14/06/2003
NEWS STORY
Continued from part one
PS: I wasn't asked to come, Eddie, let's be clear.
EJ: Yeah, okay. But I think, if we could, possibly, as a result of this meeting.. I think if the five of us here, if we can try and make sure that we leave this weekend with some positive.. if the ag (aggression) factor that seems to be here can come.. I mean, what Paul needs is immediate support. Let's see if it can be done. I'm actually 100 per cent behind Paul because I don't want to have to run a third car if I need to. I don't think…I certainly couldn't afford to do it, that's for sure.
Q: You said before you never would take charity from another team. Who paid your leasing rates for the trucks in Barcelona?
EJ: I don't actually know that and I don't know anything about who pays leasing rates. There is all sorts of people who pay different sponsorships.
Q: Okay, so you would swear it, never to get money from another factory or another team to pay your trucks?
EJ: Trucks? Sorry, I think we are really losing the plot here. Can we please try and keep on the subject.
Q: Well, I had a question and I wanted an answer. That was everything.
RD: Let's move on.
Q: Ron, you and everybody else has made it very clear that you were the initiator of the fighting fund. Could you explain why, in your view, it hasn't come through. Normally, when you initiate something you expect it to come through. Why hasn't it? Why has this situation arisen?
RD: It is in everybody's interests who is competing in Formula One to have stability and to try and to have stability means to try and keep everybody together pointing in the same direction. But life is about balance and the primary motive I had in initiating that was to create stability through this season and next. With stability you can make defined plans for your Grand Prix team. If something comes along and affects dramatically either the technical or sporting regulations then you have another cost which manifests itself and so that was the driver for me. And of course, keeping the cars on the grid, Paul and, to a lesser extent, Eddie. There are many, many ideas discussed in team principal meetings, many ideas, and they are initiated by different people for different reasons. Bernie has often supported teams and provided fiscal bridges to help them through difficult times. But these things don't come into the public domain, they are just the inevitable pluses and minuses that exist in Grand Prix racing and it is all very well to cherry pick a moment of time but, and I don't wish to go back to the subject, but Paul read out a paragraph and within the paragraph it made it very clear that rule stability was an essential ingredient in the objective of putting together a fund. What we haven't had is rule stability and we have incurred significant cost, all of us, and we are going to incur more cost in the future, and if you don't know how you stand financially how on earth can you look at what amount of money you can contribute to whatever person, team or situation requires. Running a business is about balancing the income to the expenditure and if you can't control your expenditure you need to make damned sure you have some degree of reserve in your income. It is simple economics and again I will echo Frank's words. This is a sporting event. This is a wholly inappropriate forum to discuss these issues in. Wholly inappropriate.
Q: You did once say at this very Grand Prix that Formula One is all about business, except from lights-to-flag, when it is sporting
RD: Of course, of course, that is the case but this is not the forum for discussing the commercial aspects of Grand Prix racing, it is just not the right forum. I have sympathy with everybody who is in hardship, I try to make life easy for lots of people as and when circumstances develop, but it is nothing you need to share with the world. This is tough times, you know, for all of us.
Q: A question for Frank. Earlier in the week Jeff Gordon was down running one of your last year's cars. What is your assessment of his performance in his car, what would it take, would you consider giving him a formal test, and the final part of it, how much would an American's involvement in motorsport do to alleviate some of the causes of the problems that we are seeing here?
FW: In answer to question one, I was absent but the reports I have received from those present were that he is a really, really good driver, that he was unafraid of the car. His NASCAR car was braking at 250 metres, approximately, at the end of the pit straight and after about two laps he was braking at 75 metres in the F1car. Juan was braking at about 60 or something like that. And his lap times were one second slower than Juan's. Now, this is no Grand Prix practice event, there were very few laps available for either driver - for Juan to set up the car or for him to drive it - but we were truly, and not for the benefit of any North Americans here, we were very, very impressed. The good news and bad news is, the good news is he is very, very quick, the bad news is we can't afford him. He is a winning NASCAR driver and his earnings, I am told, are out of sight! (Laughter) So that doesn't really answer your third question but I should say on behalf of all my colleagues here, we would all love to have a world class US driver in a Grand Prix team.
Q: Ron, you were talking about the great sport and the brands in the sport and you guys and everybody else out there are actually all partners in the same business. Surely the Minardi brand, if you look at the popularity it has among the public, has a value to you to keep it going because of it being the little guy, the underdog. Everybody loves an underdog, whether they perform well or not. Don't you think it is actually something that would be positive for the business to keep it going?
RD: Absolutely. I don't disagree with you.
Q: But, er, it is not going to happen, is it?
RD: No, you asked me a question and said did I agree with you and I agree with you entirely.
Q: And are you going to do anything about it?
RD: Why ask me?
Q: I am asking everybody
RD: Okay, well maybe someone else would like to comment.
Q: Well, are you partners in the same business, is this a business that you are, I mean.. The teams are presumably, the ten teams that are surviving, are partners in a business that is trying to build up the sport, isn't it.
RD: I think it is a well-known fact that the teams, together with SLEC, together with Bernie, together with the manufacturers are working hard to basically take care of the long-term financial and sporting stability of Grand Prix racing. It requires a lot of time and a lot of effort from several people, not any one individual, and if we achieve the goals that we have set for that project then the fiscal stability for the smaller teams will be better, for all of the teams, will be much better. The issue that relates to Minardi is not…it hasn't been made overnight, you know, and it is not going to be resolved overnight, and it is certainly not going to be resolved in this room. Do we think that…I don't think that there is a team that does not support the view that they should be, you know, that every effort should be made to be, to er, keep every team on the grid.
PS: But nothing is being done. Talk is cheap.
Q: Can I just ask Paul, Ron alluded to the fact earlier that some money had been paid this year. Could you tell us if you have had support from Formula One this year and, er, by bringing the issue out in the way you have this weekend are you in some danger of having attitudes hardened against you rather than helping your negotiating stance?
PS: I don't think they could be any harder than they are. I am totally disillusioned with several of the people sitting around me and I am not prepared to drag this down any lower than it has gone, but my God I could. A lot of things that have been said here are less than accurate and I think it is best left at that. I don't believe there is a view to support Minardi. We saw Prost go, we saw Arrows go, you will see, at some point in time if things don't change, Minardi go. Who's next? Jordan? Who's after that? One of the manufacturer teams? You won't need to worry about the GPWC soon because in the not too distant future that may be all you have got left.
Q: David, did you want to add something?
DR: Yeah, I think actually it is all too easy to look at a situation in one moment in time, as Ron mentioned, and clearly all sports go through sort of highs and lows and we see it in many other sports. We really have got to look at the sustainability of the sport in the long-term. There have been discussions recently about the engine supply, that is a very positive initiative if it can be brought to fruition and I know Paul is nodding his head but..
PS: Shaking actually, David and I am sure (unclear)
DR (Speaking over PS): Oh, shaking is the opposite, alright, apologies. But none the less, there are initiatives afoot, and I am quite convinced that if we pursue that route we can get engines at an economic level, we can have a more equitable distribution of the income coming into the sport. These are the long-term issues that need to be resolved, and that's where the focus should be. I realise there are short-term problems for Paul at the moment but the fact that he can get through to the end of the season now and that we can press on and we can get all these other things done in the long-term..
PS: Limp through. And perhaps Eddie might want to, if he hasn't been totally knobbled, comment on the engines because he has had various discussions with the engine manufacturers who had agreed to support a 10 mil, or a 'commercially affordable' engine and I happen to know first hand that Eddie, you have had very, very few.. or indeed no responses and poor responses.
EJ: Well, on that issue, if we are talking about engine supply there is the letter from Mercedes-Benz in January, which was positive and was the first instigator of putting an engine package together and I think that was actually done before the one-make rule, so that is to be applauded and, of course, you cannot and must never forget Cosworth. They have been, if you like, the provider for many, many, many of the teams and I would dare say every team at this table with the exception of BAR, in their time, so there is Cosworth, but Cosworth is a commercial organisation and at the moment they are the only people. Everyone else has replied and said it is not physically possible for '04. Erm, I think that is the situation, erm, but maybe there is not that many teams who will require the engines because it is mainly manufacturers now.
PS: Can I just say one thing there, because it has been fairly negative so far…Can I just say that the support I have personally received from Ford, Cosworth and Jaguar is the only reason, no thanks to anybody necessary…no, that's not really fair…no thanks to a lot of people at this table, but Ford, Cosworth, Jaguar have been tremendously supportive, and my sponsors, otherwise we would not be here.
Can we move on? Another question. Fifteen minutes to go, maximum.. Yep.
Q: I would just like to ask Paul and Ron, just to clarify things: Is the fighting fund now gone, is it now dead. And if it has gone, how will that affect Paul for the rest of the season?
PS: Perhaps, if I can answer first. If it is not dead, Jane, then it is a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted because as I said before it is no thanks to a lot of people or a lot of my peers that we are still here. Um, is it going to come back on stream? I suspect not after today, but we'll see.
RD: Again, I am a bit surprised I am singled out here (laughing). I mean, I tried to initiate something and it failed. If that puts me as the bad guy then so be it, but it was I that initiated it and as I said there were motives to that which were rule stability. We haven't got rule stability, and we never actually arrived at the point where the financials added up, so, I mean, the reality was I couldn't sympathise, understand Paul's desire to take a snap shot on a given date at a given moment of time but it is just a disservice to the complexity of the situation and all the issues that surround Formula One and the economics of it at the moment and, you know, this, again, is not the venue to get into the detail and I refuse to get into a sort of game of tennis about who said what and did what. If I am going to be pilloried for trying to help someone then so be it, but I will temper my positions in the future.
EJ: May I just say something. I haven't been asked to respond to this, but (pause) it is never too late in Formula One. Erm, this has been a very difficult day. I do agree that it is, absolutely what Ron has said and what Paul has said, that it is a difficult moment, but I never give up. I believe that there will be a way forward and I do believe that it is absolutely critical that we don't have a team running three cars, and if that means certain support I think every one at the table here, I don't think there is anyone absolutely against it. I was at the meeting just before now, and there is a willingness from everyone that the fabric and the fibre of Formula One as it currently exists will continue that way and if this meeting has added to bring it to the attention of everyone, and the teams, quicker and to make it happen, particularly for Paul, then that has been positive. But that can be the only positive thing that is coming out of this today.
Any other questions?
Q: Just for clarification, am I right in thinking that the fighting fund is failing because the votes and the support are being withdrawn by McLaren, Williams and Ferrari, and doesn't that then make it look like the big guys are kicking the little guy?
RD: No, your perception is wrong. I am not going to correct your perception, but it is completely wrong.
Q: So you are in favour of the fighting fund?
RD: If the f.. Your perception of the situation is completely wrong. If you go back in a moment of time, and I hate being drawn into this, but just to clarify it for you, the fighting fund was initiated on the basis of certain things falling into place, okay? There was a given amount of money, the money was in dispute, the objective was to take away the dispute by the clarification of the regulations that aptly gave birth to the dispute, step one. To take the amount of money, to coerce Bernie into doubling it, and based on technical stability being provided between this season and next season, share that between the two teams. Several of those criteria failed. Not one, several. That was the discussion that took place and that was the basis on which, and the moment of time at which, Paul chose to take his picture and say this was a commitment and this was a promise. That is the factual position, you can ask any team principal, was the actual position. And as recently as 12 hours, six hours after that meeting, the proposal was floundering because the FIA had introduced significant technical change, and whether Bernie chose to or not, it was certainly not a done deal that he was going to double the money was being proposed by the teams.
PS: Just to be clear on that, Ron's right that the…when he talks about January 15, he wasn't incredibly happy after the afternoon meeting, but as recently as this weekend, yesterday and this morning, I have actually asked most of the team principals to sign what is effectively a release, and the monies we are talking about here are the left-over Arrows monies from last year and the team ten monies that are not claimable by Toyota this year. Six of the team principals have signed to release that money today. Three, two that are sitting to the left and right of me and one, in a red suit, who is not here, have not yet signed. One has abstained, because Toyota are clearly not involved, and it is fair to say, since we are going to be absolutely clear about this, that Dave Richards has put a caveat on and Flavio Briatore has put a caveat on, but it is not right to say that it is not being supported. Whoever asked that question, because I can't see behind the TV camera here, was absolutely spot on when they said there are three teams blocking it, and they got it right.
RD: Ah, I have no choice - I have to answer. The document presented by Minardi for the so-called signature relates to the sum of $16 million (dollars) the schedule of points that he refers to, in fact, accumulates to less than $8 million (dollars) or thereabouts. What I would like to understand is where does the other $8 million (dollars) come from, because it is certainly not 16. And the answer is, it relates back to a, er, proposal, the proposal, that whatever the sum of money was it would be doubled by Bernie. Now Bernie is in the back of the room. If he wants to say yes I am going to double it, or no I am not going to double it, maybe he will choose. I don't want to put him on the spot. But the reality is, this is a poorly drafted document, has no relevance…no cross-reference to anything that has been discussed before, and why anyone in their right mind would just sign away on the basis of this, it is not at all reflective of the facts and if there are three teams declining it is because they are bringing a slightly different perspective to its interpretation than perhaps the others, because I don't know where 16 million (dollars) comes from. Perhaps Paul would like to tell me where 16 million (dollars) comes from.
PS: Very clearly, Ron, since you asked. The Arrows remaining payment from last year, circa, circa $3 million (dollars), the Arrows video game payment, circa half a million (dollars), the Arrows December 31st payment, circa $1.5 million (dollars), the team 10 column one payment 2003, circa $7 million (dollars), team ten, column two, two-double-o-three, circa $4 million (dollars). This is the very sixteen million that you offered on the 15th December, so if you got the figures wrong then so did I
RD: No, no
PS: But whatever it is, we are looking at 50-50 - half to Jordan, half to Minardi. Now Eddie has been very silent today and it is fairly clear, to me, to know why
RD: Your mathematics are completely wrong
PS: Well, so were yours on the 16th, but in any event
RD (speaking over PS): No, no, no. Not at all. Your mathematics
PS (speaking over RD): In any event
RD: Your mathematics are completely wrong and you fail to recognise that a large proportion of percentage of this money has already been distributed to the teams. You know, the document does not present the accurate position that you are presenting to the media. This is not the format…not only that, the other thing you should point out is, you are not entitled to any of this money.
PS: Then the majority of other team principals must be wrong as well.
RD: Er, with the caveats
PS: Only two of them had caveats (pause). And the caveats were for clarification. Nothing to do with the money, they were that they needed board approval to agree the final two points.
Five minutes to go
Q: I go back to my original question about being partnerships. Forget all the nitty gritty here, you are trying to make the sport look good and you are arguing over money this and that. Surely that money, if it exists, it would be best giving it to the smaller teams would it not? Are we, are we, are we just being rather foolish and not understanding it, or is there
RD: I think that sums it up (laughter)
Q: Okay
RD: I think that sums it up very well.
Q: Well, could you actually explain it better so we have a clear view of it then?
RD: This.. I am not going to discuss, as Frank pointed out, and I have been sucked into it, for which I deeply regret, but I am not going to discuss neither my business or any other Formula One business in this totally inappropriate forum.
Q: I accept that Ron
RD: A totally inappropriate forum.
Q: The point I am saying is not about arguing whether it is 150 this and blah, blah, blah. It is arguing about whether you guys are working together as a company, because that is what you effectively are, and if, forget all the arguments about who owns what and all the rest of it, why is it not happening?
DR: Joe, isn't it better that we look for sustainability in the sport. I tell you we had this very same discussion last year, over a year ago, and it was almost the same scenario a year ago. We should look for sustainability for the long-term now, we shouldn't be looking at knee-jerk quick fixes and that is what we have got to focus on.
PS: If keeping ten teams is a knee-jerk quick fix, will somebody please issue a knee-jerk quick fix. EJ: I think just for the avoidance of any doubt, that what Paul is talking about, and he has said that I am very quiet.. I am trying to be objective in the situation. I happen to be, as I said, a big supporter of ten teams, of which Paul is important as anyone else in that team. I think that the original thing was to help the teams. It is not a question of Jordan's circumstances are very different to Minardis because it is their own business, it is a business we are running as well. And we have credibility that we all have to do part of this sport. The situation was that this money would be handled by Bernie and (unclear) to alleviate the engine bill, so it's, you know, we are not talking about a charity performance here, we are talking about a set of circumstances that was, was proposed by Ron and as I rightly said, he has to be applauded for that because no-one else did it, he tried to get it together and no-one else did it. He tried to get it together. It didn't happen and lets hope it can happen and if today has helped to bring that further forward then it has been a good day. If it hasn't it has been a very bad day.
I think that is a very appropriate moment in which we leave it. Thank you.
Everything you need to know about the Canada GP
- times, reports, 2003 stats, all-time stats, pictures, championship standings and quotes... right here