Ferrari's "Special Deal" with Bernie.. The Truth is out!

[ben_watkins]

So finally we know the truth behind some of the "we know Ferrari get an extra help behind the scenes" type of conspiracy theory. Except it's no longer a conspiracy theory, it is true and real.

http://www.f1technical.net/news/11331

"Ferrari get above all the other teams and all the extra things Ferrari have had for years - the 'general help' they are considered to have had in Formula One." - Like the extra $80million Ferrari get above anyone else

Bernie tells all in this very revealing and I'm sure highly embarrassing, for Ferrari article at The Times..

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 372488.ece

"We 'bought' Ferrari. We 'bought' Ferrari's loyalty. Our deal with Ferrari was that we 'bought' them so they would not go to the others"

Looks like Bernie and di Monte are not friends anymore?

“It’s a shame he’s not in touch with people that seem to run the company as opposed to what he does – work as a press officer,” Ecclestone said.

[xpensive]

Indeed, but on the other hand you have got to be a pretty red-eyed tifosi not to realize that one of Max' and Bernie's objectives was to see the right car win, no?

Sometimes they could even change the rules between races, such as the width of the barge-boards or a sudden ban of Renault's mass dampers. and did anyone for a second believe that Bridgestone would not become the exclusive tyre-supplier to F1?

[timbo]

Sometimes they could even change the rules between races, such as the width of the barge-boards or a sudden ban of Renault's mass dampers. and did anyone for a second believe that Bridgestone would not become the exclusive tyre-supplier to F1?

Oh, jeez. Once again...

Why would they ban Ferrari's floor after Australia 2007? Why would they want to seriously shake rules after every period of Ferrari domination (2002 - new points system for 2003, 2004 - new tech regs for 2005)? Why won't they ban McLaren for 2007 and 2008 when they could?
What both Bernie and Max want to do is to keep spectacle. That's why Bernie payed Ferrari, because if Ferrari gone, others will, and he'd loose MUCH more than $80 million. That's why if any team is dominating they would do what they can to shake the system.

It's not that "evil" Ferrari make Bernie pay his hard earned money to them. It is BECAUSE of Ferrari he CAN pay that money.

[Rob W]

So finally we know the truth behind some of the "we know Ferrari get an extra help...

I agree with most of what you say altho it might just spark more anti/pro Ferrari conspiracy arguments.

I think it's not so much that we know now - since it has been known and not even denied for many years by both Bernie and Ferrari - but now that Bernie has put a specific price on it is where it looks like people are throwing their toys or weight around a bit depending on how you look at it. The price-tag gives a clear target for others to write scathing stories on it, or for the other teams to have a go at FOM.

I think Bernie is used to having the sport run his way. He literally makes every call end call on it even if there is a team voting scenario etc... whenever he doesn't get the support he just forces change. This sounds a bit like his way of saying "screw with me and I'll make you look like about-turning, disloyal wankers" - and he's dangerous in this respect because he knows more about the ons and outs of teams and people involved in F1 than anyone else.

[xpensive]

See if I can get this straight now timbo, Bernie paid Ferrari extra money for them to accept repeated rule-changes going against the team. Makes perfect sense that.

[timbo]

See if I can get this straight now timbo, Bernie paid Ferrari extra money for them to accept repeated rule-changes going against the team. Makes perfect sense that.

See, he paid Ferrari so that they stay and persuade others to stay, had he run F1 with transparency, that would be impossible. Now he feels bitter because the very team he thought he "bought" stands against him. End of story.

And finally, it is not Bernie who is responsible for sporting side of F1.

[myurr]

It's not that "evil" Ferrari make Bernie pay his hard earned money to them. It is BECAUSE of Ferrari he CAN pay that money.

That is quite laughable. Basically Ferrari sold out the other teams for $80m per year, and Bernie has all but spelt out that they get other help - ie. advantageous decisions in the majority of cases.

Yes some decisions have gone against Ferrari, and that is clearly the FIA and Bernie wanting a show. It's one thing to make sure that Ferrari are always in the running and competitive, it's another to set them up to cruise to victory year after year.

Regardless of the impartiality or not of the ruling body, it is clear that in this so called sport there is no level playing field. Ferrari are paid a huge amount of money - 20% of their total budget! - just for turning up.

For me though this does not make Ferrari the bad guys. Whilst I despise anyone who can be bought, and lets not forget that Ferrari sold out the interests of the sport as a whole for this money, it is clear that the overall management of F1 by both Bernie and Max is at fault here. They set up the arrangement, they have manipulated behind the scenes, and even now they are trying to divide and conquer by turning the other teams on Ferrari rather than chasing CVC for money. It is time the manufacturers formed a new independent body, funded by an entry fee paid annually by each team, to run the championship. They should then set up a deal with Bernie to promote the show at arms length, ie. only making commercial rights deals, giving him 10% of revenue generated. Of the remaining 90%, half should be paid equally amongst all teams, with the other half being distributed amongst the teams based on championship position.

No special deals. No in season rule changes except by unanimous agreement amongst the teams (ie. only very special cases). Where rules have grey areas there should be a body that a team can approach with a proposed interpretation that will then give a ruling that will remain until the end of the current season. Professional panel of 3 stewards who travel to all races appointed by majority vote by all the teams.

[timbo]

That is quite laughable. Basically Ferrari sold out the other teams for $80m per year, and Bernie has all but spelt out that they get other help - ie. advantageous decisions in the majority of cases.

I think it is wrong that "other help" that Bernie hinted is automatically considered or presumed to be sporting one. Bernie holds no responsibility for sporting side (God bless, as his stupid "medal system" still needs WMSC approaval).

Regardless of the impartiality or not of the ruling body, it is clear that in this so called sport there is no level playing field. Ferrari are paid a huge amount of money - 20% of their total budget! - just for turning up.

Not just for "running up". Ferrari decision to stay in F1 and not join new series was the key for F1 survival in a shape that we see today. Quite a fragile. but nonetheless. That is what he payed for.

I agree with everything else you've posted.

[Rob W]

See if I can get this straight now timbo, Bernie paid Ferrari extra money for them to accept repeated rule-changes going against the team. Makes perfect sense that.

Yeah, it might sound nice to say that but there have been many rulings and rule changes which have benefited Ferrari especially.

For a start:
- The fast-tracked banning of the use of beryllium in engines which McLaren had sorted out... suddenly it was outlawed - hugely to McLaren's detriment, their closest rivals.

- The beyond lenient ruling in favour of them over the barge board measurements...

- The sudden outlawing of the mass-damper device, after Ferrari couldn't get their own one to work as well as the Renault one.

- The forcing of Michelin out of F1, which had a direct benefit to Ferrari as their sole test team. (sure, they didn't capitalise on it.. but they had a definite start on everyone else)

- The whimpy penalty against Schumacher for his qualifying incident in Monaco which can only be described as the most blatant on-track cheating in F1 in over a decade and really which warranted complete exclusion. (especially since later penalties for far lesser 'crimes' have resulted in pretty harsh penalties). Try that sort of conduct in any other sport and you'd be out for the season - if not more.

Etc etc etc.

Point being: you can argue any way you see fit and conveniently ignore things which don't fit your view. Sure, things have not all gone Ferrari's way, but to say/imply they are somehow hard-done by routine rule changes is a pretty obvious rose-tinted lack of objectivity.

[timbo]

Point being: you can argue any way you see fit and conveniently ignore things which don't fit your view. Sure, things have not all gone Ferrari's way, but to say/imply they are somehow hard-done by routine rule changes is a pretty obvious rose-tinted lack of objectivity.

OK, OK...
So it is very logical and reasonable that both Bernie AND Max (who seem to occupy different sides of a barricades most of the time) are HUGE fans of a red team. They love it so much, they do everything to see their favorite team wins with rule changes. Beyond that mr. Bernie is so generous so he pays his favorite team $80 million bonus from his own pocket.
Ain't that love a thing to admire?

[xpensive]

I don't agree Rob_W, when I think the most blatant (attempt of) cheating was when Schumacher tried to take Villeneuve out at that last race in 1997.
What was the penalty for that again?

[Jersey Tom]

Since when was Michelin forced out?

[pgj]

It is fair enough to say that after Indy, Michelin were not given much encouragement in F1. By the time the tendering process moved on to the award of the contract, there was not much money being placed on Michelin getting the deal. It is debatable whether Michelin were forced out, but it is a valid viewpoint.

A single tyre supplier has been very bad for F1 IMO.

[bhallg2k]

It would be best if Bernie Ecclestone realized that when Luca di Montezemolo speaks, he speaks not only for Ferrari, but for the FOTA. And di Montezemolo would not be an effective chairman of the FOTA if he did not demand for the teams a greater share of the revenues generated by F1, regardless of whatever side-deal Ferrari has with FOM.

[xpensive]

I for one hvae always failed to understand Ferrari's "special" position within F1, as well as who decided that was the case. Granted they are the only team to have competed in all World Championshipss since 1950, but Mercedes, Audi and Alfa Romeo slugged it out in the Grand Prix's of the thirties, so what's the big deal?

Besides, for long periods of time, most recently in 91 - 95, they were basicically nowere and F1 was still there as far as I can recall, no?.