12/02/2010
NEWS STORY
 |
It has been a long time since F1 has seen the kind of contradictory statements which have been bandied around in the last week. On Sunday we read Bernie Ecclestone's comments that the Concorde Agreement allows teams to miss three races. Then, only a few days later, we read Jean Todt saying the same thing. The last thing we expected was for the FIA to release a statement, just one day after Todt's comments, saying that teams are obliged to take part in every race. As the man who got the comments from Ecclestone, Pitpass' business editor Chris Sylt explains what is really going on.
What's the big deal you may say. Well, in a nutshell, there is a very big issue at stake and it concerns nothing less than the teams that you will be watching at races this year. If teams come and go during the season it will indeed be a big deal, particularly given that the FIA's statement on 10 February bluntly declared that "each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season."
Surely that puts the matter to rest you might think. If every team is obliged to take part in every race then presumably it must be a sheer fabrication that there is a clause in the Concorde Agreement which suggests teams can miss three races before losing their grid slot . Surely there can't be one clause suggesting that teams can miss three races before losing their grid slot and another clause stating that they are obliged to complete in every race? In F1 anything is possible.
The Concorde Agreement reportedly contains a clause stating that if a team does not participate in more than three events in one FIA Championship then it will be considered to have withdrawn from the Championship.
This implies that if a team only fails to participate in, for example, two races, then it will not be considered as having withdrawn from the Championship. However, this is an implication of the clause and not something believed to be directly stated.
What we know to be directly stated is the following clause 13.2 (f) from the Formula One Sporting Regulations which refers to an "undertaking by the applicant to participate in every Event with the number of cars and drivers entered."
Would this clause in the Sporting Regs take legal precedence over a clause in the Concorde, as described above, which implied that teams could miss three races before losing their slot? And if the Concorde clause is written as stated above then would it be a valid implication that if a team only fails to participate in one, two, or three races then it will not be considered as having withdrawn from the Championship? These are questions which may only be answered by a court (if the matter were ever to proceed to legal action). Of course, it all hinges on the Concorde clause being open to interpretation and without seeing the Concorde, what evidence could there be for this? As it happens there is plenty.
From the bluntness of the FIA's recent statement you wouldn't think there was any chance that the Concorde could be interpreted in a way to suggest teams could miss three races without losing their slot. After all, it seems pretty definite to say that "each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season." But just how definite is it?
The biggest give-away that things are not as black and white as the FIA statement makes them out to be is the fact that Ecclestone, Todt and, according to the New York Times, Todt's spokesman, all believed that teams could miss three races without losing their grid slot. Where did they get this idea from? Presumably it was not from thin air. In fact, it was certainly not, since their explanation of the matter ran very deep indeed.
Last month Ecclestone told Sylt that, not only was he adamant that any team could miss any three races, but he believed that USF1 and Campos would be doing just that. He added, "What if Ferrari miss three races?" Hardly the kind of things that Ecclestone would spend time wondering if there was absolutely no possibility for them to do this.
Likewise, Pitpass very much doubts that Todt would have said "my understanding is that the Concorde Agreement, the way it is written at the moment, would allow you not to be there for up to three Grands Prix." And Pitpass also very much doubts that Todt's spokesman would have said, "it's three races for the whole season but it's possible to be the first three of the season." If there was absolutely no question over the teams missing three races then where on earth did Ecclestone, Todt and his spokesman get the idea from? Since none of these three gentlemen is prone to inventing things out of thin air, we can use their comments as evidence that there is indeed a clause which could be interpreted as allowing teams to miss three races without losing their grid slot.
To stop and gather thoughts for a moment, we are not saying that this suggests that the teams can legally miss three races but rather that the Concorde may be interpreted in a manner which would allow them to miss three races and not lose their grid slot (and indeed the comments from Todt and Ecclestone support this interpretation since it is what they thought, initially at least). In a nutshell, if there was no clause which could be interpreted in this way, then there would be no source for Ecclestone and Todt's comments.
The FIA's recent clarification simply sets out the federation's official line which it would take in the event of a legal dispute. It also acts as a warning for teams not to miss races (which neither the FIA nor Ecclestone want to happen) but this doesn't necessarily guarantee that the Concorde prevents them from doing so. If a clause is open to interpretation then there is no guarantee that a court would side with the FIA's official line.
You can bet your bottom dollar that any team which thinks it will need more time to secure funding will have its lawyers looking at whether the Concorde allows it to miss races without losing its grid slot. And, of course, these lawyers have the actual text of the Concorde to support their argument. Bearing that in mind, why does the FIA need to remind the teams in a press release if the Concorde can only be interpreted to conclude that "each Team that has registered for the Championship is obliged to take part in every event of the season." Surely if it was black and white clear in the Concorde then there would be no need to remind the teams of anything. Here we are back again to the concept of the Concorde clause being open to interpretation.
The conclusion we seem to be left with is that F1 may indeed have teams which try to come and go during the season if they think that the Concorde allows them to do so. They may well then face a legal battle if the FIA sticks to its guns that teams must race in every Grand Prix and if it went to court then who knows which side would win?
The one question which shines through loud and clear from this sorry situation is how many other sports have confidential regulations which could directly affect the core of what the public see - the number of participants? Keeping the Concorde Agreement hidden from the public shatters any hopes F1 may have of transparency but that's only the tip of the iceberg. If indeed the Concorde could imply that teams are allowed to miss three races without losing their grid slot then, for the sake of fans at least, the contract should at last be put in the public domain.