FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[myownalias]

We all know that Ferrari and their fans get preferential treatment... just look at this forum, Ferrari fans get their own little private forum and get elevated above standard members with their name highlighted in red... *cough*

*/ Tongue N' Cheek /*

[spankyham]

We all know that Ferrari and their fans get preferential treatment... just look at this forum, Ferrari fans get their own little private forum and get elevated above standard members with their name highlighted in red... *cough*

*/ Tongue N' Cheek /*

[spankyham]

This must be the most effective veto ever because there is a the complete lack of evidence of one specific about any veto

[What's Burning?]

This must be the most effective veto ever because there is a the complete lack of evidence of one specific about any veto

Just like god... there's no evidence, yet people still believe.

[spankyham]

This must be the most effective veto ever because there is a the complete lack of evidence of one specific about any veto

Just like god... there's no evidence, yet people still believe.

Some people believe in God, the tooth fairy and father Christmas

A far better analogy for the "shock horror" veto-sales-team from this thread would be Große Lüge

[sagi58]

So...The prospectus states: "We must obtain the written consent of Ferrari prior to the appointment of any person as our chief executive officer if, within the past five years, he or she has held a senior executive office or an ownership interest of 5% or more in any Team or automobile manufacturer which either owns more than a 5% interest in a Team or is a supplier of engines to a Team."
Ferrari's president Luca di Montezemolo also sits on F1's nomination committee, whose responsibility is to "review and recommend candidates for appointments to the Board ..." according to the prospectus.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/05/sport ... successor/

So... if Ecclestone wanted to have Horner succeed him, would it be a bad thing if Ferrari vetoed that?

[What's Burning?]

This must be the most effective veto ever because there is a the complete lack of evidence of one specific about any veto

Just like god... there's no evidence, yet people still believe.

Some people believe in God, the tooth fairy and father Christmas

A far better analogy for the "shock horror" veto-sales-team from this thread would be Große Lüge

So there's a section referring to Ferrari's veto power that's included in a contract to float F1 in the Singapore stock exchange. There's a veto power that Luca has referred to himself, and there's a veto power that's been confirmed by Bernie. But you're saying that it doesn't exist, it's all some big lie to... I don't know, dog pile on Ferrari because they've been so successful over the last few years?

I see your Große Lüge and raise you Occam's razor.

[racechick]

So...The prospectus states: "We must obtain the written consent of Ferrari prior to the appointment of any person as our chief executive officer if, within the past five years, he or she has held a senior executive office or an ownership interest of 5% or more in any Team or automobile manufacturer which either owns more than a 5% interest in a Team or is a supplier of engines to a Team."
Ferrari's president Luca di Montezemolo also sits on F1's nomination committee, whose responsibility is to "review and recommend candidates for appointments to the Board ..." according to the prospectus.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/05/sport ... successor/

So... if Ecclestone wanted to have Horner succeed him, would it be a bad thing if Ferrari vetoed that?

It would be a good thing if ALL TEAMS COLLECTIVELY made that decision, why should it be down to Ferrari?
What if instead of vetoing Bernie's successor they vetoed Mercs latest upgrade? Or Red Bulls? Or Force India's? You see the thing is, with the veto, it is at Ferrari's discretion when, and when not to deploy it.

[spankyham]

This must be the most effective veto ever because there is a the complete lack of evidence of one specific about any veto

Just like god... there's no evidence, yet people still believe.

Some people believe in God, the tooth fairy and father Christmas

A far better analogy for the "shock horror" veto-sales-team from this thread would be Große Lüge

So there's a section referring to Ferrari's veto power that's included in a contract to float F1 in the Singapore stock exchange. There's a veto power that Luca has referred to himself, and there's a veto power that's been confirmed by Bernie. But you're saying that it doesn't exist, it's all some big lie to... I don't know, dog pile on Ferrari because they've been so successful over the last few years?

I see your Große Lüge and raise you Occam's razor.

Nope, the Große Lüge has been raised with hickam's dictum.

Now Ferrari are vetoing upgrades to other cars
I think I'll simply sit back now, have a chuckle and see if we can get something even wilder than that. I'm sure the "lets make up what the veto means" sales team can surely add a few more pages of wild speculation to this thread

[racechick]

Yes it's laughable isn't it. I'm glad it's dawning on you at last what a ludicrous situation it is.They have veto over the rules and regulations. So if they don't like a reg they can veto it. If a team interprets a reg one way and it turns out they gain a big an advantage, Ferrari with the veto could get it tightened up and thus banned.But that would be a retrospective veto( rule change) . Well the FIA aren't above retrospective rule changes, Spa 2008 to name just one.

Did they do it to Renault with the mass damper? We don't know do we, because it's secret, a little underhand really.

[spankyham]

Yes it's laughable isn't it. I'm glad it's dawning on you at last what a ludicrous situation it is.They have veto over the rules and regulations. So if they don't like a reg they can veto it. If a team interprets a reg one way and it turns out they gain a big an advantage, Ferrari with the veto could get it tightened up and thus banned.But that would be a retrospective veto( rule change) . Well the FIA aren't above retrospective rule changes, Spa 2008 to name just one.

Did they do it to Renault with the mass damper? We don't know do we, because it's secret, a little underhand really.

So you're saying you have evidence that Ferrari can veto any rule or regulation.

[racechick]

No, not ANY regulation, it's subject to certain exceptions. I would imagine they are unable to veto anything that would compromise safety, but that just my thought....
Here's a little more evidence of their power of veto with some actual wording from the document.............


If you have ever wondered whether Ferrari really does get paid more than any other team then the prospectus is the place to look. Ditto if you want to know whether Ferrari has a veto over F1's regulations. In fact, the prospectus reveals that Ferrari's influence over F1 stretches so far that it even has first refusal on supplying cars to race in the sport's support series if the Porsche Supercup ever vacates this place. It may sound like biased behaviour but there is good reason for Ferrari's preferential treatment.
The big news is on page 179 of the prospectus which covers the terms of the teams' contracts to race in F1. It states that "in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions)."
It doesn't get much more blunt than that: if Ferrari doesn't like the regulations then it can change them and it is the only team in F1 that has this power. But there's more - the prospectus, and reports by financial analysts, also reveal that Ferrari gets more prize money than any other team.


You can read the whole article here

http://www.pitpass.com/48762/Confirmed- ... egulations

[spankyham]

No, not ANY regulation, it's subject to certain exceptions. I would imagine they are unable to veto anything that would compromise safety, but that just my thought....
Here's a little more evidence of their power of veto with some actual wording from the document.............


If you have ever wondered whether Ferrari really does get paid more than any other team then the prospectus is the place to look. Ditto if you want to know whether Ferrari has a veto over F1's regulations. In fact, the prospectus reveals that Ferrari's influence over F1 stretches so far that it even has first refusal on supplying cars to race in the sport's support series if the Porsche Supercup ever vacates this place. It may sound like biased behaviour but there is good reason for Ferrari's preferential treatment.
The big news is on page 179 of the prospectus which covers the terms of the teams' contracts to race in F1. It states that "in respect of Ferrari only, Ferrari may terminate if the regulatory safeguards agreed between the FIA and Ferrari do not allow Ferrari to veto any change to the regulations already announced or introduced (subject to certain exceptions)."
It doesn't get much more blunt than that: if Ferrari doesn't like the regulations then it can change them and it is the only team in F1 that has this power. But there's more - the prospectus, and reports by financial analysts, also reveal that Ferrari gets more prize money than any other team.


You can read the whole article here

http://www.pitpass.com/48762/Confirmed- ... egulations

RC - the correct part of your post is ".... I would imagine .... "

The quote from the prospectus (which is only a hearsay reference) says Ferrari "may terminate" their membership in F1. If certain rules (that are already in place and agreed) are attempted to be changed, then Ferrari can "veto" their own membership in F1, prior to 2020. Still, lets speculate about Ferrari pulling parts off other cars

Like I said at the outset, there is nothing going on here but pure speculation as to what a veto is and means and that is because no-one has yet produced one line, sentence or paragraph of real evidence.

BTW, you do realize Mercedes has its own special agreement - so should we all start speculating about what special stuff Mercedes has in their agreement?

[LRW]

.... so should we all start speculating about what special stuff Mercedes has in their agreement?

[spankyham]

.... so should we all start speculating about what special stuff Mercedes has in their agreement?

You are a very naughty boy

If Forumula1 was a night out on the town, then some of the members would be bailing me out the next morning ..... you on the other hand would be sitting next to me saying, @#$% that was fun.