06/07/2003
FEATURE BY CHRIS BALFE
 |
I want to begin by admitting that in the past I have been extremely critical of Minardi boss Paul Stoddart, as regular readers of pitpass will be well aware. That said, as one who has long had a 'soft spot' for the little team from Faenza I was delighted to see them saved from extinction at the start of the 2001 season.
At a time when F1 was (rightly) celebrating Mark Webber's stupendous achievement in getting the PS02 into the points at the 2002 Australian GP, the rejoicing was somewhat overshadowed by a squalid, public row over money. The rights and wrongs of this issue are not important right now suffice to say that in the months that followed I grew heartily sick of Mr Stoddart's constant protestations and whingeing, and I was not alone.
Around the time of the recent Canadian GP however I began to have second thoughts, certainly one or two things that the Australian said got me thinking. I contacted my good friend, Minardi PR Graham Jones and asked if he could schedule a 'face-to-face' with the Minardi boss, I wanted to see for myself what the man is all about.
What follows is the result.
Days before the start of the 2001 season I travelled up to Brackley to do an interview with Jacques Villeneuve. On arrival, apologetic PR people advised me that the Canadian was awaiting a final seat fitting in addition to a number of important meetings and that consequently I'd have to wait around for a couple of hours. To my great surprise I was ushered into Craig Pollock's office, though the (then) team boss was away on business, and left to my own devices.
Other than a Villeneuve helmet, a couple of strategically placed F1 books and a model car, it could have been any high-flying executive's office. It was cold, sterile and gave little away.
On a beautiful sunny June morning as I entered the entered the office of Minardi boss Paul Stoddart, I felt I'd walked into a new home from home. The shelves were lined with various helmets, not simply Minardi drivers, while there were model cars and books everywhere. Some of the models were the expensive BBR hand-built variety, including a wind tunnel size model of Schumacher's 2001 championship winning Ferrari, but there were also plenty of cheap die-casts. The paintings and drawings on the wall bore the signatures of a number of champions along with race posters and various other memorabilia.
Within minutes of meeting this man I knew that he was a true fan, for his office, his HQ, resembled my study and indeed the studies of thousands of other race fans around the world, packed with F1 treasures lovingly collected over the years.
Surprisingly I didn't see a computer, though a TV screen showed the international exchange rates at the close of business the previous day and a fax machine noisily spewed out document after document.
Sporting a blue lumberjack shirt that your average F1 team mechanic wouldn't wear to work in the garden, the Australian moved around the desk to greet me, "coffee?" he asked. He disappeared and left me to look at his 'treasure trove', unfortunately I didn't have pockets big enough to conceal the items that really excited me.
"I have to begin this by apologising," I said, "I've given you a pretty hard time in the past."
"No problem," he replied, lighting a Benson & Hedges cigarette.
Despite the fact that a week previously in Canada he'd been involved in one of the most public (yet thrilling) dog-fights in F1 history, with his team seemingly on the brink of collapse as others appeared to go back on their word, and until the intervention, of the sport's supremo, Paul Stoddart had agreed to give up part of his Saturday to a journalist who had constantly criticised him for his whinging.
The fact that we spoke for almost ninety minutes before I turned on my tape recorder should give some indication as to how things went, I enjoyed his 'company' and the fact that I was talking to a man concerned not merely with his own future and that of his team, but a man who fears for the future of our sport.
I began by asking how he got involved in Minardi in the first place.
"A lot of people won't realise that I was the under bidder for Tyrrell in 1997," he said, leaning back in his chair having lit another cigarette. "I first approached Ken at Barcelona in '97, he gave me a price I considered it but I didn't quite have that amount of money to invest in F1 at that moment in time, later on in the year when it was clear that British American Racing were coming in I was the other bidder together with a consortium led by Harvey Postlethwaite and backed by Honda.
"That didn't happen and as everyone knows BAR went on to buy the Tyrrell name but not the assets, what I did was buy everything bar a 7.5 ton truck that BAR took to Brackley, everything else came here to Ledbury where I'd built a facility that was three times the size of Tyrrell and was effectively an F1 team in waiting.
"In '99 we started an F3000 team because I'd taken a lot of the Tyrrell staff as well," he continued, "this was to keep them 'race sharp' and since F3000 was the only option that's what we did.
"In 2000, we looked at buying Arrows but I looked at the books and I found that it was not economically viable because it was debt ridden and I did not have any further issues with Arrows, however, I also was looking at a minority shareholding with Eddie Jordan in 1999, but that didn't go anywhere.
"So we were a Formula one team in waiting - we had all the wherewithal to build cars, we'd built the two-seaters - we'd designed and done our own F1 design in accordance with all the 2001 regulations. We were quite happy with what we'd produced but didn't have the all-important thing, the entry. In December 2000 it was clear that Minardi were for sale, at first they were being touted as being sold to Telefonica, then it was Mecachrome and soon it was pretty clear that they didn't have any engine or any hope, so I started negotiations in December and on January 9th I took over Minardi.
"I had six weeks and three days to produce a car that been a mock up, designed to take a Supertech engine and we had to turn it round to a Cosworth engine and we had to build the engine ourselves. Luckily I already had a relationship with Cosworth because I was building my own engines here," he says, waving a hand at the window. "We've got our own engine shop, and we had a wealth of Cosworth people already in our employ, so we were in a position to do it, otherwise there would have been no Minardi in 2001 because we clearly would never have made it to the grid.
"The six weeks and three days in itself was almost worth a book because of the things that we had to do to get two cars to Melbourne and indeed the second car had not actually been run. We actually built the car in Melbourne. Before that, we'd only done a 50km shake down with Fernando Alonso in chassis one. Chassis three had not been built and as people know for the first three races we didn't have a T-car.
"That took some doing, but we did it," he says with a wide grin. "My aim when I first came in to it was a five year plan - I don't believe you can go beyond that because you can't predict what's going to happen in the future.
"Year one was to compete professionally and with dignity, and we did that, and along the way we actually came up with a rising star and champion of the future in Fernando Alonso. Year two was to score, and I quote, "a few points" and to get off the bottom and start moving towards a more midfield position. We did that in the first race in a most memorable way and another star was born in Webber. Year three was to get a works engine and to stabilise ourselves in the sort of mid-to-rear of the grid and we've clearly failed to do that.
"We've got the works engine, the Cosworth engine is fantastic, but we've failed because of budgetary constraints and the aftermath of 9/11 in actually being able to achieve year three. Year four was to work towards establishing a solidly midfield competitor and year five was to try and find a manufacturer or heavy investor which could take us further up the grid and it remains to be seen whether that will happen.
"So that's the background to European and Minardi's involvement together," he says. "Clearly we are the smallest team in F1 but one of the most passionate and I think it's fair to say that because of the demise of Prost and Arrows we cannot lose any more teams. Teams nine and ten are absolutely sacrosanct to the integrity of the Constructors' Championship and I believe to the integrity of Formula One."
At this point I decide that it's a good time to clear up a matter over which there is still a lot of confusion: "What's Giancarlo's (Minardi) role in the team now?," I ask, "we don't see a lot of him these days."
"No you don't," he replies, lighting another Benson, "he's basically involved in two roles. There are certain markets, Russia being one of them, South America being another, where he actively seeks sponsorship, but without too much success thus far this year, and his other role is in that of driver development. Giancarlo is one of these guys that avidly follows every aspect of motor racing from Go-Karts upwards and has a proven track record in talent spotting. So that's really what his roles are confined to now - its more a commercial and talent spotting role."
Over the years, much like Stoddart's hero Ken Tyrrell, Giancarlo Minardi has been responsible for introducing many highly talented drivers to F1.
"Yes they have," says Stoddart, smiling again. "What gives me greatest pride is that last Sundays race (Canada) and next Sundays race (Europe), 5 of the 20 drivers, 25% of the field started their careers with Minardi, and owe their careers to Minardi, because in the main, these drivers would not have had a chance with any other team."
This year Justin Wilson makes his F1 debut courtesy of Minardi while last year it was Mark Webber who stepped up to motor sport's premier series courtesy of the Italian team. Fernando Alonso, Giancarlo Fisichella and Jarno Trulli all debuted in F1 with the 'little' team from Faenza.
"Looking back, would you say that there was a certain amount of naivety involved, when you came into F1?"
He sits back, looks at the pictures on the wall and ponders the question. "Not so much naŻve," he finally replies. "When I came into Formula One it was a thriving business where there were twelve franchises, all were taken, because in 2001, as people may remember, Toyota elected to take the fine and not compete, but there were no vacant franchises. Formula One was a booming business at the end of the 90's and at the start of the new century, and I felt that I could do two things:
"First I could fulfil my passion and secondly I was buying into a very, very solid business venture. Now, nobody could have foreseen that horrific event on 9/11 and its aftermath. We've seen masses of sponsors driven out of Formula One and from my own personal circumstances European (Aviation) was a company that was worth over a hundred million. I've seen my own personal businesses' asset value driven down to a very, very unacceptable level where I just clearly do not have the money now that I had pre 9/11.
"The whole world has suffered and most of all, the tragic families and people who were involved in it, we must never forget them, as their lives suffered more than anybody else.
"Of all the industries that have been hit, the hardest hit is the airline industry. I think it was quoted that, post-1945 in all the era of jet travel in the world, that the combined losses of the airlines in 2002 equal the combined profit of every airline worldwide since 1945. You just think about that a little bit.
"We've seen household names in Chapter 11 or the equivalent thereof go, we've seen national carriers wiped out, we've seen aircraft values decimated. A brand new 747 is US $148 million. Today we can buy a lightly used one for $40m - that is the effect of 9/11. Anybody who is heavily in the airline industry will never be the same after that, so, being a realist I accepted that when I went into this I went in with my eyes open. Yes I was passionate about the sport and you would have to be to get into this rat race, but, having said that it was also a solid business venture in December 2000 and January 2001.
"After the 11th September 2001, unfortunately, the world was not the same place and of the two industries that were hurt the most, first of all there was the aviation industry and Formula One didn't do too well either. I happen to have one of each, and as a result I realised at that moment in time that my ability to fund the team and take it to the levels that I want to take it to, I was not going to be able to do on my own, that's the situation that until last weekend in Canada I was still in.
"We went through all of 2002 in a highly publicised fight over agreements for what turned out to be a correct belief, a legal belief, that Minardi was entitled to 'Team 10' monies because we were the only team that qualified in each top ten in two out of the previous three seasons which is what the Concorde Agreement says is what you have to do to be eligible for the money. But I had to fight hard to get that, and I found that in 2002, and sadly, 2003, I've had to do more fighting, when all I ever really wanted to do was do my talking on the track, all I ever wanted to do was to run my team quietly and get on with trying to build a quicker car."
Three times during our interview his mobile phone has gone off, I look around pretending to look at the memorabilia but in reality listening for the merest hint of gossip. Yet something's bothering me, and I have to ask. "What's that tune?"
"What tune?" he replies.
"On you mobile, I know it but I can't think of it"
"I Will Survive," he says defiantly, grinning from ear to ear.
Shit, I'm getting to like this guy. That's the sort of dumb thing I really appreciate, people who no matter how bad it gets, never lose their sense of humour and especially the ability to laugh at themselves.
"A lot of people don't know this," he continues, "I actually sold the airline on 5 November last year, so although you see all the spares and all the support here, the actual airline, although I still own it 100%, I actually lost on 5th of November last year the financial responsibility for it, so the fact that it's losing money, it's not coming out of my pocket.
"So when people see us turn up in a 747 to Canada and then hear me saying that we've got no money, there is a difference there. Part of my deal with the people who bought the airline is that I got 100 hours free flying, so, this year, yes, I am flying my own aircraft to the races but I'm not paying for it, and there's a monumental difference. So, when Ron (Dennis) says "well he turned up in a 747 for Canada so how can he need money?" he clearly does not know the facts. But in fact he does know the facts but he's neglected to remember that I told him. He chooses to ignore them.
"So its been a tough time, and its been a tough time for a lot of industries but there's no point in complaining about it - when the going gets tough the tough get going - and that's what we've done this year. We've seen innovative schemes from Justin Wilson with 'Invest in Wilson' and that has been a fantastic success. I've had tremendous support from the Aussie sponsors, from the Dutch, companies like Trust and Muermans. They have been absolutely fantastic and with their support we have got through on a very modest budget. We've got the most fantastic engine, the most fantastic drivers, but then sadly, we've not had the money to develop the car, and that's why we've struggled, but our performance in Canada was good and you know, hopefully.."
At this point I interrupt, which is rare: "What's the main problem with the PS03?" I ask.
"Lack of development," he replies without hesitation. "We're not in the wind tunnel. The last time we were in the wind tunnel was in March. Companies run 24/7 in wind tunnels. Formula One is a new race every two weeks, and in many cases it's a new car, ok not a totally new car, but there are very few other teams that would come from one race to another with the same car they used the race before.." he changes tack.
"Why is F1 so great? It's so great because it's a continual evolution on the edge of technology. We have effectively new cars every two weeks and that's what sets us apart from the one-make or two-make series or customer chassis etc. It is the innovative edge of motoring, and to some degree, aviation technology. So much of Formula One technology applies to aviation, and vice-versa, that's what makes it so exciting and that's where the passion comes from, but, having said that, if you don't have the resources to do it, you find yourself struggling because whilst you may feel that you have a good car, a good driver and a good engine, it may be good when you start the season, but by the time you get into the season you find you're being horribly left behind if you're not continually developing the car, you're not in the wind tunnel, you're not out testing, you're not doing what you need to do.
I remark that this year Sauber appears to be in a somewhat similar position.
"Possibly," he replies. "I've got great admiration for Peter, he's probably the best team boss in the pitlane, but I have to say that they haven't seemed to have shone this year the way they have in previous years but for a privateer, you have to give them full credit.
"Also, Eddie (Jordan) in 1999," he adds, "because the circumstances were such that it wasn't so hard for Eddie to do what he did, but for Peter to come fourth, that was a serious effort and I have to say full credit to the guy because he showed where a privateer team can get by plying what money they've got in the correct direction. Obviously you need a little bit of luck too, of course you do, but full credit to him. Forget the rest of them they're in the stratosphere, but Peter has a sensible budget, he has a sensible management style, he's an incredibly nice guy, an honest guy, which is rare in F1, and that's the team I most admire."
"Do you regard Sauber as your realistic benchmark?" I ask.
"Look, it's unrealistic for any private team to ever expect more than fourth," he replies. "I mean, third for Eddie in 1999, it took a lot of other things for that to happen, and I know because I was there. I don't want to take anything anyway from Heinz, because they were two fantastic victories but nevertheless you needed to have Michael not competing, you needed to have McLaren hopeless, you needed to have a lot of other things happening to allow Eddie to be third, and as a result of that he obviously felt Jordan had come of age. I don't blame him for thinking that, but he clearly got a sharp shock in reality in 2000 when he found he couldn't continue it.
"Peter, on the other hand, got up to fourth, managed fifth last year, seems to be struggling a little bit this year but then again, we're only at the halfway point so let's wait and see. He's got a pretty serious combination, that Ferrari engine is mega, Frentzen is a driver I rate incredibly highly, he has certainly not had any luck this year but he's due some."
Talking of bad luck, I mention Olivier Panis.
"Yes, it's funny with drivers," he replies, "you can have a very good driver, who has miserable luck so that people will say, 'you know, he never gets results', anyway, that's the reality."
I decide that it's time to start heading for the nitty-gritty. "Speaking as a 'Pom'.."
"You're not going to mention cricket are you?" he asks, though even as we speak the English are thrashing Australia at rugby, a rarity.
"Speaking as a 'Pom'," I continue, "you Aussies often accuse us of being 'whingers', you have a bit of a reputation yourself in that respect, is it justified and how do you see the media and public's perception of you?"
As ever he's quick to respond: "I'd like to think that I am the most accessible team principal in the pit lane," he replies, "and the reputation that some people have given me as a whinger has grown out of my Australian background which is basically telling it as it is, and if people don't like the truth and if they don't like to hear it as it is, and that makes me a whinger, then I'm a whinger. But if people take the time to look at what I'm saying and to ask the question as to why I'm saying it, then they'll find that in all cases without exception what I am actually telling is the truth. If it comes across as whinging then it's very convenient for other people to call it whinging particularly Ron Dennis, because it suits them to do that. The more they can discredit me for whinging the less people will take notice of the fact that the guy might not be whinging at all, but if you actually listen to what he's saying, he's telling the truth."
"And the truth hurts," I remark.
"The truth does hurt," he continues, "and some team principals have a fundamental fear of the truth and it gets them in trouble time after time after time. You need to look no further than last Friday's press conference to see a couple of classic examples of that where people knew I was telling the truth, knew that I was prepared if I did need to - and I'm glad that I didn't for the sake of Formula One - that I was prepared to go all the way to prove the point and they've dug themselves incredibly deep holes. Both Eddie and Ron will to have to live with the aftermath of their dismal performances last Friday. That's life."
"OK, let's get down the meat, I want you to explain the fighting fund to me, what it is and why you feel that you (and Jordan) deserve it. A lot has been said and written," I continue, "this is your chance to explain your case."
"We need to get back to what the fighting fund was," he begins, lighting another cigarette. "The fighting fund was an idea first proposed by Ron Dennis whereby Eddie and myself were offered $8million each to compete and complete the season.
"You may ask, why did Ron Dennis, team principal of McLaren offer Eddie and Paul $8million, and the answer is simple. There are two areas of enormous cost that were being protected here. The first was the actual cost of running a third car and to answer this question properly you need to go to the Concorde Agreement and this is the part that people in the main, don't understand, and perhaps were never meant to, but its time it came out as it is.
"When we lost Prost, we had twelve teams and then we had eleven, then we lost Arrows we now had ten teams. Were we to go below ten teams, we'd breach all kinds of regulations within the Concorde Agreement, the governing document of F1. In doing so, we would expose ourselves, if we fall below twenty cars, to the need, and it is quite clearly described in Concorde, to run non-points scoring third cars, and the way it would happen is as follows:
"In a hypothetical situation, of Jordan and Minardi ceasing to exist at next week's Grand Prix, at the following event.."
"This is if both of you drop out?" I ask seeking total clarity on the issue.
"Or one - either way. If it's one, then the FIA ballots two of the remaining competitors to put two non-points scoring, non-podium or press conference participating cars into the field. If it had been two of us it would be four ballots, four cars would come out.
"Let me paint a little example here. Out come four ballots which happens to be, Badoer in a Ferrari, Wurz in a McLaren, Gene in a Williams, and lets just say McNish in a Renault. You've now got the four acknowledged fastest cars on the track carrying non-points scoring, non-championship participating non-pr and podium participating drivers out there, four incredibly competitive cars.
"It would not be beyond the realms of possibility to have, in a certain set of circumstances, those cars come in one, two and three. What would happen? Chancellor Schroeder, or whoever assuming we're talking about the European GP, would be standing on the podium at the Nurburgring looking at himself and his other co-presenters with no drivers present - they are not allowed to go up there. The race would be declared with no winner until car five, but not the winner, just car five, and those points cannot be reallocated to anyone else.
"If you actually think that through, think of the damage that that would do to the sport I love, that we all love, it is beyond comprehension. Now, if it was two cars then it would be two, so say it was just the McLaren and the Ferrari, Wurz and Badoer. If, as we're looking at here in 2003, a very tight championship was being fought out, if Badoer accidentally took off Raikkonen or Wurz accidentally took off Michael, does anyone think that the offended team principal, his team the press and public would not then say that 2003's championship was not pure because a non points scoring car took out a race leading title contending car at a time when it affected the outcome of the championship?
"Now if you take all of that in, and I hope I've explained it clearly, in simple short terms it means that we would destroy the integrity most definitely of the Constructors' Championship and possibly the Drivers Championship, let alone what could happen in the extreme - an international incident of the most embarrassing kind that would drive people away from Formula One - it would be seen as a farce.
"Now sensible people, if I can use those words, like Ron Dennis, foresaw this before the start of the championship. That is why on January 15th a fund was created. Jordan and Minardi were asked questions, simple questions - have you got a budget to complete and compete the 2003 championship, to which both of us said, "with having to pay for our engines the biggest disadvantage in F1, we can't be sure at this point in time before the season starts that we can finish." Ron then composed this $16million made up of, a contribution of US$770,000 dollars from the other teams and the remainder of left-over monies that were being held (effectively) in trust by Bernie Ecclestone, to be allocated to Jordan and Minardi on the strict understanding that they would complete the season. Meaning the other teams would not have to find the $20 - $30million dollar bill for running a third car, because it isn't simply a case of using the T car.
"If you are a championship competing team and the ballot came out that you had to run a third car, you would need a complete set of mechanics for that car, it would probably be your test team. You would have one or two spare chassis because you would not want to deny your race drivers the opportunity to use the third car in the event that they needed to. Therefore, you'd be scratching around for garage space to put your five chassis in and it would be disorganised chaos, let alone a massive cost. The bigger teams recognise it would probably cost between twenty or thirty million to run third cars.
"Therefore in the first case you have a commercial issue: do I give (as McLaren) $770K to be split equally between Jordan and Minardi to guarantee that I do not have to spend between $20m and $30m to run my third car? Far more importantly, I'm a championship contender my partner Mercedes wants the prestige of the constructors' championship far more than it wants anything else in this world, am I going to risk the purity of that championship, am I going to risk bringing the championship into disrepute for the sake of $770K?
"The answer between the teams was no. The answer was "we are going to support Jordan and Minardi with a 'fighting fund' to the tune of $16m to guarantee that they get through to the end of the season. End of story.
"On the afternoon of January 15, Mr Dennis was somewhat quiet. He said: "I have so much to say I will say nothing." This was after Max (Mosley) had delivered the rule changes for 2003, in fact it wasn't a change, simply the reinterpretation of the existing rules, which he was perfectly entitled to do and which everybody now thinks was a wonderful thing and just what the sport needed.
"There was more to the January 15 meeting than just that. On the afternoon of that day it was clear that there was another agenda. That was to pay all of Jordan's and Minardi's bills. That didn't happen because it was asking too much from too few. The nett result was that the 'fighting fund' was publicly announced at the press conference attended by most of the team principals, however certain team principals and possibly their backers, though I like to think not, were forming their own agendas as to what they would want before they gave this promised help.
"Meanwhile the small teams got on with the job of continuing to compete in the 2003 championship and to publicly state that all things were great and good for the overall well-being of F1. That was the position maintained until Friday 13 June.
"Along the way however there some incredibly significant events.
"First of all there was much debate in April about traction control and the new regulations for 2004. The new regulations are basically changing the shape of the bodywork, or to be specific the aerodynamics of the car, and to give us a car that would look very much like the late-80s early-90s cars with large rear-wing endplates and a much larger engine cover. We would also have lost some of the little 'flicks' and various little elements of aerodynamic devices."
This intrigues me since for longer than I care to remember I, along with most other F1 fans, have been calling for less reliance on aerodynamic grip and a return to mechanical grip. I want to see smaller rear wings - or advertising hoardings - not bigger. "Would I be right in saying that this is primarily an advertising, signage driven thing," I ask. "Are you saying that we're looking at a means whereby cars would be changed simply to increase their 'billboard' capacity?"
"Well, you might be right to think that," he replies, "and certainly that is the way that Mr Dennis portrayed it."
"Oh it's Ron's idea?" I ask, not hiding my frustration.
"Oh yes, it was Ron Dennis' proposal," says Stoddart, and as he lights another cigarette I feel like asking for one, and I've never smoked in my entire life. "Ron's basic idea was that we should not let designers design cars because it was 'we' who had to sell our cars to the sponsors and that we're 'trading away' all our space because the area to advertise on the cars is getting smaller and smaller. So this proposal, which was brought up last year but didn't go through, was brought up again this year, and the reason that the small teams are not keen on it is because although one might think it's more advantageous to the small teams to have more space to sell, that's not actually true, it's more advantageous to the small teams, in this economic climate, to have rule stability, which is what Max has given us. As a regulator he has recognised that the small teams are in danger of extinction, we've seen two go and two more are on the edge.
"Therefore we have this rule stability until 2005. What Ron tried to do was bring in these regulations that completely changed the aesthetic look and the aerodynamic behaviour of the cars. The teams that could optimise on the aerodynamic packages are those that have 24/7 wind tunnel programmes i.e. the big teams.
"Therefore my view of this, and it is only a personal view, is that this was a very clever way for Ron to bring in change to 'stable' regulations under the guise of helping the small teams with more sponsorship. Well we weren't actually asked if we wanted more sponsorship space because it would be a nice problem to have - as a small team knowing where to place sponsor logos on our cars would be a lovely problem to have.
"I believe, and have always believed, that the changes would not be good for the small teams and were aimed at the big teams in order to shake it all up a little bit. The people who optimised those changes and got the perfect aero-balance that would maximise their advantage would be the big teams. The small teams would be greatly disadvantaged.
"At the April 29 team owners and team technical directors meeting at Heathrow, much was said about the 10-million (Euro) engine, much was said about the fact that if Max was to ban traction control the engine manufacturers would have to put in, and I quote Ron Dennis' words; "tens of millions of dollars of R&D work" to optimise the engines without traction control and were they to do that there would be no money to establish a fighting fund or engines at ten-million euros for the smaller teams. On that basis, and on that basis alone, the FIA took the decision to retain traction control in 2004. For the overall health of the sport and to retain ten teams and keep the independent teams in when they're up against ten or twenty-fold budgets from the manufacturers.
That is the four-part programme of what the small teams did in return for two things. The small teams gave integrity and purity to the Constructors' Championship, they eradicated the need for teams to find $20m or $30m to run T-cars, they also gave up on traction control, the abolition of which would have advantaged the small teams and voted in the 2004 bodywork changes that would enable a technical challenge that would be thrown down to the big teams to see who could optimise their car the best.
"Which of course would have driven up costs for the smaller teams?" I ask.
"Enormously," he replies.
"So, these were the four things that the small teams would do for the big teams. In return they'd get $770K, the Arrows 'pot' of unclaimed monies together with an undertaking from Mercedes backed by (initially) Toyota and Renault, and solicited by the other manufacturers, a ten-million euro competitive engine package for 2004 and beyond or to quote the April 29 statement "engines at commercially affordable prices".
"It became very clear in May that the 'fighting fund' was not happening, despite all these things having been agreed upon and carried out by the smaller teams. We were competing and completing the season, we were voting with the manufacturers against our own best interests, and also Eddie (Jordan) and myself both signed up to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which gave a global support to the principal of the GPWC, and clearly something that was important to the manufacturers was to have the unanimous decision. However, it was something that Eddie and I felt was not necessary, without the other parts of their promises being honoured in the interests of the small teams. For us, Bernie and stability is a far better bet than optimism and broken promises.
"As the months went on it became less and less clear that we were going to see a 'fighting fund', there was more and more "he said", "I said" and "you said" rubbish appearing, and what really finished it for me, and resulted in what is now history, is the phone call I received from Frank Williams whereupon he said: "Paul I have bad news, sadly Ron and I have lost our arbitration case against Bernie and are facing large legal bills and as such I have to withdraw Williams' support".
"At that point it was clear that there was no longer any support for the 'fighting fund', it was clear that the small teams had been taken for a ride. At that point in time I felt I had no choice left but to withdraw my support because the upcoming F1 Commission vote, which would have made the things that had been voted for a regulation, was my last opportunity to stand up for the small teams and say "enough is enough". As such I then withdrew my support which meant it wasn't unanimous which meant that it couldn't be introduced in 2004, but would have to be voted in for 2005.
"At that point in time I knew it going to become public because part of the undertaking I had given personally to Ron and Frank back in Melbourne, when there was much speculation that they'd done my team a lot of damage with irresponsible and inaccurate comments to the press in the run up to Melbourne, and as is widely known on March 6, Frank, Ron and I were all scheduled to appear at the FIA press conference. It was clear to everyone that I was going to have a go at Frank and Ron."
I remember well the sense of anticipation ahead of the Melbourne 'show down', indeed pitpass ran a story which featured a picture of Russell Crowe in his Gladiator garb. Stoddart reveals that when he pulled into his parking space some wag had crossed out his name and written 'Maximus', we both laugh.
"You said that comments made by Ron and Frank did damage to Minardi, how do you mean?" I ask.
"I was in Malaysia at the time when all the news broke out, and the Minister was quite clear with me, he said: "Paul this is an election year, and in view of what has just broken out in the press, we feel unable to continue our sponsorship". Perhaps it was a convenient excuse on their part, but I'll never know, the point is it didn't help. Stories about Minardi being a "corner shop", as said by Frank Williams, and "we don't help Tesco or Safeway", all of this negative press, unprovoked by me, really hurt. It was very irresponsible.
"Anyway, I had a meeting to clear the air with Ron Dennis on the Thursday night in Melbourne, at which point he re-affirmed that both he and Frank had a full commitment to maintaining ten teams in the championship and that they would both do their utmost to ensure that the fighting fund went through to help Minardi and Jordan. That was re-affirmed once again at Imola when we had another team owners' meeting, Frank's words were: "Paul, you know I support you and Eddie", it soon became clear however that this wasn't going to happen.
"Unfortunately when I withdrew my support for the regulations it was always going to become public knowledge, so I took the conscious decision and with a heavy heart, that I'd been forced into a situation where it was going to come out publicly therefore I had no choice and felt it was far better to tell the whole story, not part of the story which could have been seen as "Minardi vetoes 2004 technical changes", that would not have been the truth, that would simply have been the end result of an awfully sad saga that had been going on since January 15."
"Well at the time it certainly came across as a tantrum, with you stamping your foot and shouting; "give us money or we won't play!"
"Nothing could be further from the truth," he says, leaning forward. "Why did I withdraw the agreement for the new regs two days before, why not two or three weeks before? The answer is because I knew what the downside of voting down those regulations would be, and I did my utmost to try and find a compromise. It was only when they steadfastly refused to either negotiate or honour the commitment that they'd made... also let's not forget that it was between Monaco and Canada that we saw Mercedes-Benz start to wobble over the issue of competitively priced engines as well.
"After everything that the small teams had gone through, all they'd given, it was clear that the big teams weren't going to give anything back in return. Not only had they gone back on the 'fighting fund' it was clear they were going back on their commitment to the commercially affordable engine package.
"I was left with absolutely no choice, I had sleepless nights over this, for the good of the sport I didn't want to do it. But the fact is that if I didn't do it we would be prostituting the Constructors' Championship by running non-points-scoring T-cars!
"I didn't relish the job of doing it but it needed doing for the good of the sport, and that's how I hope it came across because that's where it came from, it came from the heart.
"OK, we had the show-down that never happened in Melbourne, then a few months later we get 'round two' in Canada," I remark. "Frank Williams has said that he regarded the Friday 13th press conference - for want of a better term - as a 'set up', if it was who do you think set it up?"
"Well if Frank thinks I've got that much power, and he must have been referring to me, to be able to manipulate the rest of the team principals then I guess I should take that as a compliment," he replies. "I regret he used those words because if Frank feels he was set-up by me, let me just counter this with something I truly and genuinely believe, and that is that I've been betrayed by Frank Williams. I say that with the ability to back it up with fact. A handshake agreement in Melbourne; "Paul, Patrick (Head) and I have agreed that you can have the Williams share of the money it's not the first time that the small teams have had to be helped by the big teams, and it won't be the last". He then re-affirmed this at the Imola team owners meeting; "Paul you know you and Eddie have my support" and re-affirmed in discussions at other Grand Prix, basically Australia and Brazil. How many times do you need to have something re-confirmed before a phone call telling you that the reason support can't be given is because Ron and Frank have lost their case against Bernie? It's so farcical.
"For Frank to say I set him up is a gross misunderstanding of the truth, what I did was to tell it like it is. Unfortunately, some team principals have a gross fear of the truth."
Anyone who has read the transcript of the Friday 13 press conference, better still listened to it, will readily admit that it was fascinating high-charged stuff, "drama TV" as Eddie Jordan so aptly put it. This was F1 doing its dirty washing in public like no other sport would dare to do, a vicious yet scintillating clash of egos and wills, the ultimate in hard-ball.
A press conference that would normally last just fifteen minutes stretched to over fifty. It was 'standing room only' with those team bosses that weren't sweating it out on stage, standing at the back of the crowded room with F1 Supremo Bernie Ecclestone. The atmosphere was electric and at the end several high ranking F1 insiders were visibly shaking.
At the start of the meeting Ron Dennis was wearing a leather 'West' jacket, however once the 'verbals' began in earnest it had been removed, beads of perspiration gathering on his brow.
It's said that the root of Ron's concern wasn't merely so much what might be said, but what might be produced, for in front of him Stoddart had a giant file - similar to the sort of thing one imagines St Peter using at the pearly gates - each section marked with different coloured labels, allowing the Minardi boss quick access to various documents. At different times during the press conference Stoddart flicked to a page and carefully left it open in order that those around him could witness its contents. At one point the Australian actually holds up a page in order that Eddie Jordan - who was sitting behind him - colud clearly read it. Not only was the line-up for the press conference orchestrated, even the seating arrangements appear to have been meticulously planned.
As we sit in Paul's Ledbury office with the birds singing outside, he has the file in front of him, he slowly turns the pages as if teasing me. I lean forward.
"What about Judas, or Eddie Jordan as he's better known now, he didn't come out of it too well?" I remark.
"Well someone said to me after the press conference; "what did you think of Eddie?" and I replied "well he showed his true colours, and appropriately it's yellow", everyone laughed. JJ - Judas Jordan - well, I've got a lot of time for Eddie and I don't put him in the same category as Frank and Ron. When I went into that press conference despite all the hours and hours of phone calls and meetings, despite all the talk of' "I'm right behind you Paul", despite all that rhetoric I had a funny feeling that JJ was going to turn. If anyone looks at the tapes, when he started to, quite wrongly, criticise Bob Constanduros, I had a smile on my face because I thought "here we go", this is the guy that was primed up, was more boisterous about the fighting fund than I was, and he has been completely and utterly 'nobbled' at the previous team owners meeting that made them all late for the press conference. It was comical, there is no other word for it, it was comical.
"I know the truth, you Chris now know the truth, and several other people have seen various documents and now know the truth, perhaps it's best to leave it at that," he says, and with that the file is slammed shut.
I ask if Eddie has been in touch since.
"Absolutely, every day," laughs Stoddart. "It was quite funny," he continues, "I was sitting with some journalists when I made the comment about him being 'yellow'. It was like it was scripted because Eddie appeared standing at the fence..
"This is the fence he'd just been sitting on..?" I remark, unable to resist the temptation.
"Yeh. Anyway he had a terrible look on his face and he clearly wanted to talk but he saw ten or twelve press people round and he simply indicated that he'd phone me later. As he walked away, and by now the news had broken regarding Bernie's investment in Minardi, and I'd just said "yellow" when Eddie actually appeared, and one of the press guys, I think it was Joe (Saward) said "and green.. with envy".
"Eddie is Eddie," he continues, "he's the Arthur Daley of F1, you've got to love him but you'd never trust him. That's how it is, and that's how it's always been with Eddie and me. Eddie says things and doesn't always follow them through, I'm a different kind of person I wear my heart on my sleeve."
For a moment I visualize a new photoshop masterpiece, Eddie as Arthur Daley. "So don't you feel bitter towards him then, you don't feel he hung you out to dry while sucking up to the 'big boys'?"
"No not at all, I'm not bitter," he says. "This is where people think, and you used the word before 'tantrum', it wasn't a tantrum at all. If it was in my voice it's because I didn't want to be there doing it."
I stress that when I used the word 'tantrum' it was referring to his withdrawal of support for the regulations.
"That was the only weapon I had left," he says. "If not we might have been having an entirely different conversation right now. Look at what I've done, people think the 'fighting fund' is dead and buried, that Bernie's invested in Minardi and Jordan's had a bit of charity and everybody's happy. However I have not voted those regulations back yet and until and unless the commitment made by the other teams to the January 15 agreement is honoured, it's not going to happen."
"With regards Arrows' money, why have you always said that it 'belonged' to Minardi?" I ask. "Indeed taking this forward, should Minardi, god forbid, be unable to compete in 2004 would you give up any claim to the 2003 monies earned by the team?
"If we aren't there in 2004 the our money would be taken be the other teams, that's simply how it is," he replies. "The Concorde Agreement is absolute, you have to go back a bit further to the end of 2001 when Prost failed. You have a situation in the agreement whereby if a team ceases to compete in a single event, so we're not talking about multiples, just one race, whilst insolvent, and that's the key point, all that team's rights and privileges cease forever. It's a simple as that, if you fail to attend one single grand prix while you're insolvent, you're out, dead."
"So how did Arrows get way with it in 2002?" I ask.
"They weren't declared insolvent," he replies, "of course people have different interpretations of insolvency. However I think the point at which most people would agree that you are insolvent is when a liquidator or administrator is appointed to your company. In the case of Prost that happened at the end of 2001 and in the case of Arrows it happened at the end of 2002. So one could argue that Arrows were insolvent when they failed to compete properly in France or one might argue that they were insolvent in Hungary when they failed to turn up. Once a liquidator was appointed however there was no doubt. Because they didn't compete in the majority of the second half of the season they weren't entitled to the third and fourth quarter payments. As a result, the monies were held almost in escrow, pending the correct and proper resolution of the entitlement to those monies.
"So, who is entitled to those monies?" I ask.
"Firstly there is no entitlement to Arrows receivers or anyone else, the Concorde Agreement is absolute if you fail to compete in a race it's over.
"Under normal circumstances it would be a combination of; certain monies would be split equally between the other qualifying competitors - Toyota not qualifying because they're still in year two at that point in time of their three-year 'no money earning position' - and, the other teams and Bernie, as the commercial rights holder or FOM (Formula One Management) to be correct, would have a windfall of 'certain' of the monies.
"That was the basis upon which Ron Dennis built up his $16m offer to Jordan and Minardi, they were his figures not mine. They were made up of an amount of the Arrows' monies together with, because only nine out of the ten teams of the 2003 championship were eligible for TV money - Toyota not being eligible - it meant that the 'team ten' monies existed, so a combination of the 'team ten' monies and the little bit of residue left over from Arrows formed the $16m 'fighting fund'. It was not money that any team could have budgeted for when they did their budgets for 2003 because it was clearly not known at that time that that money was going to become available.
"So whichever way you look at it you have to call it a windfall amount of money which probably made it a lot more palatable to be offering to Minardi and Jordan in order that we could complete the season and protect the integrity of the championship.
"It's simple commercial sense, give up $770K of the revenue you never had, keep the championship cool, we're all going to go on building Formula One up into the greatest sport in the world today, let's all get out and go racing, that was the theory behind January 15th, and I believe it was the correct theory.
"Unfortunately, in typical fashion, Ron couldn't follow it through, he couldn't help but hi-jack it for other political gains. When Max did something he didn't like his weapon was to belt the small teams over the heads.
"This isn't bitterness it's simply a factual commercial reality, Jordan and Minardi performed a service, we were a 'service provider' for which an agreed amount of money was to be paid. They reneged on that agreement so I reneged on the changes. It's simple mathematics if they want the changes back, fine, re-instate the position of January 15. If that happens we can all look back and say that none of this ever needed to happen.
"So without wanting to sound dumb, can I have you clarify this; you're saying that the cost to the contributing teams would have been no more than $770K each?"
"Correct," he replies, "$770K per team with the rest of it made up from the 'windfall', monies that they didn't have access to."
"So what you're saying is that certain teams would rather put the sport through all this and risk so much rather than pay out a mere $770K, an infinitesimally small amount in F1 terms?"
"Well, not only have they risked all this," he replies, "I believe that each of the top teams has already spent an amount far greater than $770K in integrating these new regulation changes in their 2004 cars. Therefore it's a totally false economy."
"David Richards has said that F1 must work hard on the amount of money that F1 is spending, however to my mind the sport should be concentrating on the enormous amount of money that is being wasted. Another thing that I personally find wrong, almost obscene, about contemporary F1 is that teams feel they have to be seen to be spending vast amounts of money, they have to be ostentatious, flaunting the fact that they have the money to spend, the biggest transporters, the smartest garages, the finest hospitality units.."
"Chris, you're absolutely 1000% right," he says, "some feel that F1 has to be out on its own. However there's a big difference between spending money wisely and in a way that will promote your company's image in a far better way, and blatantly wasting copious amounts of money. What I get annoyed at, and I guarantee you that I win the world title every year for best value per dollar spent in F1, is seeing blatant wastage at the top. At some point I'm going to write a book and it'll be called 'Formula One: The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But The Truth', the trouble is it will have to come in volumes because there is so much to say. One of the chapters will undoubtedly be about the blatant wastage that goes on in this sport. Without naming names a certain F1 team goes to NASA in search of a new material that's been used on the Space Shuttle, and buys up the world supply of that material, the purchasing officer doesn't want to know the price, the price doesn't matter, he simply wants to know that his team's rivals can't get hold of the material. That's when F1 goes into the realms of the unbelievable."
"Yet according to you that same team would then quibble over $770K?"
"Well, that's because you've got to look at the background of certain team principals, let's use Ron Dennis as an example," he says, lighting another cigarette. "This guy comes through, he's a mechanic, he has a few failed ventures - ever wonder what happen to projects 1, 2 and 3? - but you've got to admire the guy because he comes up through the ranks falls on his feet with John Hogan and Marlboro money and never looks back. This is the guy that says F1 is not a "soup kitchen" and has never had charity in his life, well that depends on what you want to call Marlboro money. His words to me in Canada 2002 in his motorhome were: "Paul, no matter how many millions I've got I never forget how I started, I never forget the value of a dollar and I don't give anything away to anyone, I value every dollar I've got, I earned it and it's mine." When he said last week that F1 is not a charity, he really believes that, but he neglected to remind people - which I had to do for him - of all the instances over the years when monies have been given to different teams for different reasons, some of the instances could be deemed as charity, some of them could be deemed as commercial deals where other teams have given a team, or teams, money because they needed to get them to do something for them. It was Ron and Frank that lent the late, and great, Ken Tyrrell $3m to keep fighting against Bernie back in '97, in 1998 McLaren, Williams and Tyrrell were paid $9.9m each to sign up to the 1998 Concorde Agreement. F1's history is filled with instances where teams have received different amounts of money over the years for different services, and for different reasons, I don't consider it charity and furthermore I don't believe that what was established on January 15 was charity either.
"If Ron is so convinced that this is charity and we're not in a 'soup kitchen', then why did he propose it, it wasn't Paul Stoddart or Eddie Jordan's proposal, it was Ron Dennis'.
"Any banker sitting in that room in January would have said "this makes sound commercial sense; they're protecting this, they're doing this, they're saving here and this is what they're paying". It then got hi-jacked because of politics, after a while the politics become rhetoric, the rhetoric become believable and eventually you arrive in a situation such as we saw on Friday 13 in Canada where the whole thing has gone full-circle and has been turned around on the people who were actually supporting them, the small teams. Unfortunately a few home truths came out and it had to be pointed out to them that their recollection of events was not quite how it happened. The facts won't back them up, the facts will back up that Eddie Jordan and Paul Stoddart were promised $8m, they did a lot in return for that money, gave everything that was asked of them and got nothing in return. How they could squabble over $770K and bring the wrath of all the downside to this which is the regs don't change, we've brought it all into the public domain.. all for the sake of $770K. It doesn't make sense and I think Ron has allowed his personal feelings get in the way of sound judgement."
It seems we always come back to the same subject, or rather person. It's clear that there is absolutely no love lost between Stoddart and Dennis, why has this come about?
"I don't' know," he replies. "We have pissing contests with each other in the press from time to time, which is probably not good. When he said "(Eddie) Jordan's a bit of a whinger but that pales into insignificance compared with Paul Stoddart", I replied that I've got a lot of 747 engines and the difference between them and Ron Dennis is that when I switch the fuel off they stop whining. It's not good, but I give as good as I get."
Talk about handbags at twenty paces.
"Absolutely. The difference between me and Ron is that I don't start it. If you look back in history you'll see that I don't start it, I react to it. I do not want to have public rows with Ron Dennis or Frank Williams, I do not want to be thought of as a troublemaker. I probably got this reputation in March 2002 when I publicly tore Tom Walkinshaw apart, that's where this reputation probably stems from because before that there was nothing."
"Ah, Mr Walkinshaw, well since you brought the subject up let's go over the Phoenix saga."
"The Phoenix operation, a very apt name, was born out of the ashes of Prost and had Tom Walkinshaw firmly attached to it, though he denied it publicly and privately, and eventually I had to take him on head-on because it meant the survival of my team against nothing more than a con, a sting to get the $14m of TV money by putting out a 'Mickey mouse' team that would have brought F1 into disrepute. I stood up for what I believed in against a farce called Phoenix.
"Now everybody knows the truth, but at the time they thought I'd taken leave of my senses. Here was a guy publicly attacking another team principal, yet I did it because I was armed with the facts and was not prepared to be walked over by the likes of Walkinshaw.
"Sadly it went on for most of the year, though quite strangely it was Canada 2002 when Max Mosley had had enough of it all and directed Bernie to pay the money to the rightful 'heirs' which was Minardi."
We then return to Paul's favourite subject.
"This year I didn't start the whinging, Ron Dennis and Frank Williams attacked me while I was in Malaysia, I didn't even know about it until I was informed by the press. It was unprovoked, in no way, shape or form was I involved in that, but I reacted to it and I reacted to it by reminding both of them that they had humble beginnings, that Ron had had a Project 1, 2 and 3 before Project 4 took off and of the time when Frank had a transporter repossessed and turned up at the next race, I think it was Hockenheim, with his car on the back of a Transit van with a trailer. They had humble beginnings so why were they, the elders of the sport, attacking the little guy?
"We then agreed to a meeting ahead of the Friday press conference in Melbourne, at which they said "stay quiet (at the conference) and we'll sort it out". Prior to that meeting I made a phone call to a very influential person in F1 and said "what do you think?" and his response was "I've known them for twenty years, if it isn't in writing don't trust them".
"The Truth is I did trust them, and I was a fool. The next time it all comes out publicly is after they withdraw their support and I know everything's going to come out publicly. If telling the truth gets me a reputation as a whinger, then I'm happy to be a whinger, because I'm not scared of the truth.
"On the subject of powerful people in F1, what exactly is Bernie Ecclestone's involvement in Minardi?" I ask.
"He's now a partner," he replies, "and we've now got an association with the most powerful name in F1. It was a very comical series of events that led to this, 'drama TV' of the highest order."
"Well imagine it from our perspective," I interrupt, "one minute he's revealing that he'd previously told you to "piss off" out of F1, then he's buying into the team. In all honesty I thought it was a wind up."
"It was a weekend of mayhem," he says, "and you want to try living it. Thursday night I was ready to jump out of the hotel window, Friday night I felt the lowest I've ever felt in my life because I'd done something I didn't want to do and didn't feel it had done the sport I love much good, Saturday the press were 'beefing' me up saying that it needed doing and later on Saturday I knew I had the most powerful man in F1 as a partner.
"Here we were living an emotional roller-coaster that other people could never understand. People don't know that I care as passionately as I do, the sleepless nights, the walking round.. the seven days a week.."
It's a gloriously sunny Saturday afternoon, there are a million and one other things that we could, indeed should, both be doing. Yet Paul stresses that he isn't in the office especially for my interview, he'll be in there on the next day and indeed any other day he's not racing.
"I don't have the luxury boats, I don't take holidays," he says, "I live my work and work for my life."
"So how do you switch off?"
"I don't."
"Then how do you get through it?"
"I used to say it was the drive to succeed, to take something like Minardi, which had been written off game, set and match, and build it back up. But we took a lot of knocks after September 11 and it has not been an easy road since then.
"If you want the truth it's probably the Australian in me, the tougher it gets the more we dig in, that's just how we are. It's in our mentality; when the going gets tough the tough get going, the harder it gets the more we fight. It's the 'never say die' attitude, it's like "right we're going to succeed", it'll come with a human cost, it certainly does with me," he indicates the cigarettes he's been chain smoking since I arrived, "what drives me is to not let these guys beat me. If I give up on F1 it will be because an investor comes along who can do more for Minardi than Paul Stoddart can, but I will not be driven out."
Part 2 of this frank and exclusive interview coming very soon