Bahrain - teams palnning for cancellation?

[Brian Lawrence]

According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
the Bahrain GP is cancelled.

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage,
Oxfordshire, UK
Brian_W_...@msn.com

[Paul Giverin]

In message <9ug8h0...@mid.individual.net>, Brian Lawrence
<Brian_W_...@msn.com> writes

>According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
>the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>

Like........ not sending the cars or staff to Bahrain?

;)

--
Paul Giverin

My Photos:- www.giverin.co.uk

[AC]

Brian Lawrence wrote:
> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>

IMHO, its just a matter of time until the "safety" trigger is pulled.

I wonder what these contingency plans are exactly. I mean, they just
don't go, right? They just ship home, or to the next GP. Not exactly
aerodynamics is it? I suppose there must be more to it....?

--
AC

[Geoff May]

If they pull out without FIA approval then I expect there could be
penalties imposed. I vaguely remember some suggestion that the two
Schumacher brothers might not race the day after their mother had died
and German TV coverage at the time said that the FIA sanctions would
probably be ignored due to the circumstances or something.

Cheers

Geoff

[Von Fourche]

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:9ug8h0...@mid.individual.net...

Hopefully they will cancel this race. If not F1 will be nothing but a
farce.

[Geoff May]

Replying to myself ...

I found these from the sporting regulations that may be applicable:
13.7 If in the opinion of the F1 Commission a competitor fails to
operate his team in a manner compatible with the standards of the
Championship or in any way brings the Championship into disrepute, the
FIA may exclude such competitor from the Championship forthwith.

I suspect the FIA can say that any team that decides not to attend the
race will be considered not operating the team in the correct manner.

There is also this one from the sporting regulations that means the
country has a responsibility to ensure that the race takes place and
*only* the race:
31.4 Unless written permission has been given by the FIA to do
otherwise, the circuit may only be used for purposes other than the
Event after the last practice session on each day of practice and on the
day of the race no less than one hour before the end of the pit lane is
opened to allow cars to cover a reconnaissance lap.

These are from the prescription document and are about cancelling the event:
6. Cancellation or moving of an Event
A. The cancellation of an Event shall be notified to the FIA at least
three months prior to the date for which the Event was scheduled.
B. The FIA may designate a replacement for a cancelled Event giving
priority to any reserve Events.
C. Cancellation of an Event with less than 3 months notice may entail
refusal of the entry of the Event in the Championship for the following
year, except in cases of force majeure accepted by the FIA.

Cheers

Geoff

P.S.: The PDF files where I got the above were taken from here:
http://www.fia.com/en-GB/sport/regulations/Pages/FIAFormulaOneWorldChampionship.aspx
(careful of line wrapping)

[AC]

Cheers for that.

However, so you seem to be taking this as though the teams themselves
are making planning to make the decision themselves. What you have
quoted seem to relate to that. My understand is that this story related
to what the teams do if the race is called off.

Which I cant see much of a problem with apart from shifting logistics. I
suppose also, some team's sponsors might have an issue with losing one
race they might feel they are paying the teams for.

But, yeah, I imagine a team thinking of making a stand and not going may
well have a lot of thinking and planning to do. Mostly "legal", I guess.

--
AC

[AC]

If you don't think its not a farce already.....

--
AC

[Ar]

On 09/04/12 15:03, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>

They will make Bernie stand at the gates to the track, and tell him to
defend them from the masses?

[Andy]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 20:10:15 +0100, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

>Geoff May wrote:
>> On 09/04/2012 16:56, Geoff May wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2012 16:36, AC wrote:
>>>> Brian Lawrence wrote:
>>>>> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
>>>>> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.

[Lots of stuff snipped]

>Which I cant see much of a problem with apart from shifting logistics. I
>suppose also, some team's sponsors might have an issue with losing one
>race they might feel they are paying the teams for.

I think what to do with the equipment is the problem. With Bahrain one
week after China, they have to move the stuff somewhere.

Interesting article on gpupdate.net: 'Teams plan emergency meeting
about Bahrain'

Paragraph 1:
'F1’s teams are set to meet in China this weekend to discuss whether
or not they should boycott the following week’s Bahrain Grand Prix. As
protests continue in the Gulf nation, huge safety fears are now
widespread throughout the sport.'

Paragraph 3:
'I feel very uncomfortable about going to Bahrain," an anonymous Team
Principal told The Guardian on Monday. "If I'm brutally frank, the
only way they can pull this race off without incident is to have a
complete military lock-down there. And I think that would be
unacceptable, both for Formula 1 and for Bahrain."'

Also:
'It is being reported by a number of newspapers that some of the
larger, wealthier outfits have already purchased two sets of airline
tickets for staff in order to bypass the country if the race is
cancelled.'

There's more that I haven't quoted.

http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/276910/teams-plan-emergency-meeting-about-bahrain/

--
Andy

[Timmy]

Brian Lawrence wrote...

>
> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.

Diverting the canoes to Turkey ?

[Mower Man]

On 09/04/2012 3:03 PM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>

Good. It's a shame it was one of the BBC tx'd races though.
But...adds to my B&Q sat. value - which got me watching the "Paris -
Roubaix" "hell of the North" one day cycling event over the cobbles/pave
- well done the brilliant Tom Boonen!

--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)

[AC]

So, logistics are a bit of a mare, and the teams jointly are getting
pretty cold feet. Fair enough.

I am kind of surprised by this though. I pretty much expected there to
suddenly be a safety issue and they plug would be pulled. I kind of
assumed there would be some sort of knowing under the table
understanding, but such a meeting says not.

Which I do think is piss poor. Fine for Bernie and co to be playing the
political game, which is frankly right and to be expected. There has to
be a properly convoluted exit, as it were. But to do so leaving the
teams uninformed and nervous is not clever at all. Not to mention all
the fans and media types.

--
AC

[Ed Beroset]

AC wrote:
> Which I do think is piss poor. Fine for Bernie and co to be playing the
> political game, which is frankly right and to be expected. There has to
> be a properly convoluted exit, as it were. But to do so leaving the
> teams uninformed and nervous is not clever at all. Not to mention all
> the fans and media types.

The uncertainty of a Bahrain race and seeming dithering on the part of
F1 generates press interest, beyond that which might normally have been
expected. From a purely cold-blooded economic analysis of it, who would
benefit from:

A) a Bahrain race that is held under such conditions?
B) a team boycott rather than FIA cancellation of said race?

Ed

[News]

Wonder if BernieCo is charging a 'civil unrest premium"...

[Timmy]

Mower Man wrote...

>
> On 09/04/2012 3:03 PM, Brian Lawrence wrote:
> > According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> > the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
> >
>
> Good. It's a shame it was one of the BBC tx'd races though.
> But...adds to my B&Q sat. value - which got me watching the "Paris -
> Roubaix" "hell of the North" one day cycling event over the cobbles/pave
> - well done the brilliant Tom Boonen!

On what channel and in which language ?

The UK Eurosport road cycling commentators are excellent. Losing them could be
a problem.

[Bobster]

> Brian_W_Lawre...@msn.com

There's a great opening to a piece in the Gruaniad

"Dictatorial, undemocratic, feudal in structure and intolerant of
dissenting opinion – there have always been fundamental concerns
surrounding Formula One. Bahrain has got problems, too."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/bahrain-f1-bernie-ecclestone
http://tinyurl.com/cuqronc

[Bobster]

This article also highlights the greater moral dilemma. You don't like
Bahrain's record on human rights and democracy? Fine. So then what
about China and Abu Dhabi> Or Russia, which seeks a GP? There's a GP
scheduled for Texas this year, my own country will not extradite
wanted felons to face trial in Texas because they may face the death
penalty.

Several teams are based in the UK and/or race under a UK license.
There are many people involved in this race who will travel their on
UK passports. The UK government has recently done arms deals with the
Bahrain government.

F1 cannot play the moral/political game - nor can any other sport. The
issue has to be safety. If there are resonable doubts about the safety
of the teams or at the event then F1 should not go. Otherwise it's
business as usual.

[build]

I did not read the article but F1 is a business not a democracy.

[build]

On Apr 10, 3:39 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 7:08 am, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 4:03 pm, "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawre...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
> > > the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>
> > > --
>
> > > Brian W Lawrence
> > > Wantage,
> > > Oxfordshire, UK
> > > Brian_W_Lawre...@msn.com
>
> > There's a great opening to a piece in the Gruaniad
>
> > "Dictatorial, undemocratic, feudal in structure and intolerant of
> > dissenting opinion – there have always been fundamental concerns
> > surrounding Formula One. Bahrain has got problems, too."
>

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/bahrain-f1-bernie-ecclest...

>
> This article also highlights the greater moral dilemma. You don't like
> Bahrain's record on human rights and democracy? Fine. So then what
> about China and Abu Dhabi> Or Russia, which seeks a GP? There's a GP
> scheduled for Texas this year, my own country will not extradite
> wanted felons to face trial in Texas because they may face the death
> penalty.
>
> Several teams are based in the UK and/or race under a UK license.
> There are many people involved in this race who will travel their on
> UK passports. The UK government has recently done arms deals with the
> Bahrain government.
>
> F1 cannot play the moral/political game - nor can any other sport. The
> issue has to be safety. If there are resonable doubts about the safety
> of the teams or at the event then F1 should not go. Otherwise it's
> business as usual.

Agree !

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 8:17 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:08 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > There's a great opening to a piece in the Gruaniad
>
> > "Dictatorial, undemocratic, feudal in structure and intolerant of
> > dissenting opinion – there have always been fundamental concerns
> > surrounding Formula One. Bahrain has got problems, too."
>

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/bahrain-f1-bernie-ecclest...

>
> I did not read the article but F1 is a business not a democracy.

I'm giving points for artistic impression, not for technical merit.

[build]

OK.

The art of business is to make a profit. In the contract with Bahrain
there will be clauses about canceling the race. If those are breached
a fee will apply. Bernie is no fool and the teams will be wealthier.
Remember that last year the race was canceled but the fee was paid.

beers,

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 8:42 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 4:20 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 8:17 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 3:08 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > There's a great opening to a piece in the Gruaniad
>
> > > > "Dictatorial, undemocratic, feudal in structure and intolerant of
> > > > dissenting opinion – there have always been fundamental concerns
> > > > surrounding Formula One. Bahrain has got problems, too."
>
> > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/bahrain-f1-bernie-ecclest...
>
> > > I did not read the article but F1 is a business not a democracy.
>
> > I'm giving points for artistic impression, not for technical merit.
>
> OK.
>
> The art of business is to make a profit.

Well I think I figured that much out already. Thanks :-)

> In the contract with Bahrain
> there will be clauses about canceling the race. If those are breached
> a fee will apply. Bernie is no fool and the teams will be wealthier.
> Remember that last year the race was canceled but the fee was paid.

Yes. Which is why the teams are presenting a unified front and
generally are mouthing platitudes. They don't want to create a
situation where somebody can point at them and say "no show thus no
dough."

[AC]

Which is why I keep banging on about safety. No, F1 should not be
passing comment on internal national politics, but it can say, "sorry,
too dangerous." Of course that could encourage the protesters to ramp it
up to make sure its not safe for F1.

How ever, my support for Bernie and co has just evaporated with reports
this morning that he is saying its now up to the teams. I can accept
cynicism to a point, but that cowardly position is beyond the limit.
Playing divide and rule over this, ie using the situation to his own
internal political ends is vile. What he wants them to do is decide if
they want a huge contract breach on their hands. He knows that Williams
will suck up and go, McLaren sort of have to, and teams like Caterham,
with not a lot of cash, might want to say they dont want to risk their
people there, yet feel contractually forced to go. Ferrari might take a
high profile moral stance knowing that no one in the FIA or FOM will
dare touch them.

Von Forche (sp?) said F1 would descend in to farce, and I took the piss.
Well, if F1 was not already a farce, it has now surpassed it.

On the other hand, if Bernie insists on playing games with the teams and
they do feel forced to go, and some one gets hurt, then the blood will
be all over Bernie, and any one wanting to get rid of him will have a
great platform for doing so.

This is a governance decision, and not a team or individual one. I hope
when the teams meet in China to discuss this, they put the ball firmly
back in to Bernie's court and make him and the FIA decide for the whole
of the sport.

--
AC

[Mark]

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

> Bobster wrote:
>>
>> Several teams are based in the UK and/or race under a UK license.
>> There are many people involved in this race who will travel their on
>> UK passports. The UK government has recently done arms deals with the
>> Bahrain government.
>>
>> F1 cannot play the moral/political game - nor can any other sport. The
>> issue has to be safety. If there are resonable doubts about the safety
>> of the teams or at the event then F1 should not go. Otherwise it's
>> business as usual.

Agreed.

> Which is why I keep banging on about safety. No, F1 should not be
> passing comment on internal national politics, but it can say, "sorry,
> too dangerous." Of course that could encourage the protesters to ramp it
> up to make sure its not safe for F1.

Agreed.

> How ever, my support for Bernie and co has just evaporated with reports
> this morning that he is saying its now up to the teams. I can accept
> cynicism to a point, but that cowardly position is beyond the limit.
> Playing divide and rule over this, ie using the situation to his own
> internal political ends is vile. What he wants them to do is decide if
> they want a huge contract breach on their hands. He knows that Williams
> will suck up and go, McLaren sort of have to, and teams like Caterham,
> with not a lot of cash, might want to say they dont want to risk their
> people there, yet feel contractually forced to go. Ferrari might take a
> high profile moral stance knowing that no one in the FIA or FOM will
> dare touch them.
>
> Von Forche (sp?) said F1 would descend in to farce, and I took the piss.
> Well, if F1 was not already a farce, it has now surpassed it.
>
> On the other hand, if Bernie insists on playing games with the teams and
> they do feel forced to go, and some one gets hurt, then the blood will
> be all over Bernie, and any one wanting to get rid of him will have a
> great platform for doing so.
>
> This is a governance decision, and not a team or individual one. I hope
> when the teams meet in China to discuss this, they put the ball firmly
> back in to Bernie's court and make him and the FIA decide for the whole
> of the sport.

Totally agreed.

F1 has to decide is it a real business or is it a hobby. If it's a
business, you expect those contracted to work together to work together.
If there is force majeure (even if most would say it _was_ avoidable),
call it as such and everyone knows where they stand.

I actually dislike the way the politics of this play have played out
(because the Bahrain situation is _way_ more complicated than most
people seem to think it is), but the question for F1 is whether it's a
suitable venue for the GP right now. Like it or not, that is largely a
question of security. If the grand prix can be run without undue risk
to the teams and supporters then, assuming the government and track
authorities want it to happen, it should go ahead. If not, it
shouldn't.

[News]

The only card that needs be played is the safety card -- perceived or
otherwise.

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 12:59 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:

> How ever, my support for Bernie and co has just evaporated with reports
> this morning that he is saying its now up to the teams. I can accept
> cynicism to a point, but that cowardly position is beyond the limit.

Well what's he to do? I think he's being honest. What he's saying is
that he cannot force any team to go to Bahrain. Which is true. There
can be a consequences under the concorde, but those only kick in when
the team (or teams) doesn't show up.

I can't see how he could say anything else. Monitoring the situation
is in FIA's hands and they are the guys who can call the race off.

In this case I think what he says is the truth. Not particularly
inspiring or even palatable, but still the truth.

Bernie can't force a team to report to any event. If, just for
example, some drivers decides that the death penalty is abhorrent to
him and so he won't race in Texas then Bernie can't force him to
appear there either. There may be consequences for that driver imposed
by FIA or by FOM, but, again, only after the driver is not present at
the appointed time (whenever that is).

> On the other hand, if Bernie insists on playing games with the teams and
> they do feel forced to go, and some one gets hurt, then the blood will
> be all over Bernie, and any one wanting to get rid of him will have a
> great platform for doing so.

Well I think this is the greater issue here. Egg could end up on
various faces. Last year there were suggestions in some quarters that
the teams and Bernie were using Bahrain to manoeuvre Todt into a
corner.

Bernie is saying that FIA are monitoring the situation and they will
decide if the race goes ahead or not. Now that might be expedient for
Bernie, but that doesn't stop it being the truth.

The way I see it, the buck really stops with Todt.

[build]

On Apr 10, 4:53 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:42 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 4:20 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 8:17 am, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 10, 3:08 pm, Bobster <megap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > There's a great opening to a piece in the Gruaniad
>
> > > > > "Dictatorial, undemocratic, feudal in structure and intolerant of
> > > > > dissenting opinion – there have always been fundamental concerns
> > > > > surrounding Formula One. Bahrain has got problems, too."
>
> > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/09/bahrain-f1-bernie-ecclest...
>
> > > > I did not read the article but F1 is a business not a democracy.
>
> > > I'm giving points for artistic impression, not for technical merit.
>
> > OK.
>
> > The art of business is to make a profit.
>
> Well I think I figured that much out already. Thanks :-)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply you did not ;-)

> > In the contract with Bahrain
> > there will be clauses about canceling the race. If those are breached
> > a fee will apply. Bernie is no fool and the teams will be wealthier.
> > Remember that last year the race was canceled but the fee was paid.
>
> Yes. Which is why the teams are presenting a unified front and
> generally are mouthing platitudes. They don't want to create a
> situation where somebody can point at them and say "no show thus no
> dough."

I'll bet you a beer that Whitmarsh or his cronies will be the first to
break ranks if any do. I reckon you know why I think that and that is
not an insult to him but a compliment.

beers,

[build]

On Apr 10, 8:59 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> This is a governance decision, and not a team or individual one. I hope
> when the teams meet in China to discuss this, they put the ball firmly
> back in to Bernie's court and make him and the FIA decide for the whole
> of the sport.
>
> --
> AC

Do you think Bernie will allow that?

tia,
build

[Timmy]

AC wrote...

Monday - AC says yes
Tuesday - AC says no
Wednesday - AC says ?

You're a journalist for the Daily Heil and ICMTP.

[build]

When I started reading your reply I was skeptical but read in full, I
agree. Well written mate.

beers,

[build]

The decision is with the FIA, Todt is the head of the FIA so * it is
an FIA decision*.

beers,

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 1:55 pm, build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll bet you a beer that Whitmarsh or his cronies

Is that McLaren or FOTA?

[build]

LOL. It is a fine line but that credit goes to Whitmarsh.

beers,

[AC]

If it resulted in a preventable death, and the media goes off on one,
then what Bernie wants may, for once, not count for much. Just look at
the effect a bit of phone "hacking" has has on the Murdocks.

--
AC

[AC]

Bobster wrote:
> On Apr 10, 12:59 pm, AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>
>> How ever, my support for Bernie and co has just evaporated with reports
>> this morning that he is saying its now up to the teams. I can accept
>> cynicism to a point, but that cowardly position is beyond the limit.
> Well what's he to do? I think he's being honest. What he's saying is
> that he cannot force any team to go to Bahrain. Which is true. There
> can be a consequences under the concorde, but those only kick in when
> the team (or teams) doesn't show up.
>
> I can't see how he could say anything else. Monitoring the situation
> is in FIA's hands and they are the guys who can call the race off.
>
> In this case I think what he says is the truth. Not particularly
> inspiring or even palatable, but still the truth.
>
> Bernie can't force a team to report to any event. If, just for
> example, some drivers decides that the death penalty is abhorrent to
> him and so he won't race in Texas then Bernie can't force him to
> appear there either. There may be consequences for that driver imposed
> by FIA or by FOM, but, again, only after the driver is not present at
> the appointed time (whenever that is).

Oh hold on a sec. Are you really taking him that literally, and really
not seeing all the implied threads there? I know you know better than
that. He is passing the buck to people who are effectively under threat,
sorry contract, to act one way. If they default, then his end gets off
free. But he knows the teams are unlikely to agree. If any of them go
and some stay, he will call out the stayers. And so it goes on.

Truth, my arse.

>
>
>
>> On the other hand, if Bernie insists on playing games with the teams and
>> they do feel forced to go, and some one gets hurt, then the blood will
>> be all over Bernie, and any one wanting to get rid of him will have a
>> great platform for doing so.
> Well I think this is the greater issue here. Egg could end up on
> various faces. Last year there were suggestions in some quarters that
> the teams and Bernie were using Bahrain to manoeuvre Todt into a
> corner.
>
> Bernie is saying that FIA are monitoring the situation and they will
> decide if the race goes ahead or not. Now that might be expedient for
> Bernie, but that doesn't stop it being the truth.
>
> The way I see it, the buck really stops with Todt.
>
>

And all Todt has to do is call "safety", point to an authoritative
report and jobs a good 'un. Or not.

And if so, what is all the fuss about? The FIA say yay or nay, which
must superseded and contractual defaults, and no one's held financially
liable.

--
AC

[AC]

AC has said neither.

AC has always said that its no business of F1 to get involved in
national internal politics and that the question of going to Bahrain
should be of safety and not morality or politics.

Although safety is a bit of a moving standard since F1 seems quite happy
to duck through Brazil.


--
AC

[AC]

I understand, but don't you think its up to the governing body to simply
make the decision and explain it? Or at the very least, let every one
know the time table. No one needs to work together, it just needs an
authority to do its job. I dont see why the teams should have to start
spending time and energy thrashing out geopolitical and security issues.
Its not what they do. They should take direction from the governing body.

And so should Bernie. He has a deal and he is going. The teams have
deals and they are going. Its got to be up to the FIA.... I would have
thought?

>
> I actually dislike the way the politics of this play have played out
> (because the Bahrain situation is _way_ more complicated than most
> people seem to think it is),

Yup. It certainly is.

> but the question for F1 is whether it's a
> suitable venue for the GP right now. Like it or not, that is largely a
> question of security. If the grand prix can be run without undue risk
> to the teams and supporters then, assuming the government and track
> authorities want it to happen, it should go ahead. If not, it
> shouldn't.

Exactly.

--
AC

[AC]

Yep. Been wandering round it myself, but I'm with the FIA's decision
based on safety/security thing.

So, given that's the case, and presumably the FIA are just trying to
take the decision as late on as possible for obvious reasons, why are
people going on about it? Just wait for the FIA to give a decision.
What's the problem?

--
AC

[AC]

Hmmmm, as much as it kinda pains me, I reckon Williams would beat
Whitmarsh. Anyway, thats unfair, McLaren has its own Bahrain issues.

If it came to it, Im pretty sure that if one team went, the rest would
follow pretty quickly.

Cant see any of that happening though.

--
AC

[Mark]

AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> AC<x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is a governance decision, and not a team or individual one. I hope
>>> when the teams meet in China to discuss this, they put the ball firmly
>>> back in to Bernie's court and make him and the FIA decide for the whole
>>> of the sport.
>>
>> Totally agreed.
>>
>> F1 has to decide is it a real business or is it a hobby. If it's a
>> business, you expect those contracted to work together to work together.
>> If there is force majeure (even if most would say it _was_ avoidable),
>> call it as such and everyone knows where they stand.
>
> I understand, but don't you think its up to the governing body to simply
> make the decision and explain it? Or at the very least, let every one
> know the time table. No one needs to work together, it just needs an
> authority to do its job. I dont see why the teams should have to start
> spending time and energy thrashing out geopolitical and security issues.
> Its not what they do. They should take direction from the governing body.
>
> And so should Bernie. He has a deal and he is going. The teams have
> deals and they are going. Its got to be up to the FIA.... I would have
> thought?

All agreed.

[Von Fourche]

"AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:cvGgr.71722$gk1....@fx26.am4...
> Von Fourche wrote:
>> "Brian Lawrence"<Brian_W_...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:9ug8h0...@mid.individual.net...

>>> According to the Times the teams have contingency plans ready in case
>>> the Bahrain GP is cancelled.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Brian W Lawrence
>>> Wantage,
>>> Oxfordshire, UK

>>> Brian_W_...@msn.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hopefully they will cancel this race. If not F1 will be nothing but a
>> farce.
>>
>>
>
> If you don't think its not a farce already.....




Where is the common sense with Bernie? There seems to be many other
places that want F1, at least for a few years before they
get tired of paying him. Why not tell Bahrain that their race is suspended
for two years and if they keep the peace in two years they can have their
race back.

[Von Fourche]

"build" <bui...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:59ac01de-6614-47e1...@i2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...

It's supposed to be a sport. NFL, baseball, non American football, etc...
It's about sports. I know Indycar is still more
or less sport. F1 seems more like a very private exhibition club for a few
race car building "companies."

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, "Von Fourche" <khonak...@hotmail32865473.com>
wrote:

>   Where is the common sense with Bernie?  There seems to be many other
> places that want F1, at least for a few years before they
> get tired of paying him.   Why not tell Bahrain that their race is suspended
> for two years and if they keep the peace in two years they can have their
> race back.

Uh... because the contract doesn't allow that?

Bernie has to stick to the letter of the contract. If he doesn't do
that then the product he is selling becomes devalued. Nobody is going
to put all that money into an F1 race if it can be arbitrarily
cancelled.

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 6:35 pm, "Von Fourche" <khonak...@hotmail32865473.com>
wrote:

>  It's supposed to be a sport.  NFL, baseball, non American football, etc...
> It's about sports.  I know Indycar is still more
> or less sport.  F1 seems more like a very private exhibition club for a few
> race car building "companies."

Well yes. What do you think you'd have to do if you managed to
organise a baseball team and wanted to play in one of the major
leagues? It CAN be done, but it's not cheap and it's not an everyday
occurrence.

And I think that's fine, actually. Sure, sports put on a show, but
they should be trying to put on a high quality show.

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 4:20 pm, AC <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
> Bobster wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 12:59 pm, AC<x...@xxx.xxx>  wrote:
>
> >> How ever, my support for Bernie and co has just evaporated with reports
> >> this morning that he is saying its now up to the teams. I can accept
> >> cynicism to a point, but that cowardly position is beyond the limit.
> > Well what's he to do? I think he's being honest. What he's saying is
> > that he cannot force any team to go to Bahrain. Which is true. There
> > can be a consequences under the concorde, but those only kick in when
> > the team (or teams) doesn't show up.
>
> > I can't see how he could say anything else. Monitoring the situation
> > is in FIA's hands and they are the guys who can call the race off.
>
> > In this case I think what he says is the truth. Not particularly
> > inspiring or even palatable, but still the truth.
>
> > Bernie can't force a team to report to any event. If, just for
> > example, some drivers decides that the death penalty is abhorrent to
> > him and so he won't race in Texas then Bernie can't force him to
> > appear there either. There may be consequences for that driver imposed
> > by FIA or by FOM, but, again, only after the driver is not present at
> > the appointed time (whenever that is).
>
> Oh hold on a sec. Are you really taking him that literally, and really
> not seeing all the implied threads there? I know you know better than
> that. He is passing the buck to people who are effectively under threat,
> sorry contract, to act one way.

I agree they're under contract, but that doesn't mean it's buck
passing. The teams have been under contract for years - except for a
brief period in the late 90s when McLaren, Tyrell and Williams opted
out of Concorde - this is not something that Bernie has suddenly
invented or lured them into. It's cold fact. F1 is under contract to
go to Bahrain, and if a team unilaterally decides not to go then
a) Bernie can't make them
b) There are contractual issues
Though having (b) hanging over your head might be construed as
amounting to (a).

The only problem I see is that Bernie has carte blanche to sign deals
with oppressive regimes, but it's FIA that have to make the go/no go
call. But, again, nothing new. The potential for this situation to
arise has been there for a long time.

> If they default, then his end gets off
> free. But he knows the teams are unlikely to agree. If any of them go
> and some stay, he will call out the stayers. And so it goes on.

Bernie is not so stupid that he wants to endanger the teams or put
their livelihood at risk. F1 contracts to have a minimum of 20
entrants for each race. If there aren't 10 teams willing and able to
turn up at each race then Bernie, and FIA, have a problem on their
hands. Bernie will play hard ball, but he can't play too hard here.

> Truth, my arse.
I didn't say it was a nice truth, or that it wasn't convenient for
Bernie, but it could still be the truth, or, if you prefer, not a lie.

<snip>

> And if so, what is all the fuss about? The FIA say yay or nay, which
> must superseded and contractual defaults, and no one's held financially
> liable.

Ah! Now this is where it gets interesting. Last year Bahrain still
stumped up. Presumably if FIA pull the plug Bahrain are off the hook
and don't have to stump up - though I'd think that the contract can
also be torn up, which may suit Bernie. But in the short term it'd be
bad for the teams if they're as skint as everybody keeps on saying
they are.

[Von Fourche]

"Bobster" <mega...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cf5997d-cc3a-43c0...@v22g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

I read on the eurosport site that the British police expert that Bahrain
brought in said any protests in Bahrain would be dealt with
harshly. Yikes! What thugs. I'm ashamed my country has a navy base in
that country.

[Bobster]

On Apr 10, 8:10 pm, "Von Fourche" <khonak...@hotmail32865473.com>
wrote:
> "Bobster" <megap...@gmail.com> wrote in message

How do they deal with protests in your country? Do the cops line up to
hug them or something?

[Frank Adam]

Oh FFS, will the US Navy send in cruise missiles to disperse the crowd or just
nuke the city and be done with it ? You guys got enough to be ashamed of, but
one of your naval base being there isn't one of them and you, as a patriot,
should not even lessen their value with such a stupid comment.

A peaceful protest is one where the people crowd up and make a statement of
unity. Once they start to disrupt the normal ongoings of life, then it is no
longer peaceful, it is at least a provocative protest.
IOW and in this context, once the protests start to hinder the GP, the
authoristies have every right to move in and persuade the crowd to either
leave or relocate. The ideals of freedom is not something designed only for
the protesters.

--

Regards, Frank