Teams pay Ferrari to compete...? (merged)(again)

[Sodemo]

There is a report over on ITV-F1 that Minardi boss Paul Stoddart states that all 9 teams pay Ferrari hard cash "in recognition of their historical contribution to the sport".

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=31906

What the hell, is this true, I cant quite believe this...?

[Marbot]

Apparently PS isn't too happy having to pay Ferrari money"in recognition of their historical contribution to the sport",and neither would i be,read at www.itv-f1.com

[Marbot]

I feel a merge coming on.

[Marbot]

Thats uncanny Monster,great minds think alike.

[Kicking-back]

Well, the commercial worth of Ferrari to the sport brings in more money back to the teams than that paid to the Scuderia under the Concorde agreement.

[ASCII Man]

Are you absolutely sure of that, k-b?

[Kicking-back]

More sure than not

[Snrub]

I thought I remember hearing a rumor about this before? Wouldn't it make more sense to pay the privateers for their contribution to the sport?

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

Maybe 10 years a go they couldn't, but Formula One could survive with Ferrari not being there now just like I'm sure Ferrari would be there regardless of the handouts.

[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?

[DKGandBH]

God damn Australian whinger ;-)

I wonder if he has thought about the fact thet Minardi *also* gets money relative to how long they have been in the sport ?

DKGandBH

[kdr]

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

Maybe 10 years a go they couldn't, but Formula One could survive with Ferrari not being there now just like I'm sure Ferrari would be there regardless of the handouts.

i'm sure ferrari would stay around if the handouts disappeared, but if they pulled out i don't think the worlds media and sponsors would continue falling over themselves to pay thru the nose for another exciting weekend of for instance renault battling toyota. ferrari has to be there..end of story. imho of course.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

I feel a merge coming on.

merged

Back to topic:

Originally Posted by The Monster

What the hell, is this true, I cant quite believe this...?

Originally Posted by Shrub

I thought I remember hearing a rumor about this before?

It is no rumour, it is well established.

Ferrari have received more for racing since almost from the beginning of time. Even before GP were regularly on TV, before the Concorde agreement, before Bernie, before championships. Organisers of races would have to pay Ferrari more starting money than other teams. The reason (threat)? Well Ferrari wouldn't race if they didn't.

Unfair, perhaps, perhaps not. I guess Stoddy is bringing it up now because of the British and French GP affair.

[Inigo Montoya]

This is not the part of the interview that bothers me.

Its silly quotes like:

“There’s talk, and I can’t say if it’s true or not, that the 2005 regulations were written by, among others, 18 people from Ferrari."

and

“Believe me, Ferrari are going to win the 2005 and 2006 titles, and there’s nothing any of us can do about it.”

that make me wonder if its time for Paul to stop whining, and spend his money on something else.

[Sodemo]

How much money are we talking about here?

Do other teams actually give money to Ferrari, can someone clarify this?

[Slippy Diff]

[QUOTE=BootsOntheSide] 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, QUOTE]

You cannot blame Ferrari for dominating the sport, blame the other teams for not being able to take the fight to Ferrari.

[Adam43]

No, they don't directly give Ferrari money.

The pay out the teams get is from the TV rights (etc...) income and gets distirbuted (unevenly) between the teams. There is a formula to calculate how much each team gets. All get a nominal amount, an amount depending on how well they have done last year (or previous years) and finally an amount based on historical significance.

When you add extra races (over 17) the money gained from these races is used to pay the teams extra to attend. To persuede them if you like. This does not follow the exact terms of the Concorde agreement like the previous 17 races, but is a new deal worked out between Bernie and each team. It seems this time Ferrari aren't getting the percentage slice they feel they deserve.

[Gabrio]

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.

[Adam43]

While it is realted lets not let this just turn into the same bash-defend-bash-defend. Team orders is only very tenuously related to this, as is the dominance of Ferrari etc... - which is in quite a few other threads at the moment!

The general payment topic hasn't been explored for some time round here. Lets keep Monster's thread on track Thanks

[Gt_R]

I was quite surprised by the initial claim P.S made...regarding paying Ferrari...UNTIL i read the later part about the rules. This made me lose any last strand of respect for Paul Stoddart and i'm upset that Minardi is now a shadow of their former self.

Firstly, it just goes to show how BITTER P.S is. Every couple of months, he'd make himself get on the headlines with some complaining.

But on the topic. Without the actual two-side story account, i could only say that if 9 teams had signed to in effect hand more money to Ferrari, then there would have been a pretty good reason for it to happen. 9 team boss, esp the likes of Ron, won't agree to such arrangement without a good reason, or a beneficial reason.

And as somebody pointed out,`F1 would be struggling without Ferrari. The teams involved do benefit from the increased exposure and stability brought about by Ferrari's presence. Obviously, the "amount" paid to Ferrari would probably not make a difference to Ferrari's operation. Ferrari does not survive because of those money...but it's just a token of recognition to the contributions of Ferrari, which quite frankly simply outweighs that of other teams (although the others contribute too).

Of course, in an ideal world, i'd rather have the struggling teams be aided by top manufacturers. I've always supported any engine manufacturers or teams to provide equipment and technical aid, which i think is more useful than cash.

BUT on the second thing... i'm actually quite upset that P.S, as a team manager, resort to using "paddock talk" to accuse and stain Ferrari. Paddock Talk = bull's poo. It is a baseless accusation which is bringing F1 into disrepute. In case P.S had trouble understanding, new rules which upset the success of Ferrari doesn't seem helpful at all. And funny, this is coming from a man who tried to stage a pointless campaign called testing cuts to attack Ferrari.

Frankly, i don't have the love for Minardi anymore. They are really a shadow of their former, struggling but pride and passionate team. Now...they are just another team to bring up the rear and make up numbers... and P.S really ought to contribute more to F1 than merely make up the grid at the back.

[Wrex]

What a storm in a tea cup this is.

As someone has already mentioned, the Concorde agreement (which was signed and agreed to by ALL teams) has a formula for payouts. Most of which is performanced based (where they finished last season) and another componant for years participated.

The longer ANY team has been in, the larger their share. Suprise Suprise, Williams and McLaren get more than Jag. This was an insurance policy if you like, maintaining some income for the established players (like Ferrari, Williams etc) so that if someone like Toyota come along and buy a championship, the guys that are permanent fixtures will still get a fair share.

Ironically, PS (Minardi) would also be on a the better end of this stick.

IMO, fair enough too. Why should'nt the players that have been here all along, enjoy more of the benefits than Jonnie come lately?

But, to add my usual disclaimer, dont let the facts get in the way of a good Ferrari bash

[Lotusonpole]

True, F1 would not be the same without Ferrari, but it wouldn't be necessarily worse.

Similar things were said when Lotus went. But the difference would be that Ferrari is at the top of the game whereas Lotus had declined to a shadow of its former status.

As far as other teams paying to Ferrari...so much for a level playing field.
Astonished!

Cheers
Peter

[RWC]

It's not a case of any team actually giving money to ferrari

It's a case of ferrari getting bigger income because of their age/contribution to the sport or whatever way you want to put it
It's been going on for quite some time-at least as long as the last big argument over the concord agreement (1994-ish)

I personally see no real problem with them getting more $ (well...as long as they don't continue making ferrari a NEGATIVE for f1 as they have at times the last couple of years!)

What REALLY worries me is that with this whole bernie-the-rippoff / GPWC / Banks thing gives ferrari the ultimate power in f1
Whoever sucks up to ferrari the most will win the war over f1

[Adam43]

According to last week's Autosport the deal is something like £16 millions extra for the teams to race in Britain and France. This was to be split evenly between the ten teams.

The general concencous is that as long as the other teams get there 1/10 of the total then they don't care what Ferrari get. I think it was McLaren who said that any extra Ferrari get is down to Ferrari and Bernie and nothing to do with them (I guess as long as their payout isn't diminished).

Minardi are probably getting more for these races than the do for the others (per race), so I don't see what the problem is - if it is about the extra races. If Bernie does give Ferrari extra then it won't diminish Minardi's share it seems.

However PS might just be talking about the general situation. This was set-up in the last Concorde agreement that he and the other teams signed (and has been similar since the first agreement signed decades ago). What he says is true, but has always been, and he signed the contract! Maybe he is just making a comment and some one has picked up on it and ran a story.

[Red]

TV money + prize money (alltogether they make the allocation fund) is split in 2 equal parts. One half is equally divided among ALL participants in the previous season.

The other half is split is 2 equal halfs. One of them (that is a quarter of the total fund) is divided among the teams according to previous season's Constructors standings.

The last quarter is divided among teams according to their hystorical heritage! That would mean numbers of years in F1, Constructor titles and all time number of wins. (I think points and wins in past 2 years count again; as I understand they use a complicated point system) Stoddard might cry a river. Indeed all the other 9 teams get less money than Ferrari but since Minardi is 4th oldest team currently in F1 he too "steals" money from the remaining 4.

As for "There’s talk, and I can’t say if it’s true or not, that the 2005 regulations were written by, among others, 18 people from Ferrari".. I don't know what he's smoking but he should quit soon. All changes in past 3 years including point system were a result of a secret Ferrari plot and meant to help them? Furthermore, he isn't even sure, he just heard some 'talks'.