In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone is alleged to have paid a £27m bribe.
Links
Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:
Bernie Ecclestone’s grip on F1 may be loosened by bribery allegations (The Guardian)
“After being named in German court papers as the alleged payer of a $44m (£27m) bribe to Gerhard Gribkowsky, a former senior executive of the German bank BayernLB, Ecclestone is in the tightest spot of his long and lucrative career.”
Gumpert Clammed Up at the Ring (Bridge to Gantry)
They’re more interested in the car that was crashed at the Nurburgring Nordscleife than the driver who was apparently at the wheel – Adrian Sutil.
Renault F1 team made £40m loss in 2010 (Adam Cooper)
“The team’s accounts reveal that income fell dramatically last year by 49% from £162.0m to £82.1m, reflecting the lack of a title sponsor and the absence of a contribution from former owner Renault.”
Ferrari announces split with Costa (GPUpdate)
“Italian-born Costa opted to step down from his previous role of Technical Director two days after the Spanish Grand Prix on May 22, six races into what looked set to be a particularly challenging campaign for the Maranello-based squad.”
Pirelli to alter shape of rear tyres (Autosport)
Pirelli’s Paul Hembery: “At the moment we’re not utilising the full footprint there, which we knew about, but we had to try and block some of the development because we had so little time and we wanted to at least give the teams some fixed data that we’re new to the sport and not wanting to keep making changes.”
McLaren rivalry pushes self-destruct Button (The Times, subscription required)
Jenson Button: “As you’ve seen this year we’ve been taking points off each other, which is not the best thing for the drivers’ championship, but it is the way it should be. You should have two good drivers in the team, and they should fight it out, like it has always been in Formula One in the past.”
McLaren want Whitmarsh to stay (Daily Telegraph)
Jonathan Neale: “I think [the speculation] is just part of the media circus and expectation – of course, in a home grand prix if you don’t deliver, which we didn’t, then you have to expect a bit of comeback on that. ”
Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.
Comment of the day
DaveW says Sebastian Vettel’s domination of F1 is a turn-off:
So we are now reduced to watching Vettel’s progress in mopping up statistical footnotes? Exciting.
I remember well enough getting up at 6am to watch Schumacher annihilate the field race after race, for year after year – and being forced to appreciate sheer perfection or whatever it was – and I really don’t want to go back to those dark days.
DaveW
From the forum
Guilherme asks When was the last F1 race you missed?
Happy birthday!
No F1 Fanatic birthdays today. If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.
On this day in F1
Aintree held the British Grand Prix for the last time on this day in 1962.
The race was dominated by Jim Clark, who put his Lotus 25 on pole position, led every lap and won the race.
It was his first of eight perfect results – the most achieved by any driver in F1 history – and also began his streak of four consecutive home Grand Prix wins.
Here’s a video from the race:
Dankan
21st July 2011, 1:00
Button pun, really?
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
21st July 2011, 1:15
Not the sort of thing you expect from a broadsheet!
Scribe (@scribe)
21st July 2011, 10:37
The TImes on the other hand? Specially their sports section, Kevin Eason is employed there for the love of cake.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
23rd July 2011, 9:43
His name is too easy to take advantage of.
Gridlock
21st July 2011, 1:06
Pirelli alter the rear footprint just as Ferrari alter their rear suspension offsets to work more heat into the tyre… more Friday running for Massa then.
Cacarella
21st July 2011, 1:14
Did you even read the article?
The changes to the tyres come into effect in 2012 so have no bearing on Ferrari’s recent suspension modifications.
Gridlock
21st July 2011, 1:36
I didn’t read that one, actually, and Keith trimmed the key bit “in 2012” :D Typical
I read the others and then comment on the one I didn’t :D
Cacarella
21st July 2011, 2:10
Very dangerous especially around here ;)
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 7:02
And it caught you out! But it might still mean some friday running for Massa as that is when Pirelli tests their development tyres right now.
Ned Flanders (@ned-flanders)
21st July 2011, 1:11
Innocent until proven guilty and all that, I know, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Ecclestone has done something illegal. We know by now what a shady character he is. A stint in the slammer would be a fitting way to end an ignominious career
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
21st July 2011, 2:26
It’s unlikely Ecclestone will be sentenced. Gribkowsky appears to be the target of the investigation. It’s more likely that the prosecutors will try and cut a deal with Bernie, one that will give them Gribkowsky in exchange for immunity from prosecution or a lighter sentence. Even if he refuses to co-operate, Ecclestone will probably only receive a light sentence that will not see him do any jail time.
bananarama
21st July 2011, 7:17
I guess thats just it. Gribkowsky is to be held accountable, what he did was very wrong (if he did it) but also sort of understandable (who could turn down such amounts of money). IF Bernie was convicted of anything then I’m sure he’d have an army of lawyers lined up to see if they can supress it somehow and if thats not possible, they’ll drag it out for years and years and see if he can get around a sentence that way … (guess you people understand how I mean that, considering his young age)
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
21st July 2011, 8:04
You can’t suppress a criminal sentence. It’s also unlikely that his lawyers would be able to drag it out, because if Gribkowsky is found guilty of accepting bribes from Ecclestone, then Ecclestone is by extension of that guilty of having paid a bribe.
bananarama
21st July 2011, 9:59
Anything is possible. If a german court deals with it there are plenty of options how to try to make it go away (just search for even the tiniest mistake) or if you fail to do that then at least make it last (you don’t like the prosecutor, the judge is biased, the next one aswell, health issues of an old man, new evidence, different court, higher court .. you can play this game for ages).
If it was in britain all that should be even easier due to the different system that is much more inteeaction based.
And if all that fails you can still try and bribe people, can’t you …
Kenny
21st July 2011, 7:24
Bernie had a long meeting with the prosecutors about two months ago- I suspect that all of the cooperating and deal making was done then as he doesn’t seem too fussed about all this.
Trix (@)
21st July 2011, 5:51
How does bribing work exactly? He gives a $44m in bribe and gets in return $41.4m + $25m?
This would even confuse some serious mobster lobster.
I’m in the wrong business, aren’t I?
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 7:05
sort of. Gets a commission of about 21 million on the bribe AND does not have to go through letting Bayerische LB reevaluate the value of the deal (wich might have taken a few months and who knows at what they might have valued it).
But I agree with PM, that it is rather unlikely the Prosecution will do more against Bernie than getting him to admit is could have been done more transparently and spill the beans on Gribowsky so they can show success agains the greedy bankers.
verstappen
21st July 2011, 8:30
I’m still trying to understand why there was a bribe needed. I mean, CVC was willing to buy and LB Bayern willing to sell.
– to undervalue F1?
– because Gribkowsky knew something form Bernies past?
– to speed up the process?
– to make sure the deal got through – maybe there was some opposition within LB Bayern?
– etc etc
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
21st July 2011, 9:37
Probably to make sure the deal got through. There may have been internal resistance, or a second bidder.
Alternatively, Gribkowsky may have told Ecclestone he would only make sure the deal went through if Ecclestone made it worth his while – but that’s more a case of extortion.
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 10:04
well, i think Bernie pointed at something like extortion in one interview about it, I think.
HounslowBusGarage
21st July 2011, 12:30
It also seems that there may have been another reason. The sale from BayernLB to CVC took place at the time of the (many) threatened breakaway series by the Manufacturers. Allegedly, GG appeared on the board of Alpha Prema (with the approval of Bayern) which was a subsidiary of CVC. In this position, GG allegedly managed to broker a deal between Ecclestone/CVC and Manufacturers who were greatly involved in F1 at the time. Remember; if the breakaway had gone ahead at the time, CVC would have just paid $1 bn for something that would have been almost worthless – the rights to a racing series with just three or four competitor teams.
So maybe, there was a deal between BE and GG something to the effect of “we agree F1’s worth about this much, you give me 20% of everything you save on the purchase price” and later “I’ll give you a bonus of X% of F1’s net earnings this year if you can keep the Manufactrurers in the series.”
Allegedly.
@HoHum (@hohum)
21st July 2011, 14:35
I see Bernie claiming extortion, but the real interest in this article is in the figures, half a billion dollars plus to the teams in 2009 represents half of all profits! That means CVC kept half a million plus dollars after expenses. I cant believe that the work of selling the rights to stage a race,the right to advertise at the track, the right to televise the race and the licencing of the F1 trademark is worth over ten million dollars a week. I would suggest that a return of one hundred million a year would be more than fair compensation for the work done, if that were the case each team could get an extra ten million dollars a year and a hundred million dollars a year each could be paid to 3 manufacturers to develop engines, making F1 engines another way to build a superior racecar rather than the entire emphasis being on aerodynamic advantage.
Alternately of course, the current means of distribution could be kept with payments to the teams increasing by over 80 percent annually.
We Want Turbos
21st July 2011, 1:25
Not too much info on the tyre story, but I really hope they don’t turn into 1 stop everywhere material… However I’m presuming increasing contact area will increase rear mechanical grip levels!
Gridlock
21st July 2011, 1:41
I’m with Sniff Petrol on this one, the entire regs should be written around making the cars 4 wheel drift like they did in the 50s.
rfs
21st July 2011, 1:44
@COTD: Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing Red Bull and Vettel create a Ferrari-style dynasty, but I feel that Ferrari will get it right next year and let Alonso challenge Seb.
CarsVsChildren (@carsvschildren)
21st July 2011, 2:03
Really? Can I ask why you want that to happen?
Surely no matter how much you love a driver/ team, its better for every race/championship to come down to the wire?
JohnBt
21st July 2011, 2:08
Surely no matter how much you love a driver/ team, its better for every race/championship to come down to the wire?
TOTALLY AGREE! Not this year though, but who knows.
rfs
21st July 2011, 2:13
I like Vettel but I’m not a fanboy or anything like that. I just think it would be a very difficult task for Red Bull to maintain such dominant form for 5 or 6 years in a row. RB don’t have a tire supplier making bespoke tires just for them, or their own test track like the Ferrari Dream Team had. So if they did pull it off it would be an immense achievement.
Tom
21st July 2011, 3:36
The whole point of Formula 1 is to win. Why should we be annoyed at someone winning?
Todfod (@todfod)
21st July 2011, 9:42
I would think the whole point of formula 1 from a fan’s point of view is to see healthy competition or a close fought exciting battle, and not only one team dominate because of superior technology. But maybe we all have differing view points on the nature of the sport..
Mike
21st July 2011, 3:31
Cept that Schumacher spent years helping make Ferrari into a race winning team…
thatnoone
21st July 2011, 3:38
i hope the return of testing would bunch up the teams again & “the newey” would be negated..
Schumi might win a GP again
Robbie
21st July 2011, 16:11
Mike…on the strength of a non-competing teammate by contract. Opposite of Button’s point.
Ella (@ella)
21st July 2011, 6:10
I definitely WOULD mind if this became another domination era, however like you, I have a feeling Ferrari is going to improve next year. Mind you, I think I’m just buoyed by the Silverstone win…
Like others have said here, an exciting championship battle can only do good for the sport. Last year so a year of tumult and uncertainties. I loved it. This year we have tumultuous races and a very very certain championship battle. Oh the irony.
Ella (@ella)
21st July 2011, 6:12
*last year was a year
@HoHum (@hohum)
21st July 2011, 14:48
The more restricted the design parameters are the less chance there is of a team finding a way to beat a winning car, after all an exact copy can only be equal not better so millions are spent on aerodynamic refinements to gain a couple of thousandths of a second per lap. Looser regulations allowing advances in areas other than aerodynamics would reduce the chances of a dominant team maintaining their dominance year after year.
Becken
21st July 2011, 3:53
The famous Senna’s helmet designer, Sid Mosca, had passed way yesterday at 74 here in São Paulo.
RIP, Sid.
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 7:08
A pretty interesting read about the loss for Renault. Seems the guy owning the Spyker sportscars and buying into Zagato still is owned a lot of money by GenII et al (or whoever owns Renault GP).
Maybe another Russian-ish team will be on the books after Group Lotus runs out of money?
@HoHum (@hohum)
21st July 2011, 14:55
Interesting management style, save money on the 2 drivers and spend it on hiring 12 administrators, no wonder the teams can’t afford to develop engines .
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 7:15
Anyone supprised about Costa now leaving Ferrari, when they told us he would just be working somewhere else in the company?
Thought so, me neither.
Mahir C
21st July 2011, 8:24
F1 personnel, especially people near the top of hierarchy aren’t just let go when they are fired. They are kept on sidelines so that they don’t have much information about current race car. It is normal practice to prevent espionage.
Hairs (@hairs)
21st July 2011, 13:28
Why on earth would Ferrari think that a potentially disgruntled employee might result in espionage??
*innocent face*
BasCB (@bascb)
21st July 2011, 15:59
but his gardening leave is only starting now, not ending.
Fixy (@)
21st July 2011, 10:39
Might he go to another team? I guess that’s why he left Ferrari, rather than having a minor role with them.
Lord Ha Ha
21st July 2011, 9:33
Bernie only pays 27m under the table for something worth far more than 27m to him. He is toast.
maxthecat
21st July 2011, 11:47
People listen, if you’re rich you do whatever you like because you think you’re (and usually are) untouchable. Anyone who thinks very rich people got all that money being nice and 100% legal is very naive.
Hairs (@hairs)
21st July 2011, 13:30
Jim Clarke and his perfect results.
I wonder, if he were doing his racing today, would he have still the status of being one of the best drivers ever, or would we all sit around moaning about how he leads from the front, never has to overtake anyone, and makes the racing boring?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
21st July 2011, 13:49
We had quite a bit of discussion along those lines during “Champion of Champions”:
Jim Clark vs John Surtees
Jim Clark vs Nigel Mansell
Jim Clark vs Michael Schumacher
@HoHum (@hohum)
21st July 2011, 15:05
I think part of the reason we didn’t think it was all about the car with Jim Clark was that he drove in so many classes, from F1 to touring cars in the same season, that his talent overshadowed the cars he drove and the competition for second place was more evenly spread among the other teams.
@HoHum (@hohum)
21st July 2011, 15:23
As an afterthought, we all know John Surtees was a multiple world champion motorcyclist before he came into F1 and one of my enduring memories of that era is a photo of Surtees going through a corner on two wheels, fully in control, driving a Formula Tasman car. (F.Tasman was that years F1 chassis but older F1 2.5L engines). You wont see that today.
Burnout (@burnout)
23rd July 2011, 12:50
Of course you won’t see an F1 car on two wheels today! The centre of gravity is too low and the tyres are too wide.
If you’re talking about a champion motorcyclist winning in F1, well Rossi came close to an F1 drive. It could happen again.
damonsmedley (@damonsmedley)
21st July 2011, 16:50
I always thought round wheels were the way to go! :P
MVEilenstein (@mveilenstein)
21st July 2011, 17:44
Perhaps tank treads? Massive cornering grip.
AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner)
23rd July 2011, 9:49
COTD is a bit of a tired argument. It’s not like you can do anything about it so enjoy it
Mandrake
27th July 2011, 16:49
Well reading an article in the Telegraph there is a fairy story doing the rounds regarding trusts and even the possibility of the money being a ‘loan’.
However if you take the premise that the $44m wasn’t paid on the basis of altruistic endeavour, which in itself would make front page news, that it was Ecclestone donating would itself, be earth shattering, so what was the motive?
Well money is the obvious one, imagine for a moment the BayernLB holding was substantially undervalued, bearing in mind speculative offers don’t constitute a value, as some pro Bernie ‘expert pundits’ would have us believe.
Furthermore it’s been reported CVC now are aware from Ernst & Young that the Gribkowsky payments were in fact made.
So CVC would have benefitted from the lower price, but not Ecclestone. Now had there been an agreement between Ecclestone and CVC regarding the price being paid that would result in Ecclestone having an enhanced stake in (ultimately) Alpha Prema then you have your motive.
All thats required is to know is if Bambino’s 25% of SLEC was bought in 05/06 by CVC and exactly the size of Ecclestone current (undisclosed) stake in CVC’s F1 fund? Little chance you say of that occurring, but……you never know!
For 2012 the Securities Exchange Commission has changed rules for Hedge Funds like CVC which require them to identify their investors and I understand the value of their stake.
This is mentioned because at present these investors may retain their anonymity but in 2012 we’ll hopefully know thanks to US (SEC) laws or those of the UK.