FORUMula1.com

[sagi58]

.... 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.

Hey!!! Can I be your DD ((Designated Driver))!!
Well... sometimes, anyway!!

[What's Burning?]

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?

Yes, let's! Whatever their agreement says certainly wasn't noteworthy enough that the sport had to include it in a public stock sale prospectus. Why is it that they mention Ferrari only?

Why is it that even though it's all fictitious, Luca himself acknowledges it? Let's just agree to stop the circle jerk because were never going to convince a Tifosi that there's anything the scuderia can possibly ever do that it doesn't have the sanctimonious right to do.

[sagi58]

... Let's just agree to stop the circle jerk because were never going to convince a _________ that there's anything _________ can possibly ever do that __________ doesn't have the sanctimonious right to do.

I don't relish the role of being the bearer of a reality check; but, I edited the above to prove a point:
you can take that particular statement and insert the name of other teams/drivers and it would still
be true of their respective fans.

Again, that's just subjectivity rearing its head!!

[LRW]

LOOK! Over there, a badger, can you see....

[spankyham]

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?

Yes, let's! Whatever their agreement says certainly wasn't noteworthy enough that the sport had to include it in a public stock sale prospectus. Why is it that they mention Ferrari only?

Why is it that even though it's all fictitious, Luca himself acknowledges it? Let's just agree to stop the circle jerk because were never going to convince a Tifosi that there's anything the scuderia can possibly ever do that it doesn't have the sanctimonious right to do.

a) Where have I said a veto is fictitious? Come on, you can have your opinions and speculations, but don't start making up some for me

b) I've asked since the outset of this thread for one shred of actual evidence about the Ferrari veto, direct or circumstantial - still neither forthcoming. So, as I said at the outset, this will simply descend to yet another round of speculation to vent about any evil wanted to be ascribed to Ferrari, and then add the words .... as part of their veto. I mean, it's there already, apparently Ferrari can remove parts from other teams cars

..... so, lets get back to speculation about Mercedes special contract

[LRW]

why do Ferrari fans think everyone else hates them?

More people hate RedBull.

Remove the chip. Its not a good look.

[What's Burning?]

Define evidence, there's been ample examples of statements given that elude to the veto and its capabilities. To argue that it... hasn't been used, is missing the point of what's being complained about. That is, the fact that there is any type of veto to begin with! So you ask for evidence that it's been used, I ask you to justify why Ferrari needs veto power?

Give me one justifiable reason, just one.

[spankyham]

Define evidence, there's been ample examples of statements given that elude to the veto and its capabilities. To argue that it... hasn't been used, is missing the point of what's being complained out and that is the fact that there is a veto to begin with. So you ask for evidence that it's been used, I ask you to justify why Ferrari needs veto power?

Give me one justifiable reason, just one.

Direct Evidence = a copy of the complete signed contract
Circumstantial Evidence = an unsigned paragraph from a contract notarized as a true and correct copy of a paragraph from said contract.

As I said at the get-go this thread will (and already has) produced its wild speculation about what the veto is. But that, along with any other claim about specifics of Ferrari's veto is just that - pure, unadulterated speculation.

I don't think it is possible to even guess at why Ferrari would have a veto unless we know what the veto actually is. If you look at the hearsay evidence, from the prospectus, it clearly says Ferrari can veto their membership of F1 ahead of 2020. And that only applies in 2 circumstances:-
1) when the rules that have already been agreed to, are attempted to be changed
2) if they are of a special class of changes

So Ferrari wanted a contract that stays the same for the period of the contract and, if parts of the agreement are changed, Ferrari wanted the right to veto their membership of F1. And all of that is based on an interpretation for a prospectus.

But as I keep saying, don't let the fact that we have zero evidence about the veto, lets just keep ascribing anything we like to Ferrari and add ...... as part of their veto.

[What's Burning?]

If you own a gun, chances are you shoot with it, if you own a car chances are you drive with it, if you have a pack of cigarettes chances are you smoke. Ferrari have veto power.

Let's just stop, I mean it's crazy. If you want to bury your head in the sand, I guess it's your right to do so. It does go a long way towards explaining why you and Sagi keep picking a Ferrari 1-2 in the pool though. I guess I'll never get it, I guess that's why I lack the "passion" to be a tifosi. Horses for courses.

[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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

That's twice you've done that in this thread, posted something I've quoted out of context to distort its meaning, and yet you persistently ignore quoted text from Luca Di Montezemelo, Bernie Ecclestone and the stock exchange prospectus saying that Ferari have a veto on rules and regulations.
"I would imagine" does not refer to whether I think there is a veto, because I know there is, there's ample evidence of that. "I would imagine" refers to what I think the exclusions to the veto might be. Let me rephrase to make it clearer. I doubt Ferrari would be able to veto a change that was brought in on safety grounds. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong perhaps Ferrari are even mightier than we believe.

Why do you detract from the discussion about Ferrari's veto by asking about Mercedes? They don't have a veto.

[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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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

That's twice you've done that in this thread, posted something I've quoted out of context to distort its meaning, and yet you persistently ignore quoted text from Luca Di Montezemelo, Bernie Ecclestone and the stock exchange prospectus saying that Ferari have a veto on rules and regulations.
"I would imagine" does not refer to whether I think there is a veto, because I know there is, there's ample evidence of that. "I would imagine" refers to what I think the exclusions to the veto might be. Let me rephrase to make it clearer. I doubt Ferrari would be able to veto a change that was brought in on safety grounds. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong perhaps Ferrari are even mightier than we believe.

Why do you detract from the discussion about Ferrari's veto by asking about Mercedes? They don't have a veto.

If you read my early post, and what I just said above, I have not said Ferrari don't have a veto. So, if anyone is being misquoted it is moi. So, please, for the 4th or whatever time, the Ferrari veto existence is a given.

What I have said, is that what ever you want to "ascribe" to the veto is pure speculation until you provide some, even one sentence of "evidence" about the veto. A line, paragraph from the agreement would do. Funny, still nothing forthcoming.

As I also said, it is your right to speculate, I accept that. So I'm definitely chiming out now, and feel free to continue with as much speculation as you like about the evils of Ferrari and their undefined veto.

[LRW]

I thought repetitive arguments were against forum rules. Especially if you are a green jacket?

[racechick]

I'm not repeating, I'm clarifying .I've presented three different pieces evidence about the veto, from three different sources . We've no where near gone full circle with this one.

[What's Burning?]

I thought repetitive arguments were against forum rules. Especially if you are a green jacket?

Repetitive arguments are for the untrained and uninitiated such as yourself. We, the moderators are enlightened.

You're so clueless you don't even know the correct moderator color, it's 00AA00 not 00BF00.

[LRW]

00AA00

What century you living in Grandad?