Anderson says USF1 to miss Bahrain, team’s future in hands of FIA
February 20, 2010 by vmr
Filed under Prime & Option, Top Story
The New York Times published an article very late Friday (early Saturday morning, GMT) that contained an interview with USF1 team principal Ken Anderson. In it, Anderson admitted that the team will miss the season opening race in Bahrain, and noted that “in an ideal world, we can miss the first four races and show up in Barcelona.” He said that the team is “working with the F.I.A. to clarify how many races we can miss.” When asked about the FIA’s public statement that there will be punishments for any team missing any race and whether that punishment would remove the team from competition, he asked, “But what would be the point of that? Why would they give us a franchise and just, the first time there’s a bump in the road, yank it and put it out of business? That’s definitely not the message that I’m getting from them. They want to help us, not shut us down.”
This dire news is the first public information from the team in what seems like an eternity, especially in the heavily PR-reliant sport of Formula1. It answers some of the questions about the team’s readiness, namely that they won’t be ready for at least two and a half months. Still, it leaves stark questions about USF1′s ability to compete for the 2010 season. The most important and pressing is whether the FIA will allow the team to compete at all, with their current request to miss the first four races.
There are two interpretations of the 2010 Concorde Agreement. The Bernie Ecclestone/Jean Todt “every team can miss three races” interpretation (as discussed here at F1B) and the FIA “any team that misses one race will be punished” interpretation (discussed here at F1B). This debate is made more difficult by the fact that Ecclestone is on the WMSC (who, to my knowledge, would make the final determination of punishment for missing a race, no matter who told the team it was ok to do so, if the FIA announced a hearing for violating the rules), as is FIA president Jean Todt. It is possible that the team could work out a deal to miss a certain number of races, but also possible that once they miss a race, the stewards or FIA itself could “press charges,” to borrow a criminal legal phrase, that the team had violated the Concorde Agreement and was subject to punishment.
As I discussed when the FIA first announced that it’s president was wrong, “the punishments doled out by the FIA through the WMSC are as light as a fine or movement on the grid for the next round, or as harsh as removal for an entire season or a complete ban from the sport, as we saw just last season. What the FIA seems (and I stress “seems”) to be saying is that, in this particular facet, the rules for 2010 have not changed from the rules of previous years.” This poses another problem, as noted above, since, as I wrote earlier here at F1B, “the final decision on removal and punishment for any team that misses a round of the championship is up to the WMSC, so their interpretation is the one that matters. This statement from the FIA says that it is attempting to clear up a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the rules. In fact, it makes the situation worse. Both Mr. Ecclestone and Mr. Todt are on the WMSC. If they believe that the rules teams are allowed to miss a race or three, they might persuade the rest of the council that no punishment is necessary.”
There are, then, three ways to take this information from Ken Anderson: 1. the team will work out an agreement with the FIA that allows them to stay in the championship and miss the first four races (or some combination therein); or 2. the team will not work out a deal with the FIA and will not compete in 2010; or 3. the team will be allowed to compete but be punished in some way, either before or after a legal battle through the WMSC. Of course, this being Formula1, these options are overly simplistic, and there will be more public speculation before none of the three actually occur as they are suggested here.
It is hard to say where Bernie Ecclestone stands at this point. He seems quite taken with Stefan GP, and with Campos’ most recent survival at the hands of Jose Ramon Carbante and Colin Kolles, USF1 is the only team standing in the way of the Serbian entry. Were he to switch his allegiance to the FIA “no missing of any races, ever” interpretation, the hopes of USF1 would be nearly dead in the water. All that is known, for sure, now, is that USF1 is not ready for Bahrain, isn’t particularly ready for Australian, Malaysia, or China, and is scrambling for financial backers. Oh, and as Ken Anderson pointed out in that same New York Times article, the team’s only driver, Jose Maria Lopez (the one currently meeting with Mr. Ecclestone and FOM directors in London), is “weighing his options as well.”
USF1 would remain a dream, albeit a costly one, lets face it, they are buying time, now who is going to sponsor this team in its present state. its all wishing and hoping.
If Bernie is still convinced in someway it can work he might give them some more time but will he?
Let’s make something clear here guys. The concorde agreements says that a team has the right not to participate in three races but the FIA has the right to punish a team that misses a race. So if they miss three races the FIA can give them some kind of punishment but it can’t throw them out of the sport.
Now if they want to miss four races then it’s over no matter what agreement they reach with the FIA. The concorde agreement says specifically that you CAN”T miss more than 3 races. That agreement is written down and signed until 2012 and it can’t change by the FIA or anyone else. So they better get there shit ready after at least the third race or everything is over. But at this point i wish they will just give the place to the Zoran guy. He seems able to be there from the first race and it would be bad if we can’t see him racing at the start of the year waiting for USF1 and they don’t manage to appear after the third race.
ah, but the FIA, through the WMSC, can throw them out of the sport…it’s just unlikely to do so. I’m pretty sure that if the WMSC decides that there was a violation of the rules that do not allow teams to miss a race, they can decide to ban the team or remove it from competition for a season as the team’s punishment. I just don’t think that is the way this is going to go.
i think they will work out something,if they do than usf1 really,really need to improve it’s public relations,no telling how many possible sponsers do not even know usf1 exist
Throwing yourself at the mercy of the FIA is like dashing yourself on the rocks hoping to be rescued by mermaids.
I can’t see any reason Ecclestone would want this but they have to be careful, in my opinion, as if they take a draconian position about it and for some reason Kolles can’t field a car for Campos in three weeks; they will have set a precedent. They will need to wait until they are sure Kolles can make it before telling USF1 thanks but no thanks. Then call Serbian Zoran Stefanovic.
Wait! Did you just imply the FIA’s decisions are/will be consistent with “precedent”?
The rumor WAS three races, and we’ve heard that for weeks. Now it’s four. Guessing — which is all you can do when their best is cryptic Twitter messages — but it seems like it’s either a desperate American football hail mary (give us more time and see what happens) or they want for the FIA to be the bete noire who kills the team (as opposed to them having to admit defeat).
In the latter case, what they’d be doing is basically going further than everyone, even Todt, says they can go, on the theory that FIA have to do something. If they feel too shy to wield the axe on their dream maybe FIA will finish off USF1.
I agree with the “who will sponsor them now” line of thought. “We’ll put your sticker on our car.” “What car is that?” “The one we might be able to finish if you sponsor us.” Good luck with that. I have no clue what FIA really thinks of Stefan — whether they’d simply be content with a reduced field before they let someone they denied shove their way back onto the grid — but at least they have a car and money to throw around.
My 2 cents:
1. To my knowledge Toyota wasn’t punished, fined, or racing censured for leaving F1 even after they signed the Concorde Agreement. This can only help USF1′s case in terms of any potential liability they my incur if like, like Toyota, relinquish their spot on the grid. However, it doesn’t preclude the FIA from taking USF1′s spot and making it available to another team such as StephanGP. I guess losing that grid spot would be the ultimate penalty for a team that wants to race this year. Besides, if USF1 were to lose their spot it would be game over for the USF1 as a company. It would probably mean bankruptcy soon afterward – so whatever financial penalty or racing censure the FIA would impose would never happen.
2. StephanGP is still caught between a rock and a hard place. They have a car and perhaps the cash but no spot. USF1 has the spot but a car is ~3 months away. Unless USF1 relinquishes the spot now the likelihood of racing in 2010 is unlikely. In fact, if I were the financial backers of USF1 I’d hold out as long as I can and perhaps find a way to sell the company or merge with StephanGP to recoup some of my losses. Would they be willing to do that?
3. My guess that the funding that Anderson talks about is as simple as Chad Hurley. I read someplace that Hurley invested $20m in USF1. I seriously doubt that he’d just abandon $20m and move on with-out giving a fight. On the same token I doubt that he’d add more money into the fire unless USF1 shows that they can hit their milestones. Lopez and his ~$9m is probably on the same boat. I firmly believe that there are other investors willing to join USF1 but they have to get something in return. Also, if USF1 can show that they can get a car to the grid in 2010 it will help their financial and sponsorship opportunities for 2011.
4. Losing Lopez’s rumored $9m would be a blow financially, however it may give USF1 an opportunity to get back to their original premise of running an American team with American technology, know-how, and drivers. Rossi, Hildebrand, and Rahal all come to mind. Why not? At this point it would be a PR boost to a team rife with drama.
Of course, all this hinges on the FIA’s willingness to help USF1 and allow them to miss some race to get the house in order.
I wouldn’t bother cutting them any slack at all. Throw them out, let that Stefan GP team in….
Dammit. This is what I get for getting my hopes up. You trust people when they say “we’ll be ready” and then this comes out. *shakes head* *sighs heavily* We (American F1 fans) don’t deserve this. Just one team. Is that so much to ask?
Apparently, it is. Thanks for ruining my weekend, USF1.
Malaysian National Oil company Petronas did not support Lotus, though it is also supported by the Malaysian Govt and went with Mercedes and Lotus has a car running. Now USF1 is a stable without horses, I can’t imagine any American company is going to bet on an empty stable. To make matters worse there is no US GP. it simply does not make any business sense.