USF1 to Use Concorde Agreement to Miss 3 Races? By Flood1

Rumors have been swirling around the USF1 team since they signed the Concorde agreement in August of 2009. They have been nonstop and have focused on every possible scenario: from sponsors, to drivers, to partners, to every conceivable angle. Much of this stems from a basic skepticism amongst F1 fans about anything new or different, as well as an unhealthy skepticism about the involvement of an American team. The history of American teams and drivers in F1 has been spotty, at best, with only Phil Hill and Mario Andretti reaching championship status.

One of rumors that has been mentioned is that the Team would miss the first three races of the season. Peter Windsor has categorically denied this possibility, but it has become clear today that they are allowed to do so as a provision of the recently signed Concorde agreement. The news came directly from F1 supremo Bernie Eccelstone in an interview with Christian Sylt and Caroline Reid in the Sunday Express.

Bernie said that any team on the grid could choose to miss any three races and that he thought Campos and USF1 would take advantage of that provision. My first impression is that this is a very strange component to include in the Concorde agreement. Did Bernie allow this with particular concern toward the new teams, or did he think that the provision may  introduce a new element in the cost savings derby?

Even though he has an obligation to the promoters of F1 events, he is only required to present 16 cars, as far as I know. But, if you bought a ticket to Montreal and found that several teams decided to stay home, get some rest, and save some money, would you be happy with your ticket purchase? I would be furious!

Regarding USF1, I have become increasingly concerned with their inapparent progress, and this uncertainty has been exacerbated by Windsor's admission that there were sponsor problems and cash flow issues. They have done a pretty good job of building a team from nothing, but the drop-dead deadline is approaching.

With the number of hurdles ahead of them getting closer and closer together, they may have to play the wildcard. If so, I wish Windsor would just play it straight and announce their decision in a press conference with the world motorsports media. He should include their production and testing schedule, their sponsors, their complete driver lineup, and be done with it.

If this comes to pass, it will raise many questions about the team's long-term viability, and it will also raise many questions about Bernie's business plan via-a-vis his relationship with F1 promoters.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/money/view/156750/Formula-1-in-the-pits-as-newcomers-stall-due-to-lack-of-funds

Comments

[sportsman]

There are two seperate issues here.Firstly cerinly within the EU if you purchased a ticket to see an F1 GP on the understanding that you would see thirteen teams and only eight turned up, you would be clearly be entitled to a full refund of the ticket cost, and you would also have a very strong legal case against the promoter for reimbursement of any travel, accomodation costs incurred by you..These claims would brought under the "šale of goods and services" acts.
Regarding USF1 I am bitterly disappointed with their behaviour so far.As long standing F1 fan, I went to my first F1 live GP in 1955 Yes I am old.I welcomed the arrival of an American team,and have thus far consistently defended USF1 from the scepticism leveled against them on other F1 forums.
Now I feel that they have taken me for sucker.
Winsor and Anderson.Either put up or shut up and admit defeat.

[Koray]

I don't know why some are angry at USF1 for being quiet now or even not making the grid later. Whatever they promised they promised to their sponsors, not me, and as much as I'd like to see them on the grid, if they don't make it I'd just feel sorry but I can't really complain.

I'd rather have them not spend a single minute talking to me if that minute is better spent preparing the car.

[joe]

Sponsorship is all-or-nothing for new teams. Who is going to want to sponsor a new team if they don't already have enough resources to at least successfully race. There are levels of risk and the majority of companies probably would not want to finance teams that announce they are likely to fail. So why should USF1 announce such a thing?

[sportsman]

So saying nothing and attracting nothing but negative publicity is the right thing to do.
Sounds a very odd way of attracting sponsors to me.

[Flood1]

Obviously I support the team, that's what this blog is all about:F1 with a focus on USF1. If they need a few extra weeks to get things complete, and the concorde agreement allows that, then so be it, I don't have a problem with that.

Having managed many large technical projects in my long career, Ive had my share of projects that ran beyond the scheduled completion.

My only point is that they must have an idea whether they need the extra weeks or not, and should be revising their schedule if that is the case. They don't need to tell me that, but I suspect Presidente Kirchner deserves a call.

[sportsman]

I support them as well.If they cannot make the first couple of races, mand they are allowed to miss them, then so be it.

But if that is indeed the case then they should issue a press release to that effect.

That would end all the rumour and speculation, which is doing them more harm that if they did just that.
Why they can't make it is of secondary importance

[KM-TV]

What USF1 need to do is to show us a car, show us two drivers, preferably one of them being American, and then show the world that they are seriously committed to racing in Formula 1 this year, and not in any way attempting to sell 60,000 toasters, or whatever the joke about USF1 is this week.

Sportsman, they do need to let the world know, but all we've had from this team is press releases and amateurish videos (they should have asked me!!) If they want the motorsport world to take them seriously they need much more than that.

[flood1]

The team, at this point, does not need to do anything to convince me they are viable because I have no real impact, one way or the other. It would make my life as a suporting blogger easier, but they owe me nothing. That demand is not part of their raison d'etre.

But, if I had $10 million to invest, I would not be impressed with their transparency or their accountability.

Deep down in my not-logical heart, I think they will make the grid, but my life-long earnings have all been made by the realistic and pragmatic portions of my brain, not my heart.

I fear the worst, but I hope for the best.

I have heard from a source (that I cannot cite) that the cars will be presented at Bahrain but will be embarassingly slow.

Go figure.............

[flood1]

According to Peter Windsor, not only is the team not
in trouble, they expect to announce a teammate for Jose Maria Lopez this week.

"Things are going well," Windsor told the Melbourne Australia newspaper The Age, "We've had a few glitches as you would expect. Nothing's ever smooth in Formula One and it's a very, very late start to the whole program."

The second driver is expected to be Spaniard Adrian Valles.

[Cipriano]

Based on the short time frame that the team has to work with - eight months since signing the Concorde and actual acquisition of funding from sponsors and along with the only team that had to build entire their infrastructure from scratch - getting a car on the grid would be a momentous achievement.

I can only think of T. Roosevelt's speech in regard to the armchair naysayers here and around the motor sport blogesphere:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds...."

[Cipriano]

"...who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[Red Andy]

The F1 sporting regulations state that "an Event may be cancelled if there are fewer than 12 cars available for it." When Honda/Brawn's future hung in the balance a little over 12 months ago, it was suggested that part of Bernie's deals with the TV companies guaranteed a minimum of 20 cars each race (though I've always been sceptical about this, because there were 18 cars present for the two GPs BAR were banned for in 2005 and no one batted an eyelid - it was even originally recommended to the FIA that BAR be banned for the whole season). So the Concorde provisions for "no-shows" are quite strange and could easily backfire on Bernie and co.

On USF1, what happened to "no news is good news?" If the team is getting along normally - as they continue to insist - and have nothing to report, why should they be bothering the media? Surely their time would be better spent being as prepared as possible for the new season. I've no problem with USF1 remaining completely silent from now until mid-March if it means they'll turn up in Bahrain. It doesn't matter if they are "embarrassingly slow" - at least it is a base from which to work from.

[flood1]

Wow, two very good comments in a row. Cipriano that is a very good quote and it supports your comments very well.

Red Andy, I agree with you. It is better to have something to report than it is to report it. I'm not concerned about their pace, either. As Cipriano said, no other team has had to do so much in so little time.

[sportsman]

Lotus were only granted entry in September

[Flood1]

That's true, but RTN already had a factory and the necessary carbon and composites facilities, so it's not exactly the same as starting from an empty building.

So, as I said above, no other team has had to do so much in so little time.

[sportsman]

Following recent reports on the interpretation of clauses in the Concorde Agreement concerning the concept of a Team's ‘participation’ in the FIA Formula One World Championship, the FIA wishes to make the following clarification:

This from the FIA website today.

From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season. Any failure to take part, even for just one Championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations.

http://www.fia.com/en-GB/mediacentre/pressreleases/f1releases/2010/Pages/f1_participation.aspx

[Flood1]

So apparently Jean Todt and Bernie E. are not very well informed.

[Cipriano]

Now that the FIA has "clarified" their earlier statements regarding teams being allowed to miss up to three races:

“From a sporting and regulatory point of view, each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season. Any failure to take part, even for just one Championship event, would constitute an infringement both of the Concorde Agreement and the FIA Regulations.”
source:http://formulaone.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/fia-clarification-on-teams-participation/

They also thrown in warning stating that rookies cannot miss a single race:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/2010-02-11-3657600718_x.htm

What will the penalty be for infringement of rules? Will it be a monetary fine or something more serious like exclusion from participation?

[flood1]

The way I read the concorde is that if you miss three races you are out of the mix. Period, fait acompli.

But, you are expected to attend every race, pass scrutineering, qualify, and start the race. If you do not meet these requirements, there will be reprucisions(but we have not ennunciated these yet, because this has never happened).

I think the concorde intends to require every team to do every race. But, it also intends to give the death sentence only to those teams that miss three races.

The penality for failing to show has not been identified. The penality for missing three is clear.