RRA disagreement could really end up hurting McLaren


Podium Finisher
I've just been reading this article on James Allen's website:- http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/11/the-cost-of-competing-in-f1/

The opening two paragraphs are really quite worrying. I very much hope this does not end up happening because it would be like taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back. As a McLaren fan I would also obviously feel aggreived but, I also would feel for all other teams and do not like the idea of F1 being like the football Premier League where all the big spending clubs always win.

Check this out:-

"The leading F1 teams are in the thick of an argument at the moment about how much money they should be allowed to spend every year to go racing, with Red Bull out on a limb, taking a different view from other FOTA members about the next phase of the Resource Restriction Agreement.

If it all goes wrong, as some predict, this could lead to a new arms race in F1 with Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes able to spend more than McLaren (which no longer has Mercedes factory backing as it did in the last “Arms Race”) and far more than the midfield teams. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that because everyone loses in that scenario."
It has been suspected that RBR break the current RRA after spending £800,000 just for a Monza package. There are enough small teams to make a good deal, and it is in Ferrari and McLaren's interest to clip RBR's wings a little.​
I don't read James Allen very often because to be honest I've never been fond of the chap but this is an interesting article. However I will point to this all being speculation and the current world economy does seem to suggest that even the big companies in F1 would think twice before getting involved in this kind of 'arms' race.

One thing I will say if it does happen though is that Mclaren is an organisation with a lot of cash behind it without the support of the Merc factory so I'd be surprised if they were left behind too much - on top of which a man I don't usually have a lot of good to say about - Ron Dennis - is a master at making sure he has the right funds at the right time and has made the right deal with the right people when it comes to stuff like this and I'm pretty sure he has the finger on the pulse where this one is concerned so I wouldn't worry about Mclaren too much (deal with Honda anyone?)

I would also suggest that 'Caternham' have an owner with a sufficient sized wallet to take part in this and could see themselves bouncing up the grid if it does happen. Toro Rosso have suddenly got middle eastern investment. Williams having backing from Qatar and Venuzula(maybe). I'd be a bit worried for Force India but the I'm a bit worried anyway as their current owner is leeking money like a sieve currently.

The F1 world has always been about money and spending and if you look back over the years although sometimes it has a little shake up the teams at the front usually remain the same so I wouldn't worry too much.
I would need to see it to believe any permanent demise at McLaren. I know they said that about Williams...
One thing that I would not like to see is something like we are seeing in football. Take over team, pour billions at it. win something, as we have seen with Chelsea, Man City etc.

After the examples of Honda, Toyota and BMW, I am a little scared how a large pot of cash coupled with a team who know what they are doing like Red Bull could do.

That said, the RRA currently is not really enforceable, so even if the teams are spending as much as they like, there is little that can be done about it.

I also sometimes hanker after a team being allowed to spend as much money as they want and creating something special, but this is only good when there are several teams who can do the same, but it is also ultimately self defeating, and eventually these teams may end up on there own.

No, it would seem that an enforceable RRA is the way forward imho, but it needs to be sensible, and transparent.

I think all the teams agree there should be some limit(s). They disagree on what those limits should be, and how they should be measured and audited. Logic says they can still agree a resource restriction agreement. Just a question of what those restrictions are.

It doesn't make sense for the others to resist too hard (and risk no restrictions), so Red Bull may get what they want. Concorde is much more important and a win "over" the other teams will put them in the boss seat in those much more important negotiators. "look Bernie, we are investing the most so we want the same deal as Ferrari".
I've never seen anyone show how the whole thing is policed anyway so I'm pretty any team who can is by-passing the RRA. They may as well scrap the whole stupid idea.
I disagree guys :) .

I think that even rules that are broken are better than no rules at all. At least then those that do want to play fair and square can do so. Especially in sport, which is nothing without rules.

As I said, in this case, the question is not "should there be a spending limit", the argument is over what that limit should be, what is included and excluded and how it is policed. Even if they have to go to the highest common denominator, there will still be a limit they can agree to.
I don't think any F1 team should spend more that 50 Billion euros

Seriously though - In an ideal world I'd love their to be a cap so the smaller teams stood a chance and more teams could be involved but its just uninforceable and all its going to do is course mroe scandal and court hearings which F1 really doesn't need.

At the end of the day theres not been an agreement in place for most of the time F1 has existed and the smaller teams still came through when there was real talent there.
And some of those smaller teams became very big teams - just as some of the "big" teams (yes, BMW, Honda and Toyota I'm looking at you) never really got beyond competeing with the little guys. All they need is to strike lucky with a talented young (or not so young) designer/engineer and they could be off.
Top Bottom