Campos is up for sale!

[WhiteBlue]

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/p ... /index.htm

Auditing is one of the strong points of Deloitte. They have sales in excess of 10 bil US$. I'm sure they sell a quality service and did a good job for the FIA.

[xpensive]

Way off topic of course, but I wonder which service Nick Fry hired to screen Willy Luchs and his MEUR Shampoo-deal?

[Pandamasque]

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Facts-Figures/index.htm

Auditing is one of the strong points of Deloitte. They have sales in excess of 10 bil US$. I'm sure they sell a quality service and did a good job for the FIA.

Quality job. Up to 50% of new entrants may actually be on the grid.

[outer_bongolia]

At the end of the day, there might not be so many Cosworth teams on the grid as intended?

The intention was having three additional teams initially. With Williams joining the lot there would still be a good result if one team drops out.

Wonder how many Cosworth-teams we will see on the grid in Bahrain, three perhaps, one or two by the end of the year?

I think the starting three will survive through the year: Williams, Virgin, Lotus...

Oh, was that a rhetorical question?

[Pup]

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Facts-Figures/index.htm

Auditing is one of the strong points of Deloitte. They have sales in excess of 10 bil US$. I'm sure they sell a quality service and did a good job for the FIA.

*cough* Adelphia *cough*

I guess it would be better to say that creative auditing is one of the strong points of Deloitte.

[WhiteBlue]

With that much business you always get a black sheep once in a while. If they were as bad in 2005 as you stipulate, their business would not be prospering. Mistakes are made. What is important is to learn from them and improve.

[Pup]

Gugu, you haven't changed one bit. I love it.

[richard_leeds]

http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/press/Facts-Figures/index.htm

Auditing is one of the strong points of Deloitte. They have sales in excess of 10 bil US$. I'm sure they sell a quality service and did a good job for the FIA.

Size doesn't mean quality. Recent economic events have shown that the largest auditing firms have been most deluded in their view of risk. (Enron, or take your pick of the recent sub-prime fiasco)

Anyway, back to F1. I'm sure Deloitte answered the question they were asked with great professionalism. The snag is that we don't know what Deloitte were asked to look for, nor what they found.

It is unlikely that they found evidence of funding for an F1 budget at Manor or Campos, since neither had sponsors at that stage. Whilst USF1 have a wealthy backer, I suspect they didn't have full funding for their budget either, hence the talk of pay-drivers.

[WhiteBlue]

Anyway, back to F1. I'm sure Deloitte answered the question they were asked with great professionalism. The snag is that we don't know what Deloitte were asked to look for, nor what they found.

It is unlikely that they found evidence of funding for an F1 budget at Manor or Campos, since neither had sponsors at that stage. Whilst USF1 have a wealthy backer, I suspect they didn't have full funding for their budget either, hence the talk of pay-drivers.

For me the main point is the arrival of new teams in F1. It probably did not help their sponsorship prospects that FOTA fought them nail and teeth. They all want to keep as much as possible from the pot. But the FIA finally got the job done to admit new teams against considerable opposition. Anything that happens in 2010 will be better than a 9 team grid.

[richard_leeds]

the FIA finally got the job done to admit new teams against considerable opposition.

Really? I think all parties agreed that new teams were needed to bolster the grid.

The arguments were about the style of FIA governance.

[WhiteBlue]

Really? I think all parties agreed that new teams were needed to bolster the grid.

No, FOTA were vehemently against new teams. Ferrari kept calling them F3 or F4 teams and advocated third cars by the leading teams. Teams never appreciate new competition. The first thing USF1 did was voting against Sauber becoming a 14th team. Only the FIA can see to it that F1 takes a proper path to the future.

[donskar]

My head hurts already, after only 4 pages.

It does seem clear, though that "due diligence" was either faulty or was based on insufficient data points.

I hope we can at least agree that -- Cosworth notwithstanding -- it seems that more than one team is in dire financial straits. IF that is the case, then something went very wrong in the vetting procedure.

And who thinks Prodrive and Lola would NOT have been more viable choices?

[WhiteBlue]

I'm not worried if one or two teams change ownership or even go under. Their business and sporting condition was different when they got evaluated. After the Paris compromise they have to face much tougher competing conditions than they anticipated for the first year when they applied and were screened. It is not the individual teams that are important. The important thing is that new teams are coming in and that the fat cats will be resource restricted very soon. So the attraction to new teams will not reduce but increase. F1 is on a good way to leave the sterility of the Ferrari/McLaren/Renault domination behind and invent itself new.

[Pup]

Oh, bull. No budget cap has anything to do with their ability to get a frickin car on the grid.

[WhiteBlue]

Oh, bull. No budget cap has anything to do with their ability to get a frickin car on the grid.

The new teams will not have the problem of getting cars on the grid, they will have the problem of finding sponsorship. With the practically unlimited spending in 2009 and 2010 their chances to win are much smaller than they had been with the original budget cap rules. Sponsors are not dumb. They will notice.