Why uncertainty surrounds Formula 1

Nothing better illustrates Formula 1's current (mis?)management by the sport's commercial rights holder than the sagas surrounding 2015's calendar and entry list.

And, lest this writer stands accused of homing in on just one party, be under no illusions that the governing body, the FIA, is arguably equally culpable.

Take the calendar: in years gone by, draft calendars were presented during the German Grand Prix weekend in mid-July, discussed in Hungary a week later, then finalised during the Belgian Grand Prix ahead of ratification by the FIA's World Motor Sport Council in early September.

However, over time matters have deteriorated to such a degree that this year a 20-race draft calendar was first discussed in Monza, then, according to a media release distributed by the FIA, "confirmed" at its September WMSC meeting in Beijing.

But clearly "confirmed" has a different definition when applied to FIA matters, for, following the year-end WMSC session in Doha on December 3 a further release was issued, this time confirming a 21-race calendar, thus effectively consigning the September version - around which many fans had framed their 2015 vacation plans - to the trash can.

True, there was only a minor amendment to the original - Bahrain and China were switched - but the re-appearance of Korea after a year's absence was, to put it mildly, a shock to most, including Korean organisers. Various reasons for the inclusion of arguably the most disliked recent race were speculated upon, including increases in engine allowances due to the calendar extending beyond two score.

However, FOM CEO and F1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone knocked that on the head: "[Promoters] would rather it not happen," he said at the time. "[But] we have a contract with Korea, we have to put it on the calendar; if we had not, they could have sued us. We let them off for a year on the understanding they would be back."

Korea was a shock inclusion on the 2015 calendar, but it didn't last © LAT

A legal clause agreed over a year ago took from September to December to discover?

Yes, on January 7 a full 2015 FIA calendar was published, one with 20 F1 races - excluding Korea's round - after the CRH had advised the FIA that the possibility of the race happening had "disappeared". But, why did it come to that in the first place?

Cynics point out that just five days earlier the FIA had confirmed that the engine homologation regulations would be more accommodating due to loopholes in the regulations - so a calendar listing more than 20 races (from 21 rounds an additional engine permitted per driver per season) was no longer required to appease the non-Mercedes-powered lobby.

In the interim, though, chaos reigned, and the entire affair seriously sullied F1's already tattered reputation. Why is the fastest sport on earth, one that prides itself on split-second timing, patently unable to sort matters as simple as a calendar?

Think back to 2011, when the CRH in June attempted to re-schedule Bahrain's (March) aborted race for October, and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a race will replace Korea this year, even once the season is underway. The FIA approved 21 rounds, did it not?

But, if the debacle surrounding the 2015 calendar is an embarrassment, the fact that no final 2015 entry list has yet been published despite the opening round being exactly two months hence as this is written suggests the sport's custodians have adopted an elastic approach to formalities. Now compare this situation to previous regimes, as Sir Frank Williams can testify:

In 1992 the team, the powerhouse of the era due to its high-tech cars, was one day late in submitting its entry, and was forced to make major regulatory concessions before its 1993 entry would be accepted.

No more is the serious matter of entries as rigid, as we shall see. The first provisional entry list was published on November 5; the second on December 22. Sources indicate that a final entry list will be published just prior to the start of testing on February 1 - so why impose early deadlines, then stretch the process?

On the latest entry list no fewer than three teams appear with asterisks beside their entrant names - namely Lotus, Marussia and Caterham - which suggests a quarter of the 2014 field has yet to get its house in order.

Dominant Williams was late with its entry for the 1993 season © LAT

The present FIA administration is absolutely desperate to prevent entries falling below end-2009 levels, when Jean Todt assumed power from Max Mosley, who is an outspoken critic of the current administration.

A sense of deja vu prevails, and no wonder, for the first two named teams were in precisely this situation exactly a year ago. Since then, though, Marussia and Caterham have plunged into administration - the former apparently owing the FIA close on €10,000 as part of a debt pile totalling €30million - yet both appear on the list despite applying for administration prior to entries closing.

Taking Lotus first: it is no secret that the Enstone-based team went through tough times, with 2013 driver Kimi Raikkonen making no attempt at hiding the fact that that he had not been paid. Lotus has since downsized, but still carries sizeable debt. Taking on well-funded Pastor Maldonado eased the squeeze, but did not help its cause in the constructors' championship, which provides the basis for F1's revenue distribution.

Venezuelan Maldonado comes with PDVSA petro-dollars, but the government-owned company is under enormous pressure after oil prices reached record lows that make Venezuelan oil uneconomical on world markets. Indeed, it is said that it costs approximately US$80 to produce a barrel of Venezuelan oil, while the current price is south of US$50.

Already the country has deferred loan repayments and begged OPEC to tighten supply, forcing PDVSA bonds to hit the skids and raising questions over future Venezuelan payments. In addition, the team lost its Rexona sponsorship to Williams, and one hears a block on team spend has now been imposed.

In fact, rumours abound that Lotus will rebrand two years ahead of the licence to use the name - granted by Lotus Cars, under new management after previous CEO Dany Bahar left in acrimonious circumstances - expiring, and already Lotus Cars (headed by Luxembourgian ex-Peugeot/Citroen executive Jean-Marc Gales) has commenced unravelling similar LMP1/2 deals.

None of this, though, should result in the asterisk, so the only assumption that can be made is that, like last year, Lotus failed to pay its dues (in part or full) by December 22, or that the FIA has not updated its entry lists since.

Asked about both scenarios - entry fees and name change - a Lotus spokesperson would only say: "All will be confirmed in due course".

The Caterham situation is no less baffling, for administrator Finbarr O'Connell remains hopeful of returning the team to the grid, but has thus far received no firm offers which guarantee the team's future. The lodging of an entry is a crucial step in this process.

Has Lotus failed to pay the entry fee so far? © LAT

However, given that the team missed two races - in terms of F1's covenants up to three non-appearances are permitted per season - and there has to date been no change in the company's status since Abu Dhabi, where it competed successfully, one wonders why Caterham is asterisked. If the entry was paid and the relevant form completed in full, surely its entry should be accepted as a matter of course - and not be listed as TBC.

That said, in both instances the operative term is "If" - and if the entry forms were not completed in full and if the commensurate fees were not settled to the last cent by due date, then the team should not be listed. Simple.

Marussia's case is, however, vastly more complex: not only has the team been fragmented by auction sell-offs - in stark contrast to the approach adopted by O'Connell - but it has entered with a new chassis name (MNR, in place of Marussia as per 2013/4), and the holding company (Manor Grand Prix Holdings Limited) is now listed as being domiciled in Great Britain rather than Russia (as per 2014).

Thus it could be argued that the Marussia provisionally listed is a new entity - and should be subject to the same rigorous diligence process as the US-based Haas F1 operation (which acquired Marussia's facility in Banbury on auction ahead of its 2016 entry) and the Forza Rosso outfit, which failed to make the grade.

Note: Caterham entered for 2015 as a Malaysian entity despite its June sale to a mysterious Swiss-Arab consortium, and subsequent British-domiciled administration.

The entire process is complicated for those teams in administration by regulation changes that demand various (mainly safety-related) technical changes, without which the 2014 cars campaigned by the duo would be illegal in the upcoming season.

However, a suggestion, understood to have been made by McLaren boss Ron Dennis during Strategy Group/F1 Commission sessions in early December to allow the duo to campaign modified 2014 cars was revisited by the group later that month, which is said to have provisionally approved certain concessions. However, F1 Commission sanction and WMSC ratification is still required prior to the first race.

Thus, as matters stand at time of writing, one team refuses to confirm whether it actually paid entry fees due over a month ago, while another has no car complying with 2015's regulations. The third team has entered with a new chassis name - prohibited under F1's multi-party agreements unless approved by the CRH - and further has no compliant 2015 car.

In fact, the only recent change is that Korea has been dropped from the calendar, and that should surely have been evident over a year ago when the 'handshake' deal was struck.

Is it any wonder that F1 continues to stagger from crisis to crisis? And the season has yet to begin...