Storm clouds over Formula 1 at Silverstone

One of the most remarkable sights on Silverstone Sunday was footage of Bernie Ecclestone ushering Olympic president Jacques Rogge and the Belgian's wife Ann about the grid shortly before the start of the British Grand Prix.

On the face of it there was nothing unusual in the deed, for the 81-year-old and his entourage have regularly shown heads of state, movie stars and Beautiful People about his personal Scalextric set.

But what was perhaps more significant about it was that FIA president Jean Todt was present on the grid, yet he and his movie-star partner Michelle Yeow were not invited to join the Bernie/Jacques party, certainly not in view of the cameras, which are, of course, controlled by Bernie's Boys.

It can be no coincidence that a few days earlier the Daily Mail reported, in an interview with Ecclestone, that 'the 2013-2020 Concorde Agreement, the contract that binds the teams, Ecclestone's commercial rights holders and the governing FIA to the sport, is agreed in all its commercial elements. Even Mercedes, who had threatened to walk out on Formula 1 if they did not receive a larger slice of money, are on side.'

"Total agreement," confirmed Ecclestone to the daily. "We are just talking to the lawyers. Commercially it's done."

Yet sources in the loop are absolutely adamant that no Concorde Agreement has been sorted, with McLaren's Martin Whitmarsh echoing that on Saturday. He told this column that, as far as he was aware, there had been no tripartite agreement to date, only a commercial agreement between a number - not all - of the teams and the commercial rights holder (headed by Ecclestone on behalf of majority owner CVC Capital Partners).

Said one: "Whatever Bernie says about Mercedes, they have not agreed commercial terms with him. Yet. Nine teams have done a deal - for which read all except Mercedes and the two stragglers..." By which he meant HRT and Marussia. Mercedes, for its part, refuses point-blank to comment on whether or not it has signed, whereas all other teams asked by this column have all admitted to having signed a Heads of Agreement document with Formula One Management.

So, apparently nine down, three to go, including the biggest commercial brand in F1 [Ferrari]. But what about the FIA, given that the Concorde Agreement is a tripartite covenant that regulates the FIA's premier championship, with CVC solely being the manager of its commercial rights?

McLaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh . © LAT

"As far as I know he [Ecclestone] is pursuing a parallel strategy: get as many teams on side, then put a take-or-leave-it deal to Jean Todt," said our source.

That the man is on the money is underscored by another comment made by Ecclestone to the Mail: "Now what we've got to do is look at how the technical regulations are made. It should be the teams, though not all the teams, who do that. They are the people who have to come up with the money, not the FIA. It would be the established teams who are here to stay - Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes and probably Williams as old timers - deciding what to do."

Before turning to the implications of that statement, first a clarification: while at first reading there appears to be a contradiction in that Mercedes is included, while our source is adamant the Three-Pointed Star is not yet 'in', this is classic Ecclestone - he is fully aware that snubbing Mercedes at this point, just when he desperately requires the German company's signature, particularly in view of the Munich court matter, would result in even further strife.

Intriguingly Lotus is not mentioned, yet the team arguably has a stronger recent pedigree than either Mercedes or Williams (and possibly McLaren) in that the team now known as Mercedes won both 2009 titles as Brawn, and Tyrrell in 1971/3; Williams last saw a championship in 1996; McLaren just one this Millennium; whereas Genii Lotus won two titles as Renault in 2005/6 and two in the 1990s as Benetton, while 'Lotus' certainly requires no amplification. So, does Lotus not "have to come up with the money"? Or Force India - does Vijay Mallya's team run on fresh air? Sauber, which has been about since 1993? Caterham?

Rumours persist that Mercedes has still to sign the new agreement © LAT

As regularly outlined in these pages, technical (and sporting) responsibility lies with the FIA, with the governing body's Technical Working Group and Sporting Working Group being very much in control. Once the respective groups have taken decisions, these are escalated for resolution by the Formula 1 Commission, which in turn approves/rejects rule changes before those carried by a 70 per cent majority are forwarded to the FIA's World Motorsport Council for ratification.

Given that team representatives populate both working groups (alone having the votes), and that team principals or entities closely aligned with teams make up two-thirds of the Formula 1 Commission, it is clear the teams have majority sway in the rulemaking process.

Although the FIA has remained utterly tight-lipped about the situation, it is a racing certainty that somebody, somewhere within the organisation would have dropped hints that Todt and Ecclestone had at last replaced their acrimony with agreement over this vital issue - with the most public indication of peace being Todt and Ecclestone (in that order) together showing former Olympic yachtsman Rogge about the grid. It is, after all, the FIA Formula 1 World Championship, not the CVC Formula 1 World Championship, regardless of how it is packaged...

In fact, one wonders whether Rogge was even aware Todt was on the grid - albeit the back end - while the Ecclestone party was wandering about the sharp end.

Jean Todt, president of the FIA © LAT

All this begs the question why Ecclestone would maintain that Mercedes is already a signatory to the commercial agreement (if not to a Concorde, as alleged by self-styled experts who were again conspicuously at Silverstone), and that the 2013-20 Concorde had been agreed save for legalese when all the pointers are that nothing of substance has changed in five months.

Good question - one best answered by pointing out that, on July 11, Ecclestone was quoted by Singapore's media as stating a five-year extension of the Asian city-state's race contract was a done deal, something immediately refuted by the event's promoters:

"Further to media reports on July 11 2012, Singapore GP (SGP) wishes to clarify talks on continuing the Formula 1 Singapore Grand Prix for a second term are still ongoing.

"What is presently on offer from Formula One Administration is insufficient for us to commit to a full five-year extension.

"Negotiations have been ongoing for almost a year."

This gels perfectly with what an SGP executive told this column in April: "We need to decide by September whether we wish to go ahead with an extension [from 2013]. All I can say is we are far apart, and any agreement needs to ensure the race is sustainable for the full five-year term, and we cannot commit to what is on the table at present."

Why then would one party be in such vociferous denial, particularly when keen to do a deal at the right price?

But, if the sight of Todt wandering about the back of the grid as Ecclestone and Rogge chummied their way about the front was strange, so too were Ecclestone's comments to the media about the purported London Grand Prix, which he admitted was not his idea at all, yet one he is fully prepared to take credit for. And, what's more, waive the estimated £25m hosting fee plus stick in £10m of his [for which read 'F1' - 50 per cent of which contractually belongs to the teams...) money.

While he says he is serious about wishing to hold a race in London, let's not forget he has said the same about Cape Town, Mexico, New York, Mar del Plata and countless other venues. He is, after all, a pre-owned car salesman at heart, and no used-car dealer worth his salt (or £2bn) ever turns away potential deals - particularly not where other peoples' money is concerned.

Bernie surely knows as well as any that racing on public streets is banned in England (the law, in fact, covers the British mainland), so could it simply be a show of largesse in the sound knowledge that the race will never fly, certainly not in his lifetime? Imagine it: "Well, I was prepared to fund the race, but the government wouldn't let me, so don't blame me for your muddy Silverstone experience in future..."

Equally confusing were his comments about the Silverstone situation, which resulted in thousands of fans staying away on Saturday, with those who failed to pay heed being stuck in mud/traffic. According to paddock gossip, Bernie himself stayed away on Friday after being informed the journey from his London pad to Silverstone, of which three-quarters is by motorway, would take five hours or more.

Poor weather conditions hampered Silverstone's weekend and infuriated spectators. © LAT

It is a little over a decade since Silverstone suffered similarly after Ecclestone scheduled the 2000 race for Easter for reasons he would not at the time go into, then took an oblique swipe at the circuit. "People are probably pointing fingers at me," he said of the chaos, which then caused five-hour traffic jams and thousands to be stranded in muddy fields. "I get the blame for most things, but I don't deserve blame for this. I can't go into why we are in April. It wasn't anything to do with me.

"I don't want to be in this weather any more than anyone else. Silverstone have done what they normally do and not taken the weather into consideration. They didn't know it was going to rain. They should have prayed.'' That despite records showing that weekend to be historically the region's wettest.

But at the time Silverstone had spent millions on a new members' clubhouse while pleading poverty over hosting fees, ensuring the chagrin of Ecclestone. In addition, the A43 was then jammed solid even on working days, so traffic would have been a nightmare even in bright sunshine.

One would have thought Silverstone would have learned from that experience, which cost the operation an estimated £4m in ticket refunds and related expenses. But no - despite the A43 now being a world-class traverse and it being July, on Friday five-hour delays were again the order, with Silverstone again facing losses of £4m for refunds and related costs, which it can no better afford now than 12 years ago despite a doubling (at least) of ticket prices in that period.

Hosting fees have increased five-fold in that period, from a much-discussed £3m to an estimated present level of £16m (and rising annually at the rate of 10 per cent). Add in promoter/operational costs of £6m (before said losses), and thus it is clear that Silverstone, which has a paying spectator capacity of a little over 100,000 and has only the gate as income, needs to net an average of £220/punter. Subtract the £4m in losses, and the circuit is in deeper mire than the campers were all weekend long.

The hosting fees suck every spare penny out of the circuit, in turn ensuring that CVC gets richer at every turn while severely jeopardising Silverstone's facility development. Imagine how much hardcore could have been laid with just half the £16m; imagine how many car parks and bridges could be built over the full 17-year contract period.

And it gets worse - at the rate of 10 per cent per annum. Come the 10th year of the contract, hosting fees will pan out at no less than £28m, meaning Silverstone will need to average well over £300 per muddy fan. The sun may have won through on race day, but Silverstone's future remains as cloudy as Friday's skies.