67 replies to this topic

[Schuperman]

This poll is about opinion.

Do you think Michael Schumacher has No. 1 status specifically written in his contract?

Another issues:
1. What are the advantages having No. 1 status?
My arguments, IF the No. 2 driver is faster, you cant stop him driving fast. Getting the latest parts? I remember when Rubens was given the latest parts, some here argued, it was done for MS, to find out its reliability. When MS was given the latest parts, some here argued, it was done to make sure MS' win.

More testings? When MS did the testing, it was to make sure the car would suit him. When Rubens did the testing, that's Rubens job as MS' lackey, to make sure MS had enough rest.

2. What do you take as equal status? Do you think it exists in real world?
My arguments, every single drivers has their own preferences. How are you going to make both of them happy?

Your comments/ arguments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Schuperman
This poll is about opinion.

Do you think Michael Schumacher has No. 1 status specifically written in his contract?

Of course he does. It's the worst kept secret in f1. Anyone believing otherwise is underestimating the strength of hand that Michael, and his management, had when they went to Ferrari - and still have now.

Good for him.

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by Lifew12
Of course he does. It's the worst kept secret in f1. Anyone believing otherwise is underestimating the strength of hand that Michael, and his management, had when they went to Ferrari - and still have now.

Which leads to another question, who else has so much strength to force the so-called number one status written in his contract?

[emburmak]

He does have No1 status but it is not written specifically in his contract. As both RB & EI have alluded to. The advantage of No1 have been enjoyed by many famous names in F1 history so there is nothing wrong with that. ANY driver will take No1 status if possible. It is usually based on achievements and the standing of the drivers.

In 1990 AP had No1 status as did AS at Mclaren. In 1992 NM had No1 status versus RP. What is clear is that if the No2 driver can show just cause by being as good as if not better than the acknowledged No1 then the team will shift its stand. Exmaples NP vs NM 1986-87at williams and NP vs MS at Benneton 1991.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by emburmak
He does have No1 status but it is not written specifically in his contract. As both RB & EI have alluded to. The advantage of No1 have been enjoyed by many famous names in F1 history so there is nothing wrong with that. ANY driver will take No1 status if possible. It is usually based on achievements and the standing of the drivers.

In 1990 AP had No1 status as did AS at Mclaren. In 1992 NM had No1 status versus RP. What is clear is that if the No2 driver can show just cause by being as good as if not better than the acknowledged No1 then the team will shift its stand. Exmaples NP vs NM 1986-87at williams and NP vs MS at Benneton 1991.

Interesting, (and I hope we can leave the other thread out of this and converse as we used to) but I doubt that either Rubens or Eddie have actually seen Michaels contract.

I would find it odd, indeed, that Rubens would have agreed to move over in the famous 'Austriagate' incident had it not been a specifically stated contractual requirement, as opposed to just an 'agreement'; It was widely believed when Michael joined Ferrari that he did so on his terms, alone, and again I would be surprised if it is not written in his, and his team mates, contracts.

Still, I agree, any driver worth his salt would agree to such a clause.

[Jordan191]

Agreed. I think the biggest problem I have is the religious indignation of some on here when it comes to #1 status , MS and Ferrari, esecially from fans of other drivers who enjoy similar advantages.

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by Lifew12
I would find it odd, indeed, that Rubens would have agreed to move over in the famous 'Austriagate' incident had it not been a specifically stated contractual requirement, as opposed to just an 'agreement'

Would you find it odd, when Coulthard had to let Mika passed him at the first GP of the year? Let alone Jerez 1997 when the outcome did not effect anything in the championship.

[Davebo]

Michael Schumacher has been coddled and protected his entire career. It doesn't matter how many championships he wins - every one will have an asterisk beside it.

[carbonfibre]

Originally posted by Davebo
Michael Schumacher has been coddled and protected his entire career. It doesn't matter how many championships he wins - every one will have an asterisk beside it.

For you yes.

[emburmak]

Originally posted by Lifew12


Interesting, (and I hope we can leave the other thread out of this and converse as we used to) but I doubt that either Rubens or Eddie have actually seen Michaels contract.

I would find it odd, indeed, that Rubens would have agreed to move over in the famous 'Austriagate' incident had it not been a specifically stated contractual requirement, as opposed to just an 'agreement'; It was widely believed when Michael joined Ferrari that he did so on his terms, alone, and again I would be surprised if it is not written in his, and his team mates, contracts.

Still, I agree, any driver worth his salt would agree to such a clause.

(Of course we can. There is no reason in transposing arguments ;) )

I do not believe that it is in his contract. But it is inconcevable that an employee would disobey a direct order that is in the interests of the team. No company worth their salt would counternance such and it could result in immediate termination for breech of contract.

[kismet]

I imagine Michael's contract has the same do-as-you're-told and remind-me-again-which-one-of-us-signs-your-paychecks clauses as his teammates' contracts.

[tifosi]

Originally posted by Davebo
Michael Schumacher has been coddled and protected his entire career. It doesn't matter how many championships he wins - every one will have an asterisk beside it.

But the question we can't get answered is WHY. Why is this one man so much more powerful then the combined power of all others. What makes him practoically a walking god, in that he can get men to bow before him, coddle him, give him anything he wants? That is the question we want answered.



to Lifew12 - The answer to the "contractual requirement" in your post is that Reubans, just like MS is an employee of Suderia Ferrari and therefore is obligated to follow the orders of his employer. Does that fact that Ferrari ORDERED MS to get back in the car in 1999 and support Eddie Irvine's run for the cham,pionship prove that EI had number 1 status written into his contract? Of course not.

[Gareth]

Originally posted by Lifew12
I would find it odd, indeed, that Rubens would have agreed to move over in the famous 'Austriagate' incident had it not been a specifically stated contractual requirement, as opposed to just an 'agreement'; It was widely believed when Michael joined Ferrari that he did so on his terms, alone, and again I would be surprised if it is not written in his, and his team mates, contracts.

The contents of MS's contract would have no bearing whatsoever on RB's decision to move over or not. The only thing that would affect that decision would be the content of RB's contract. So 'Austriagate' shows nothing other than that:

1. RB's contract contains a clause requiring him to obey team orders; and

2. the Ferrari team elected to use that clause to order RB behind MS.

Whether or not 2. occurred because Ferrari wanted to (because they like MS) or because they were obliged to (because it's written in MS's contract that Ferrari will use teamorders to favour him), neither you or I know.

[fifi]

my thoughts
i dont think its specifically written down in the contract that MS has this no1 status but i do think its there within the team (prolly in some kind of clause saying the drivers act and do what the employer tells them and if that means that FM has to let MS by then so be it) and its only the top team personel like todt that enforces this during the races if needed

why i dunno

[Gilles4Ever]

Originally posted by fifi
my thoughts
i dont think its specifically written down in the contract that MS has this no1 status but i do think its there within the team (prolly in some kind of clause saying the drivers act and do what the employer tells them and if that means that FM has to let MS by then so be it) and its only the top team personel like todt that enforces this during the races if needed

why i dunno

oh will you stop being rational!

[Dudley]

Every single driver would have an "obey teams instructions" clause. All of them.

[F1Johnny]

No, but I think that his teammate has #2 status written into his contract.

I agree with Dudley.

[CaptnMark]

The question is: has it been abused?

And the answer is YES.

[HSJ]

Originally posted by emburmak
He does have No1 status but it is not written specifically in his contract. As both RB & EI have alluded to.

Mika Salo has said the same thing. It wasn't in his contract to be #2, but he was given a "talk" on the subject in Maranello... I think there's a good chance that MS's contract has no #1 clause, or his teammates #2 clauses, but that doesn't really mean much.

[RDM]

Only MS, WW and senior Ferrari members will know. Everything else is conjecture.

The closest we do have to knowing is that Rubens denied that he was contractually no.2.

All the evidence available, therefore, suggests Shumacher does not have no.1 status written into his contract.

That said, he has clearly done enough for his team to merit preferential treatment from time to time when a choice has to be made. Who do you give priority to - your high-performing, long-serving employee, or the new guy who frequently doesn't match up to his colleague's performance?

[WACKO]

Originally posted by Lifew12


Of course he does. It's the worst kept secret in f1.

Well, something may change if he does decide to re-sign. I am sure he will not be granted preferential treatment over Raikkonen. It may also be the reason why he is having a tough time making up his mind.

[Group B]

Originally posted by RDM
Only MS, WW and senior Ferrari members will know. Everything else is conjecture.

Missed one out mate;

Only MS, WW, senior Ferrari members and Fortymark will know. Everything else is conjecture.

[Johny Bravo]

I think evil MS can veto his teammate's breakfast, lunch and dinner whenever that teammate outpaces him.

[RDM]

Originally posted by Group B


Missed one out mate;

Only MS, WW, senior Ferrari members and Fortymark will know. Everything else is conjecture.

lol, yes! I was forgetting the omnipresence of Fortymark...thanks for correcting me on that one!

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Schuperman

Would you find it odd, when Coulthard had to let Mika passed him at the first GP of the year? Let alone Jerez 1997 when the outcome did not effect anything in the championship.

yes, extremely odd. Ever since Rene Arnoux disobeyed blatantly unnecessary team orders at the 1982 French Grand Prix to win from Alain Prost, a move that impressed more people than it annoyed, I have found needless co-operation in such a manner 'odd' to say the least. All Rubens did in that instance, and DC in those, was confirm that he was happy to be a number two. That immediately detracted from his worth.

[K-One]

Originally posted by Group B


Missed one out mate;

Only MS, WW, senior Ferrari members and Fortymark will know. Everything else is conjecture.

Your "joke" isn't fun anymore when repeated many times

[K-One]

Originally posted by Johny Bravo
I think evil MS can veto his teammate's breakfast, lunch and dinner whenever that teammate outpaces him.

Many Ferrari fans are bashing about how intelligent few anti-MS posters here are, but I have to say you aren't fairing any better

[Group B]

Originally posted by K-One


Your "joke" isn't fun anymore when repeated many times

Who's joking?

[Johny Bravo]

Originally posted by K-One


Many Ferrari fans are bashing about how intelligent few anti-MS posters here are, but I have to say you aren't fairing any better

Boohoo.

How am I not surprised that You are responding to 'many Ferrari fans' instead of simply to me.

[Arrow]

'No1' status is more about convenience than anything else. Things are made easier for the driver sometimes when needed but most of the time 'No1' status means zero.
All that matters is that both drivers have the same car, so status can be decided on track, and lets not forget thats exactly how you earn that status. People seem to think you just get it for no reason.
Make no mistake, if the other driver proved to be better he would take it off the other no problem.

[dpardyrx7]

Of course he has # 1 status.

He came to Ferrari as the defending world champ and after 20 years in the wildrness brought Ferrari 6 straight WCC's and 5 straight WDC's. During that same period of time the racing division of Ferrari has pulled in so much sponsorship that they recieve little or no support from the car division or Fiat. Also, don't forget the old saying win on Sunday, sell on Monday. Just try and buy a new Ferrari - the waiting list is 2 years long or more.

So given that F1 is all about money and profits, I would be surprised if Michael didn't have # 1 status written into his contract, and if he doesn't he should fire Willie Webber.

[jimm]

Originally posted by emburmak

In 1990 AP had No1 status as did AS at Mclaren. In 1992 NM had No1 status versus RP. What is clear is that if the No2 driver can show just cause by being as good as if not better than the acknowledged No1 then the team will shift its stand. Exmaples NP vs NM 1986-87at williams and NP vs MS at Benneton 1991.

Some of this is not correct:

1990 Mansell and Prost had equal status, they spit testing, they alternated the spare car (a big deal back then) and neither had to give way to the other (witness Portugal and Canada that year). It was only after it was clear that Prost was going for the WDC that Mansell was ASKED by Prost for the spare etc that it changed.....BTW, according to Mansell, Prost never said thank you!!! It was NOT ordered by the team which was acutally a gripe of Prosts but only after Mansell was no longer a WDC challenger.

In 1991, Mansell WAS NOT #1 in the team...primarily because the two drivers were usually pretty close. In 1992, Mansell was given pseudo #1 after it was clear that Patrese could not adapt to the active car (on average 1 to 2 sec slower in an active car). This consisted only of him giving way to Mansell Brazil and in France. He was allowed to race for wins on tracks he was on par with Mansell (like Hungery) that year though.

In 1991, Piquet and the team were barely on speaking terms and it was clear that he was leaving. The driver MS replaced was allowed to race Piquet and they saw MS as the next big driver (good call) and did not restrict him. NOt sure it was really a take over like you present it.

[Ghostrider]

So what some of you think is that Schumi broke his contract clauses when he helped out Eddie Irvine at Malaysia in 99?

It isn't written in his contract or his teammates contract, the drivers at Ferrari are just drivers, Montezemolo has said it many times. However, the drivers surely have something about that they need to obey "teamorders" or similar, of course they do.

The only written clause concerning teammate and team support I have heard about recently, was one guy who had a clause securing him the third car set-up for him every race weekend. And it was not Schumi....

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by Davebo
Michael Schumacher has been coddled and protected his entire career. It doesn't matter how many championships he wins - every one will have an asterisk beside it.

* Total ****ing domination

[schuey100]

It is very unlikely that Schumacher has a 'number 1' clause in his contract. For this to work properly, 'number 1' must be fully defined. In other words, what does this mean in any given situation?

It's impossible to quantify that. What if Schumacher is 8th and Massa is second, does that mean Massa must, according to the MS contract, crash so MS can get a point for 8th?

The contract would have to be so specific about every possible scenario that it would be unworkable.

As someone's already said, each driver signs a contract and this contract is based upon him and the team. You cannot have merged contracts whereby your contract rests upon another persons. For that to be the case the drivers would have to have full access to other driver's contracts. We all know that no other driver has seen the MS contract. Not a chance.

However it is obvious that there's a preference. Any sane organization would focus on the driver they believe is best equipped to win a championship.

RDM hit the nail on the head. Yes, there's a preference but I think it would be very difficult to argue that this is in any way contractual.

In any case, we know just how powerful Todt is and the Ferrari organization would not limit themselves or bind themselves into a contract so they have so little say about how an employee is treated.

I think it's most likely that Ferrari has decided internally to focus on their most valuable asset, MS. This has meant focusing the team around him.

However, I have no doubt that if MS failed to finish the first 5 races this season and Massa was on 50 points and winning the WDC that Ferrari would order MS to support Massa.

Again, no organization would get themselves in a position where MS could not follow those team orders. The 99 season is a good example.

The same goes for next year.

If Kimi is well in the lead after 5 races, MS will play support.

If MS is well ahead then Kimi will play number 2 and follow orders.

The more sensible question to ask is, 'Does MS have certain advantages written into his contract'?

The answer must be yes. He'll have first choice of engineers, possibly even choice of seats on the airplane. Does this equate to 'number 1' status? Maybe but it does not mean that he controls how another driver will race against him.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by schuey100
It is very unlikely that Schumacher has a 'number 1' clause in his contract.

The rest of your post failed to live up to the promise of this gem.

[giacomo]

Michael Schumacher is Ferraris number one driver since 1996.

It is absolutely irrelevant if this status is written in his contract or not.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by HSJ


Mika Salo has said the same thing. It wasn't in his contract to be #2, but he was given a "talk" on the subject in Maranello... I think there's a good chance that MS's contract has no #1 clause, or his teammates #2 clauses, but that doesn't really mean much.

Sato was a sub driver. It would simply make sense to have him subservient to the regular driver. It isn't an indicator of normal operation any more than Michael helping Eddie in late 1999 was.

[carbonfibre]

Sato still is a sub driver Dudley.;)

[Mauseri]

Are 55% of the bulletin board members blind or dumb

[Ilaya]

Originally posted by micra_k10
Are 55% of the bulletin board members blind or dumb

or maybe you just are, by thinking all board members voted in this poll

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Ilaya
or maybe you just are, by thinking all board members voted in this poll

EDIT

[Schuperman]

Originally posted by micra_k10
Are 55% of the bulletin board members blind or dumb

What's your right to insult other members who have different opinion? Unless you have read the whole contract, it is all about opinion, argued and supported by some evidences.

[Kub]

Originally posted by Davebo

Michael Schumacher has been coddled and protected his entire career. It doesn't matter how many championships he wins - every one will have an asterisk beside it.

Originally posted by Kaiser


* Total ****ing domination

I don't usually support conspiracy theories, so I believe he doesn't have anything like #1 status written in his contract, but it would be unreasonable for his team to support Rubens or Massa or Eddie more than him. Ferrari always try to win both championships, they can increase probability of achieving this goal by supporting the better one of their drivers. I can find no reason for them to do otherwise.

[VKT]

I voted no, but there is a strong preference for him, given the team's belief that he is the best out there.

Even if they had a No. 1 clause, why would they have it and also pay MS $$$$$$$$ and continue to renew the contract every now and then unless

1. They think that he is the best there
2. Ferrari believes that 1-2 strategy will get them better results than 1-1 strategy

or
3. MS owns Ferrari
4. MS sleeps with one (actually all!) of them

[Jerome]

Yes, mr Schumacher has the nr 1 status within his team... but it is as strong as his performances. The moment anyone in the deciding circles believes the other driver is better, Schumi's nr. 1 status is gone with the wind after a couple of grand prix. Even if the nr. 2 driver gets worse equipment than Michael, the technicians will still know: 'Mmm, this dude should be a second slower... and he's only half a second behind. Let's see...' Each grand prix they will give him better material untill he starts beating the nr. 1... and then it's over.

That it didn't happen to Michael, was just because he was so doggone good... and I really think that only with the emergence of Raikkonen and Alonso there was a driver out there who could really outdrive him.

My two cents.

[emburmak]

Originally posted by jimm


Some of this is not correct:

1990 Mansell and Prost had equal status, they spit testing, they alternated the spare car (a big deal back then) and neither had to give way to the other (witness Portugal and Canada that year). It was only after it was clear that Prost was going for the WDC that Mansell was ASKED by Prost for the spare etc that it changed.....BTW, according to Mansell, Prost never said thank you!!! It was NOT ordered by the team which was acutally a gripe of Prosts but only after Mansell was no longer a WDC challenger.

In 1991, Mansell WAS NOT #1 in the team...primarily because the two drivers were usually pretty close. In 1992, Mansell was given pseudo #1 after it was clear that Patrese could not adapt to the active car (on average 1 to 2 sec slower in an active car). This consisted only of him giving way to Mansell Brazil and in France. He was allowed to race for wins on tracks he was on par with Mansell (like Hungery) that year though.

In 1991, Piquet and the team were barely on speaking terms and it was clear that he was leaving. The driver MS replaced was allowed to race Piquet and they saw MS as the next big driver (good call) and did not restrict him. NOt sure it was really a take over like you present it.

Sorry Jimm but in 1991 NM had exclusive use of the spare car. That then was the primary advantage of No1 status.. Ditto AP at Ferrari in both 90 & 91and NP in 1991. IIRC AS won in Hungary 1992.

[Tenmantaylor]

Ferraris decision to fix the 2002 Austrian GP when at the time he'd won 4 out of the 5 opening races was my all time low point for F1 as a whole (barring tragedies obviously). Especially when Rubens had dominated the whole event. Schumacher went on to win the championship by nearly double the points of his team mate and nearly triple of third place montoya.

From a more subjective viewpoint- has any team mate been on the receiving end of michaels anal-probe-shaped no1 status whilst leading him in the championship?

Lets just hope its kimi ms next year at ferrari without brawn and todt. Lets face it if brawn, todt and the rest of the dream team were all there when kimi came would anyone reallly believe that kimi got a fair crack at the whip? I know i wouldnt.

[panzani]

A Brazilian F1 insider from a big newspaper told he had access to 'those who had access and managed' Kimi's pre-contract. I believe he had, as many others from the paddock, BTW. He said that Herr S. said okay as long as he always had the third car available and as long as any technical improvements approved by him on tests would go first to his car and his spare car. Otherwise he would veto the transaction from start. He also said Kimi can change his mind anytime till the end of the year.

I have no huge reasons to either belive or not this piece of information - I put it here as I received it - but I do.

P.S. So I think my answer to the poll is:
YES, it is written and YES, he can veto.

[raceday]

Like anything you do seriously in life, you prepare, make your backgroundwork and then make an assessment: What strategy is gonna give me the best chance to reach the best results?
Then you do your best to put things in place and try to execute it.
Ferrari (Todt and LDM) had a long term plan and part of it was to get hold of the best driver. If you watched F1 in the mid 90:s you know that pretty much EVERYBODY thought that MS was the best driver in the world. So they managed to get hold of MS. They sure as hell didn't have in mind that they would have to "protect" MS from fast teammates or anything like that, they got him because they thought he was the best!
The objectiv was to beat the opposition, ie the other teams. That means keeping up the development and work like hell, at all levels, the whole team.
Well guess what, MS is just about the most ambitious driver there has ever been and a very respected driver as far as feedback is concerned and very good at motivating and interacting with the team (that I take from memory from interviews).

Add this together and you have a win win situation within the Ferrari team. Of course MS will get preferential treatment as long as it brings results. And it sure as hell has!
The preferential treatment is, I think, that he's given more or at least more quality development work, which means that he has more developments suited to his style, and if there is one of the new part ready for the race then he'll get the priority. More thought are likely put into his stategy and also, since he has the history of achieving results, he gets team decisions going his way earlier in the season than at other teams (that has decreased alot the last few years).
Though if somebody would start to go faster than him it would all change. Ferrari does not exist to make MS look good.