Why F1 races can't be moved from Sunday

"If Bernie is watching right now I bet he's chuckling up his sleeve, particularly if Sunday's race is cancelled..."

That was just one comment overheard in Shanghai's media centre as journalists stared at empty screens for well nigh three hours on Friday after FP1 was heavily disrupted and FP2 was aborted due to low level cloud and haze that made casualty evacuation by helicopter not only extremely dangerous, but, in terms of Chinese aviation law, illegal.

"This can't be good for Formula 1, imagine the millions of fans sitting about without track action; imagine the billions wasted if the race is canned," was another. "If Bernie were still in charge, he'd bang a few heads together, call up the Weather Gods, and no problem," came next before examples were cited of the "show going on" during the recent past.

As for pointing the finger at China for the lack of Friday running: practice sessions have been cancelled at Austin, Spa, Silverstone and Suzuka in recent times and calendars without at least three of those circuits are unthinkable. Folk may not enjoy the country's policies, but, hey, cut the race some slack on occasion.

Then news filtered through that the FIA was considering scheduling the Chinese Grand Prix for Saturday afternoon, with qualifying (and possibly a brief acclimatisation practice) staged earlier in the day. People who fell for that one simply failed to grasp the realities of international contract law, and of F1's various convoluted protocols and complex agreements.

True, the concept was discussed ever-so briefly on Friday, during a meeting of sporting directors called by the FIA's F1 director Charlie Whiting after it became clear FP2 would be aborted. But, that is all it was - a brief discussion during which various options were tabled, given that forecast conditions for Saturday were fair and Sunday even worse than Friday.

For starters, the FIA is not empowered to take such decisions, with start times and race programmes being very much subject to contractual arrangements entered between the race promoter (in this case Juss Events) and commercial rights holder Formula One Group. The FIA decrees when and where grands prix may not be staged due to safety considerations, and does not prescribe when they may.

Race promoters finance their events through the sale of race tickets - virtually all other revenue streams accrue to the rights holder, including trackside signage, TV broadcast income and hospitality - through which they fund (just a portion in most cases) the hosting fees. Around two-thirds of the income is distributed to teams via a complex and inequitable formula, with the rights holder pocketing the rest.

Now consider the effect of moving the race forward to Saturday. Regardless of the actual number of tickets sold - estimates vary between 40,000 and 60,000, given that in China many are allegedly distributed to local institutions to bolster attendance - the fact is that most holders would be unable to attend the race a day early due to clashing commitments or their travel/accommodation arrangements.

Guess what 40,000 individuals, each facing a hit of around £200, could threaten? Suing the promoter, that's what, for the ticket forms a contract between holder and seller, stating the race will be staged at X local time on date Y. True, there are all sorts of weather caveats, but no provision is made for Saturday races, as it could be argued that conditions may improve by Sunday. Which turned out to be the case in Shanghai...

True, stronger than expected winds blew the clouds away, but that was not the only reason for the race eventually getting the green light. The FIA managed to persuade the Chinese authorities to relocate neurological staff - situated 24 miles away by air - to a hospital within three miles of the circuit, with a police escort being on stand-by for road evacuation. Problem solved.

That said, astute promoters could - should - insure against races being scrapped due to "Acts of God". And then cancellation is about the only option in the event of weather playing havoc, whereas pulling the race forward, whether by a few hours - as considered (and rejected) in 2014 when Typhoon Phanfone disrupted the tragic Japanese Grand Prix - or a whole day as discussed in China, may spell bankruptcy.

The Jules Bianchi tragedy during that Suzuka race continues to haunt F1, and not only in the emotional sense. Despite a thorough investigation by the FIA, the Bianchi family decided to institute civil action against various parties. According to a source familiar with the matter, the process remains ongoing.

Not only fans in the stands who paid for tickets are affected by schedule disruptions. The commercial rights holder and broadcasters are equally affected by knee-jerk changes, for costly satellite links are booked and TV schedules planned well in advance. And even if it were possible to reschedule a grand prix there are no guarantees that broadcasters would be willing to amend programmes at short notice - particularly given F1's dwindling eyeball count.

Sponsors book adverts to appear at specific times during broadcasts, and, again, will hardly take kindly to modest ratings due to the race shifting. Perversely, races held in atrocious conditions generally attract record-breaking viewerships, with the majority staying tuned during red-flag periods or stoppages lest they miss the restarts.

However, if a race is cancelled, insurance comes into play on the same terms as with promoters as outlined above - FOM and broadcasters are indemnified (or should be) in the event of cancellation. F1's tight back-to-back scheduling with Bahrain made it impossible to consider staging the race on, say Monday, as is so often possible with other major sporting events such as Wimbledon.

Such a solution simply cannot, though, be applied to F1 even if the affected race were the last of the season, for such are its logistics and manning and safety requirements that delaying an event by a day is not feasible. Tennis finals could theoretically be played anywhere, with only two players and an umpire directly affected, while cricket matches could be played on village green. Not so F1...

Those with long memories point to the postponement of the 1985 Belgian Grand Prix, the last race to be cancelled and reinstated later in the season. Originally due to be run on June 2, it was rescheduled to September 15 after the then-newly laid surface broke up.

However, those were simpler times, with but 16 races on the calendar, including 11 within Europe. And Belgium is, unlike China, a hop and skip away from most team bases.

For a more direct precedent, consider the 2011 Bahrain Grand Prix. Listed for March, the event was cancelled due to political upheaval. F1 later attempted to schedule the race for end-October, but met resistance from teams, media and fans alike - and that was the end of the discussion.

Ultimately, F1 is in the risk-management business, and there are few greater risks than those posed by weather. Cancelling an event ahead of schedule is not risk management, but a cop-out unless all avenues have been investigated - and usually there turn out to be alternatives such as "persuading" the authorities to move their neuro unit. That is first-class management of a type befitting a world championship event.

That said, F1 should equally accept that, ultimately, certain things can be bent unto its will, others not. That applies as much to the post-Bernie era as before.

To suggest that only Bernie could "knock heads" together does F1's current management a disservice, for the race did go ahead without the sort of dramas we experienced ahead of Japan 2014 and Austin a year later.

However, the bottom line is that, as F1's calendars expand, the odds of the "show not going on" during "iffy" seasons increase exponentially. Hence Suzuka 2014, Austin '15 and Shanghai last weekend. In all three instances promoter, FOM and FIA stuck to their guns, collectively creating conditions for the races to proceed.