> Date of article aside......
Yes. I noticed that. But there was some actual news on that date.
> Yeah, and the rest. We all know the FIA and Bernard think Ferrari are oh
> so essential, blah, blah. If Ferrari get the hand holding, then I think
> fair enough to McLaren on a historic level, but RBR? Why do they get any
> thing extra or a say? Had they been around 25years, fair enough, but
> tomorrow they could announce a pull out.
Yes. They've carved themselves out a position of power and influence.
Well, well done them, but what's the basis? You can see why Bernie
might be a little concerned about F1 without Ferrari, but F1 without
RBR???? It's not like they have a racing heritage. In a way they're
like the manufacturer teams - there for marketing. Ferrari, McLaren,
Williams.... those are the teams who exist to race.
> Aren't William in this little
> group too? Thought they got a historical bung too?
So did I. But they didn't win in the crucial period. And maybe Parr
got up Bernie's nose.
> Then why not Lotus,
> who are essentially Benetton. Other teams have deep F1 DNA too.
Change of ownership or name. Bernie is looking for BRANDS. Which,
again, makes the RBR thing weird. Though I suppose it's hard to avoid
given the way they've been winning.
Remember that what's being talked about here is NOT Concorde, but one-
on-one deals: Your team's deal with FOM. So how good a deal can you
> However, we also know F1 is apparently the only marketing Ferrari do, or
> was said to be anyway. Well, if F1 is anything to go by Ferrari are
> complete shit at building cars. That has to be the marketing message to
> its customers. They get all these extras to help them out, but still
> they can't build a better racing car than an Austrian drinks company.
They're a LEGEND. And they play that card for all it's worth and even
Bernie is not immune. You buy into the LEGEND. Like you do when you
buy a Fender guitar. Hendrix, Clapton blah blah.
> Ferrari are a complete joke. I wonder how long it will be until we get
> either a scandal of a season, or half of RBR up sticks to Italy to show
> the morons how its done. Even if Ferrari do win again, it will always be
> hollow and tainted as we all know how bent F1 and its finances and power
> are. How this isnt damaging to the brand is beyond me. Although reading
> and listening to Ferrari fans is like listening to deluded psychiatric
> patients most of the time, so I suppose any old win would be fine for
> such minds.
> Either Ferrari customers were blinkered idiots, or don't give a toss
> about the F1 team's performance. In which case, why do Ferrari bother?
> Just imagine if Liverpool FC got special payments and power from the
> Premier League or the FA, worse still, both. Why not, big brand,
> historical, etc. But such a scandal would be massive. Not so in the
> fantasy world of F1.
> What we really need it transparency and fairness. This bullshit of the
> Concorde agreement should stop. All these secret deals should stop. On
> top of that, the whole thing should be transparent and public.
I think the sporting side is. Concorde is the business side and
generally those things are confidential or at least not trumpeted. The
trouble is the boundaries are blurred. Why should a deal between FOM
and Ferrari include a veto on rule changes? The two aspects -
commercial and sporting - should be kept apart from each other. But
Bernie has a seat on the WMSC and he can broker concessions by FIA to
> I can take all the on track bullshit, iffy stewards decisions and
> Bernard screwing very one in sight, but this secret society inequality
> is one thing that very much puts me off F1. No team should ever be
> favoured by the governing bodies in any sport, ever.
> In the end, as a F1 fan, I have to put all this aside, other wise I
> would not bother with F1 at all. But always in the back of my mind is
> that the whole sport is pretty much bent.
> Article date aside, that is...