Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide
This is unbelievable. Ferrari have done a lot of damage to the sport in recent years, through incidents such as Austria and Jerez as well as their dominance, and ahve surely done nothing to boost the popularity of Formula 1 in recent years - it's no coincidence that some of the sport's biggest eras worldwide have been in times of Ferrari struggle. Teams may get more moeny through Ferrari's presence (although frankly I doubt it) but how much mroe do they have to spend to be competitive as a result?
|
Although I'm certainly no Ferrari fan, it is undeniable that :
1) Ferrari has done no more damage than Mc Laren obliging Coulthard to let Hakkinen go a few years ago or Williams letting a Mc Laren win in 97. So nothing new there. You can't blame a team for damaging the sport and not blaming the others when it suits the argument....
2) Ferrari's dominance happens because not only did they do a professional job, but also because Williams and Mc Laren did an extremely poor job by F1 standards.
3) Teams DO earn much more because of Ferrari's presence and Concorde's agreements, otherwise they just would not show up.
4) If Ron Dennis had spent a fraction of what resources he has thrown at Paragon Headquarters in developing & research, he probably would not have had to build three cars in a year, of which one never even reached the racing stage.