ferrari veto

[turbof1]

Do they not change their agenda when changing names/ownership? Why would Mercedes care what will happen to the sport if they decide to sell the team tomorrow. Not long ago it was Brawn and Honda how is that long term?

The entry is still there, and the previous owner atleast ensured the long term commitment of the entry by looking for a buyer or someone to take over. Toyota for instance did not, but Honda did by giving the team for free to Brawn. If Mercedes sells their team tommorrow, they'll atleast have ensured the team continues on.

Not the same as Ferrari of course, I'll grand you that. However, the concept of long term commitment is broader then just who owns the team.

[santos]

So they don't use that for every single decision. They used it now because FIA wanted to dictate the price of their product. They are protecting their business, and Mercedes, and Renault and Honda.
What's there to be criticized?

[toraabe]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 8&d=0&nmt=

I think that's hardly a fair assessment mertol. What is short-term for you? Most teams on the grid have been in F1 for decades. Maybe not always under the same name, but inside F1 one way or another. I'd argue many F1 fans here haven't been watching F1 for more than 10 years, let alone 15. I'm 32 - and I've more or less started watching during the Schumacher period. Even if the average F1 fan is older, I doubt most used to watch during Niki's years.

EDIT: And guess what? Teams are only as long in F1 as it is in their interest. That includes Ferrari too. If Ferrari one day deem that the market has moved on and that F1 is not attractive for them anymore, they will abandon it just like every other manufacturer before them who has. The sport owes nothing to Ferrari and nor does Ferrari owe the sport.

[turbof1]

So they don't use that for every single decision. They used it now because FIA wanted to dictate the price of their product. They are protecting their business, and Mercedes, and Renault and Honda.
What's there to be criticized?

It's not the decisions they made with it that is being criticized. Ferrari itself is also not being criticized. It's the fact that one team has this kind of power that is being criticized.

For the record, it also puts unnecessary pressure on them to use the veto:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/sport ... .html?_r=1

Q. So why did you allow that [engine change to V6T] to happen?

A. Because I’m not a dictator. The one that could have stopped it, really, was Ferrari. Ferrari had a veto over a lot of these changes when they were made, and they didn’t veto it. If they had, I’d have completely supported it. But as they didn’t …

They luckily were strong enough to resist. Again I do not criticize their useage of it, because they did use it well.

[mertol]

So you all are just paranoid that they might misuse it at some point. I would argue that soon after such an event they would lose that privilege.

[turbof1]

So you all are just paranoyd that they might misuse it at some point. I would argue that soon after such an event they would lose that privilege.

It's set in stone:
http://en.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport ... 04589.html

The extent of Ferrari's power in F1 is buried deep in the 498-page prospectus for the flotation of F1 on the Singapore stock exchange which CVC has said it hopes will take place later this year. On page 179, in the section about the Team Agreements it states that "in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions)."

As soon as they try to undermine Ferrari's veto power, it'll allow Ferrari to leave the sport. Rather, I think the best course of action is just to wait out until 2020 to remove it. Or if the European Commission intervenes before that.

[Phil]

Edit: Aaargh-gh-gh, Turbo was too fast. Reply was meant for mertol.

How could they misuse it? You either have a veto or you don't. There's no concept of misuse or not. Just different interests at play here.

Veto is a dangerous thing. It basically puts Ferrari's interest above all others in this context. Since you brought up the engine-veto (which is probably the reason this topic exists in the first place), I'll just go out and say this is the perfect example of where their veto is problematic. As far as we know, everyone agreed on it, but Ferrari, because Ferrari deemed it would be bad for their sole interests and put that over the majority of other teams and the sport who came up with the idea in the first place. Lets remember again why the sport wanted a maximum price figure on engines. Because they don't want an expensive engine development war that will come at the expense of customer teams not able to balance out the costs.

If you need more reasons why this is a bad idea and why the sport is coming up with wacky ideas to save it, read the engine crisis thread in all it's 50 page glory.

[turbof1]

Do we have knowledge of previous instances where they exercised that veto right? I'm trying to search for any information, but there's none. If anything knows something, even rumors, please do post them.

[mertol]

12M cap is stupid idea. While it might help a few struggling teams for a while it will not reduce the costs for engine development it will only force engine suppliers to support said struggling teams which is hardly fair. It's a little late to act on that front it might have made sense before they made the regulation changes to the engines.

[turbof1]

I found this concerning possible veto's:
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferra ... ntezemolo/
http://oppositelock.kinja.com/the-probl ... 1559601224
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2009/m ... l-rejected

I'll update this post if I find more.

[mertol]

It's set in stone:

It's only set in stone if Ferrari wants to quit F1 and they would only want to quit F1 if there is a stupid change coming.

[turbof1]

It's set in stone:

It's only set in stone if Ferrari wants to quit F1 and they would only want to quit F1 if there is a stupid change coming.

It is set in stone, no matter what. As you you could read from one of the articles I posted above, in 2009 the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris adviced Ferrari to go to civil court to force their veto right through. Fact remains you said they could remove the veto right, but they just cannot as long as the signed contracts remain valid. That means Ferrari keeps the veto until the concorde agreement expires or the Commission deems the contracts invalid.

[mertol]

So the contracts would be invalid but Ferrari still wouldn't want to leave the sport. They might not like it, they might fuss about it but it won't make them leave the sport.

[turbof1]

So the contracts would be invalid but Ferrari still wouldn't want to leave the sport. They might not like it, they might fuss about it but it won't make them leave the sport.

But it is still leverage, not withstanding they can force their veto right through in court.

We are probably dwelling off here, so I'm going to leave it at that. As mentioned, the situation cannot be changed anyhow for now, and I doubt Ferrari will be using its veto right too often anyway.

[Phil]

12M cap is stupid idea. While it might help a few struggling teams for a while it will not reduce the costs for engine development it will only force engine suppliers to support said struggling teams which is hardly fair. It's a little late to act on that front it might have made sense before they made the regulation changes to the engines.

It's not the point if it's stupid or not. The point was, all had agreed to it, but Ferrari. The sport came up with an idea, a solution if you like, the majority of teams agreed, some of them happy, some of them less, but they agreed - all but Ferrari. Classic example where Ferrari is acting in their own interest over that of the majority. Case closed.

If you fail to see that (and fail to reach the conclusion all by yourself why a veto for any team is worse for the sport than without), then there isn't really much point in arguing this further.