Craig Pollock Q&A

"Not in the least. If you're not willing to take the risk, then it's not worth it in the first place. The risk that we took was to do 'due diligence' on the company, find out exactly how it's performing, and put in an offer that we thought was correct. Obviously the other side didn't have the same view, because they're trying to work with some other offer. And obviously that offer hasn't worked out either. If it's not meant to be it's not meant to be."



"It was worth salvaging the way we were going about it, otherwise I wouldn't do it. You shouldn't go into something at any cost, and that was the key for us."



"That will have to remain speculation. One thing I'll never break is a confidentiality agreement, and we have one on all the due diligence."



"I think it was very close, yes."



"Yes. The idea was obviously that I would be team principal, but I wouldn't if Tom remained."



"No, I don't think so. It's dead in the water. I think today to start up afresh you need a manufacturer behind you to do it logically. It was one of the last avenues that was worth approaching. At the moment I'm definitely not willing to look at Minardi, because I don't want to take on all the Italian problems. Doing due diligence in the UK is difficult, but not as difficult as doing it in Italy. And I don't speak Italian!"



"I would think so, yes. I'll keep my position at BAR."



"Initially it was frustrating, but I think you grow used to it, and you just go into a different role. You evolve and look forward - you don't look back."



"There's only one board meeting I've missed, when I decided that since my guys were doing a due diligence on Arrows, me sitting on the board of another team would be incorrect and inappropriate. So I withdrew from that board meeting. Since nothing has happened, I'll resume representing my shareholding."



"I would have resigned as a director, an officer of the company. That would have been the right thing to do - I don't think you can be on the boards of two different F1 teams. My shareholding would have been represented by a nominee of myself, to represent my interests."



"I had a proposal put towards me in Montreal by the CEO of Player's, way back at the time of the Grand Prix, that they would be interested in having Jacques going across there next year - it's the last year of Player's. But we weren't in a position to negotiate that. I told him we were under contract to BAR, and they would have to deal directly with BAR for that to be confirmed. Which I believe did take place. But at this date we've not had a financial proposition, terms, duration, nothing at all."



"It depends on what's behind it. We'd never do it if we didn't have a firm contract back into F1, and it depends obviously on how that contract was set up."



"It depends on what the team wants. We are obviously very open to any form of logical proposal."



"As things stand he has a contract, yes."