F1 from a country with (at the time) very little F1 tradition and no big sponsors a "pay driver" shows either very little knowledge or a lot of personal resentment on that person's side. That an F1 driver who has not yet achieved significant success does, shows a high level of arrogance too.

Banco Santander signed with Ferrari in 2009, almost a year after the team had reached an agreement with Alonso that he would join in 2011. Since nobody knows how the deal between Ferrari, Santander and Philip Morris is structured, nobody can tell how much money does Ferrari receive from Santander. But one thing is very clear: Ferrari wanted Alonso in way before Santander came into the picture (in fact, given Santander's links with McLaren and their lack of big business in Italy it was far from obvious that they would switch), and hence the most Santander helped with was with paying Raikkonen's package so that Ferrari could send him off one year sooner. But Ferrari knew that they wanted Raikkonen out way before that: in fact, Raikkonen supporters defend that the team had already marginalised the driver in 2008 choosing to support Massa instead, and that such attitude was maintained in 2009.

Alonso did not get into F1 because of his sponsors: his sponsors got into F1 because of Alonso. And that truth might hurt those who dislike Alonso, but truth hurts sometimes.

Petrov did not say "Alonso is a pay driver" he said Alonso has sponsors as do I. Neither myself nor Petrov said Alonso is in F1 mainly because of his financial backing. Petrov is saying (and I agree) that he deserves to be in f1 based on his talent. I believe Caterham signed Petrov because they believe he is as good or better than Trulli.

Random question: Why didn't Ferrari keep Kimi with Alonso?

[flyer121]

Petrov did not say "Alonso is a pay driver" he said Alonso has sponsors as do I. Neither myself nor Petrov said Alonso is in F1 mainly because of his financial backing. Petrov is saying (and I agree) that he deserves to be in f1 based on his talent. I believe Caterham signed Petrov because they believe he is as good or better than Trulli.

Random question: Why didn't Ferrari keep Kimi with Alonso?

Random answer : - Kimi may have beaten Alonso !

[bub]

Random answer : - Kimi may have beaten Alonso !

And why would that bother them?

[mindmill]

Random answer : - Kimi may have beaten Alonso !

Random anecdote : - Kimi got already beaten by Massa to a bloody pulp.

[puxanando]

Random answer : - Kimi may have beaten Alonso !

Or maybe NOT! Look the last season Kimi/Massa and the seasons Alonso/Massa..........

[Fontainebleau]

Hmmm... that's not entirely accurate though, is it? Sure, Paul Stoddart was very happy to have a young and talented Alonso driving for Minardi in 2001, but it was actually Alonso who was paying for his seat and not Tarso Marques, who had no backing at the time. As a result, Alonso was demanding (and getting) the No1 car (which was very different to the No2 Minardi due to budget limitations) and poor Marques was stuck with the left-overs.

Having said that, I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that Fernando is a pay driver, or that he isn't a very, very good and spectacular driver who has worked hard and deserves his success.

If I am not mistaken, Fernando Alonso was hired by Briatore/Renault for five years and on loan to Minardi for just 2001. I don't think that you can say that he was paying for his seat; if anything, Renault was paying Minardi to use them as test bench for their driver.

Edited by Fontainebleau, 14 March 2012 - 13:25.

[kosmos]

This Alonso is in Ferrari because Santander is getting old, way to old.

If Alonso has Santander on his side, is because he has earned the trust of one of the most important banks with his doing on the track, I remmark, with his doing on the track.Ferrari wanted Alonso (among other teams) for a long time, before Santander jumped into F1 cash cow.

Petrov is a loser and the only reason he is on this sport, is because the money, Alonso is on F1 because he is the best or one of the best, period.

If I am not mistaken, Fernando Alonso was hired by Briatore/Renault for five years and on loan to Minardi for just 2001. I don't think that you can say that he was paying for his seat; if anything, Renault was paying Minardi to use them as test bench for their driver.

Correct. Minardi happen for Alonso because Briatore not because he carried a bag of money, money that his family didn't have at that time.

Edited by kosmos, 14 March 2012 - 13:37.

[Fontainebleau]

Petrov did not say "Alonso is a pay driver" he said Alonso has sponsors as do I. Neither myself nor Petrov said Alonso is in F1 mainly because of his financial backing. Petrov is saying (and I agree) that he deserves to be in f1 based on his talent. I believe Caterham signed Petrov because they believe he is as good or better than Trulli.

Random question: Why didn't Ferrari keep Kimi with Alonso?

As for your puntualisation of Petrov's words, I guess I was misled by the title of the article. I am sure that he was asked the type of questions that put him on a defensive mood, and then his answers were taken a bit out of context to make the whole thing more controversial, as it usually happens. I have probably been too harsh on him.

A funny thing, and forgive me for the short off-topic: I have always been a Renault supporter, and as such I always wanted to have two of my three fav drivers (Alonso, Kubica and Raikkonen) teaming up in that team. It turned out that all three of them have driven for Renault (although since Genii took over it is not exactly my team anymore), but I have never managed to see two of them as teammates. And the weirdest thing is that, had circumstances been a bit different, it would have been quite possible to see any two of them pairing up - but at Ferrari. But now I think that any possibility of it happening is gone...

Edited by Gilles4Ever, 15 March 2012 - 06:46.

[wrcva]

...
Banco Santander signed with Ferrari in 2009, almost a year after the team had reached an agreement with Alonso that he would join in 2011. Since nobody knows how the deal between Ferrari, Santander and Philip Morris is structured, nobody can tell how much money does Ferrari receive from Santander. But one thing is very clear: Ferrari wanted Alonso in way before Santander came into the picture (in fact, given Santander's links with McLaren and their lack of big business in Italy it was far from obvious that they would switch), and hence the most Santander helped with was with paying Raikkonen's package so that Ferrari could send him off one year sooner...

you might be remembering it wrong...

Santander to Secure Alonso Ferrari Seat --Dec, 2008
Alonso Ferrari Move Still on -- Sep, 2008

[W03]

There is no difference
They were both signed because their employers believe they have talent as well as financial backing.

You don't seem to understand what a pay driver is. Let me explain in a very basic way. A pay driver pays the team for his drive. A normal driver is paid by the team for his drive.

A pay driver pays for his seat through sponsors, which means without this payment the team would not want him. Merely having sponsorship (which every driver has), does not make you a 'pay driver' because it is not the reason why the team selected you.

Petrov is a pay driver and has no relation to Alonso.

[redbarron]

I can't believe people are arguing about Alonso being a paid driver. It's rated as one of the best drivers in the world. Ferrari would have wanted him Santander or not. I'm sure all drivers have some sponsors behind them!

[Nivra]

This is kinda stupid from Petrov!!

Petrov insists Alonso also a ‘pay-driver’
http://www.f1zone.ne...y-driver/12955/

“I see no difference between myself and Alonso,” said the Russian, who has moved his lucrative backing from Renault (now Lotus) to the Caterham team for 2012.
Comparing himself with Alonso, Petrov told La Stampa newspaper: “Everyone knows that he is funded by the money from (Ferrari sponsor) Banco Santander.

“Anyway, you only get to F1 because of talent.” And Petrov, 27, insists he does not feel sorry for Trulli. “Life is hard,” the Italian newspaper quotes him as saying.

Asked to explain the rare absence of Italians on the grid, Petrov criticised the country’s junior categories and added: “Your drivers lack the passion.”

And as for Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo’s complaints about the dramatic role being played by aerodynamics in F1 at present, he answered: “When you’re not winning, it’s easy to complain.”

Petrov, however, lived in Italy in his past, revealing that his favourite elements of Italian life are “the food and the girls”.
But on the latter, he does not expect to be wheel-to-wheel with the opposite sex any time soon.

“They do not have the physical ability and also are not prepared for the high speeds. But everything in life is possible,” said Petrov.

[Nivra]

In one interview alone...
-He calls Alonso a Pay driver
-Criticizes Italian Drivers as Talentless.
-Criticizes Italian Motorsport Feds as not doing their best.
-Taking a pot-shot at Luca for complaining about F1 rules.
-Suggests "girls" are good for bed, but not for race tracks!

He is nuts. But thats just my own opinion. He is a nice guy but stupid me thinks hehehe.

Edited by Nivra, 15 March 2012 - 06:30.

[TFLB]

Technically he is right. I don't see anything wrong with what he said. In fact, I respect him more for having said it.

[Oho]

In one interview alone...
-He calls Alonso a Pay driver
-Criticizes Italian Drivers as Talentless.
-Criticizes Italian Motorsport Feds as not doing their best.
-Taking a pot-shot at Luca for complaining about F1 rules.
-Suggests "girls" are good for bed, but not for race tracks!

He is nuts. But thats just my own opinion. He is a nice guy but stupid me thinks hehehe.

The number of panties Petrov has got into bunch is just hilarious, more power to him for it.....

[itsademo]

we could tell what you thought even if you had not put a single word down just from the way you put the options.
you should have given the same options for both drivers.

simply put yes Alonso is a pay driver as it was Santander who paid Ferrari a lot of money to get Alonso the seat.
Irrespective of if he gets paid or not santander paid Ferrari even more hence it could be argued Ferrari dont pay alonso santander do.

Just because Petrov tells the truth does not make him nuts or stupid just truthful.

edit add you should remember before you start such stupid rants that he never insulted Alonso or claimed he was not a great driver.
And as for Luca only a fool would think he does not act like a little girl and complain like crazy whenever he does not get his way in shady deals behind closed dooors.

Edited by itsademo, 15 March 2012 - 06:41.

[pingu666]

go petrov

fyi i dont quite agree on the girl thing, simona de silvestra? in indycars keeps getting burned (literaly!), and keeps getting back in the car and impressing.

[Tifosi4ever]

The big difference is that Santander backed a double world champion. Petrov only got into F1 because of cash. I understand the benefits of backing a winner, but backing a Lada racer because he is Russian is completely different. Petrov is ****, and would be nowhere near f1 if not for cash.

[TFLB]

The big difference is that Santander backed a double world champion. Petrov only got into F1 because of cash. I understand the benefits of backing a winner, but backing a Lada racer because he is Russian is completely different. Petrov is ****, and would be nowhere near f1 if not for cash.

Now that's not quite right. Petrov probably deserved his shot at F1 because of his performance in GP2.

[bourbon]

I think of a "pay driver" as one who must seek out sponsors himself - do all the leg work, pleading, bargaining and so forth to obtain money that goes to the team. The driver's seat may be dependent on the sponsor's continued sponsorship.

I think of a non-pay driver as one who either has sponsors coming to him or the team and asking to sponsor the driver or the team - OR - the company seek sponsors for the driver and team. In either case, the driver does not have to do any of the work and his salary is guaranteed by the team and not dependant on any sponsor.

There are naturally some unique cases - so the above is not absolute, but that is more or less how I look at it.

Edited by bourbon, 15 March 2012 - 07:05.

[FloorIt]

calling a double wdc a pay-driver is as stupid as it gets

[baddog]

Petrov straddles the line as he is actually pretty good, having started as 100% a pay driver and proved himself.. but Alonso is nowhere near it. Vitaly is deluding himself, there is a big difference between a driver with backing and a pay driver.

[thuGG]

There is one fundamental difference between Alonso and Petrov. Alonso would have a drive (top drive I believe) without sponsors, Petrov most probably wouldn't have a drive at all. So, by my standards, Alonso isn't a pay driver (because he dosen't need money to find a drive) and Petrov is.
It was itdiotic comment by Petrov.

I voted: 3, 1, 1.

Edited by thuGG, 15 March 2012 - 07:22.

[jals99]

He could not say it. His wordw were misinterpretered by Italian media, I expect clarification of it soon.

[W03]

Technically he is right. I don't see anything wrong with what he said. In fact, I respect him more for having said it.

No hes not.

[W03]

simply put yes Alonso is a pay driver as it was Santander who paid Ferrari a lot of money to get Alonso the seat.

evidence?

[Jovanotti]

There is one fundamental difference between Alonso and Petrov. Alonso would have a drive (top drive I believe) without sponsors, Petrov most probably wouldn't have a drive at all. So, by my standards, Alonso isn't a pay driver (because he dosen't need money to find a drive) and Petrov is.
It was itdiotic comment by Petrov.

I voted: 3, 1, 1.

Only possible answer, end of.

[Manneken3000]

Petrov better start to perform this year, and that's not scoring a couple of points here and there.
Cause when Caterham is gone, who's gonna have him?
Lotus/Renault had enough of him already! Trulli was on his way out anyway.

Petrov:“When you’re not winning, it’s easy to complain.”
Look who's talking!

At least Grosjean has a permanent smile on his face.

Petrov, go back into your celing!

[KoezhVukotic]

Just because a driver like Alonso could get a drive with a top team without sponsors does not mean that bringing sponsors to a team does not make him a pay driver. He is still paying for his drive through sponsors, whether or not he would have got it without them. And for those going by the old meaning of the word where someone was of little talent and being a pay driver meant you were like Deletraz need to be aware that meanings change. ****** used to mean a bundle of sticks, (in England it still does) then it meant gay people now it means Harley riders

Edited by KoezhVukotic, 15 March 2012 - 08:40.

[baddog]

Pay driver STILL means, to 99% of people, a driver who would not have an F1 drive without a fat bundle of cash. trying to redefine it is silly.

[W03]

He is still paying for his drive through sponsors, whether or not he would have got it without them.

no hes not, ferrari are paying him a kings ransom. santander is ferrari's sponsor.

[KoezhVukotic]

Pay driver STILL means, to 99% of people, a driver who would not have an F1 drive without a fat bundle of cash. trying to redefine it is silly.

99%? You sure? If you look at the poll you would find that over 50% think the opposite. Why would redefining it be silly? Words get redefined all the time, why should this term be any different if the circumstances surrounding driver sponsorship have changed? Niki Lauda only got into F1 because of loans he took out and was one of the greats but surely even by your definition he was a pay driver?

[seahawk]

Well, are most top drivers not paydrivers?

Once they have personal sponsors who also sponsor the team the line gets blurred. Vettel is a paydriver, if you see Red Bull as his personal sponsor. Alonso is a pay driver beyond any doubt and he would have no place in F1 without the money.

I only see few drivers who can not be called pay drivers.

1. Lewis
2. Jenson
3. Kimi

and that is about it.

[Jaybools]

It's quite simple really.

Some people obtain backing of their SKILLS - Fernando/STR boys/etc
Some people obtain backing through other nationalistic/personal means - Vitaly/Maldo/etc.

This is the difference. Everyone will have some form of backing, but it's what the backing is for is what the difference is..

[2ms]

There isn't any real difference between Santander-Alonso and SIBUR-Petrov. Both sponsors made business arrangements/agreements in order to install their drivers into the teams they're driving for, both are paying their drivers' salaries, and both created openings in the teams by paying large sums of money.

But there is nothing wrong being a pay driver. The term is even pointless. All professional sports are businesses. F1 is not an exception.

[The Ragged Edge]

In theory the answer is yes, but the reality is Ferrari would find the money from alternative means if Santander was not behind Alonso, this is the difference. Petrov is only taken on because of the money he brings in. Alonso would be taken on regardless.