Friday's Press Conference - US GP

Participating: Ron Dennis (McLaren), Eddie Jordan (Jordan), Tony Purnell (Jaguar), David Richards (BAR), Paul Stoddart (Minardi).

Q. Gentlemen, first thing I'd like to ask you is about the regulations for 2006, which I believe you're going to discuss at a meeting on Monday week where it's being finalized. I don't know what the situation is, but if you would tell me, have those regulations been agreed on? Do you agree with them? Because we were told you all agreed on them, 2006, and what's the situation with that meeting? Tony, would you like to start off with it?

Tony Purnell:

Certainly I'm not under the impression that the regulations have been agreed, you know, far from it. It's a sort of fact-finding exercise at the moment. From our point of view, we're just hoping that moves to contain the expense of Formula One and get it back into something that meets the sort of market forces will be achieved. And I think that's the mood of everybody. And, you know, I hope we're successful in finding that formula.

Q. Paul, what's your impression?

Paul Stoddart:

Certainly don't think anything's been agreed. The Monaco meeting was simply a fact-finding mission. Perhaps it was played up a little bit more than that after the meeting, but I certainly don't feel we went away from there agreeing anything. What worries me a little bit is we haven't seen an agenda, or I certainly haven't seen and agenda for Monday week's meeting; and since it is so important, I sort of would like to have seen one by now. But we've got to try, as Tony says, try to contain the costs. And teams like Eddie and I are very interested to see where this goes.

Q. Eddie?

Eddie Jordan:

Certainly nothing has been agreed, and there was a meeting in Monaco where Max told us what were the things that he would like to see, somewhere possible for move, and looked for an answer back from the teams. We've done that and did it almost immediately. So it is the position of Jordan within reason clear on the certain aspects. There were some things that he said that were not negotiable. But we'll have to wait and see what the agenda is like if I receive it.

Q. If I can change it for Mr. Richards and Dennis, what are the contentious issues in the regulations still? I know you're worried the regulations may be railroaded through. What don't you agree with?

David Richards:

I think the fact of the matter is that what has been put to us, a set of regulations for 2008, at the end of the current Concorde Agreement, and there can be no argument about that. It's within the FIA's remit to present regulations that they're going to run the championship with from 2008 onwards is up to us to decide whether we're going to enter or not. As to whether any of those regulations can be brought forward or there's any benefit to bringing them forward, that's a further debate, but I don't see that's going to happen overnight.

Q. Ron?

Ron Dennis:

I think, first of all, I echo pretty much what everybody else has said. The fact was it was a constructive meeting that took place in Monaco to discuss changes. It wasn't just a cost-driven discussion. We're very keen to improve the spectacle of Grand Prix racing. There are other issues, number of races, technical and commercial issues that were discussed. But the format, both there and in future meetings, shouldn't be a public format. I'm always mystified to come into an FIA press conference and to be asked questions that are by an FIA representative, which are contentious questions. I mean, we're looking for harmonious internal set of discussions which leads to a set of regulations or a commercial agreement that we are unified behind. So I'm always mystified why contentious questions are asked. For example, you asked the question 2006 regulations. There are no regulations going to change in 2006, unless it's by way of unanimous agreement between the parties that are signatories to the Concorde Agreement. That means the teams, the governing body, and the commercial rights holder. It's a simple fact. And for once I think we're in harmony as teams. We want to make things better. We want to make it better spectacle, we want to reduce cost and, you know, we're all committed to that. But it's never achieved in a public forum.

Q. OK, thank you. Tony, now just an individual question for each of you before we throw it open. What is needed at Jaguar to get them that little bit higher up? Because they seem to have slipped back.

TP:

That's fair. We're thoroughly disappointed with the season. We started with a very nice quick car, and we've been let down by a lot of small, small mistakes. We have a limited resource, and we put the effort into what we thought was important with the money we had. And I think we've been quite successful there. But in Formula One you've got to be good at everything, you can't make any mistakes anywhere; and you know, it's a no-prisoners game. And the areas that we haven't been so strong on have hurt us very badly. So, you know, I'm sort of 50/50 with it because when we were designing the car, if anybody had mentioned how the sort of lap times it's capable of, sort of nine months ago, we would have shaken our heads and said just no way, we're not going to make a car that good. But the standard this year is fabulous, and fantastic lap times compared to last year I'm afraid are ordinary. So it's a tough game, and we have to find all those little improvements. I have to say that it's one of the problems when you've got an adequate budget but not an excess, because money can mask mistakes. It's very easy to buy your way out of mistakes. We can't do that. We've got to get everything right, and if we don't, we're punished. But that's the game we're in. So no complaints.

Q. OK, thanks, Tony. Paul, I've seen quoted that you reckon that you're worse off than you have been for many years, yet you've got a better budget this year. How does that work out?

PS:

Two reasons, one is Tony just touched on, is there are no bad cars, there are no bad chassis, there are no bad engines and there are no bad drivers. Simply put, we've taken two seconds a lap out of most of the tracks that we've been visited to this year. It's not enough. We're just getting left behind and we're being outspent enormously, which we accept. We accept our budget is the smallest in Formula One, but it is starting to really show. I think if you add that to the fact that we've had stable technical regs now for several years in a row, you're seeing the byproduct of that which is ultra-reliability. In the main most of the teams now will go through a race weekend with very little problems and you see consistently 15, 16, 17 cars finishing races. It would have been unheard of a few years ago. We're just being outspent and that's our problem.

Q. OK, Paul. Eddie, obviously a week ago a superb result for you guys. What was your reaction to that? Also, the fact that the third driver played such an important part?

EJ:

Extreme fortunate, had no idea leaving the circuit what the end outcome was going to be. Doesn't matter where you are, two cars in the points is a result in any, whatever position you're in, and I was very pleased about that, of course. But it doesn't mean that we're any quicker. And the quick cars are fantastic at the moment. It seems like a distant past when we were fighting for a podium. That's not possible at the moment. But the fight back is good. We started this year where there was a lot of doom and gloom about Jordan, and we've kept our heads down and we've kept our mouths shut. And what we have done is get on with our job and prove that we are a significant member of the Formula One establishment and we will come again. This was part of the fight back in, and I'm enormously pleased at Timo Glock, who stepped in at extreme short notice. It just shows, and I'd like to say not just to the four other team principals here, but I had to send a document around, if you like, professing my faith in this driver and as to why he should get a super license; and I'd like to say thank you, their judgment is right. He is a good young driver, he's got great potential, and he deserved his license and he did us all proud for the people who signed on for that.

Q. Thanks, Eddie. David, for you, two questions about the future of the team. How long does your contract as management last for? And similarly, what's the situation with Honda at the moment?

DR:

Both are still having final discussions on the intention, they've asked me to stay on for a longer period of time than my current agreement is, and we're just discussing that at the moment. And Honda, as they've obviously told you, are going to continue, but again, the term of that will be announced by Honda themselves, not me.

Q. So are they both up for negotiation at the moment?

DR:

Both under discussion, it's not an immediate issue quite clearly, because my agreement doesn't come to an end until the end of 2006 anyway. And so the Honda situation is ongoing.

Q. OK, thank you. Ron, you may not like this question much either. Can you tell us what the situation is with GPWC? Because after the regulations that set of regulations came out it was suggested that was the end of GPWC. Is it still in existence?

RD:

I don't know why you're asking me, I'm no well better informed than any of the team principals. I understand it's moving forward, and it seems to be evolving into a different entity but still with the same name. Obviously, the more options the teams have, the better. And at some stage in the future, maybe there will be a choice between one series or another. But I think it's highly unlikely that common sense won't prevail and there will be one entity. But time is the sort of almost dangerous element in this because we don't have any decisions to take until the end of 2007. So, unless everybody agrees that is currently a signatory to the Concorde Agreement, we would be running under the same rules, regulations and commercial terms through to the end of that season. So anything that takes place will have to be through a process of, say, unanimity, which I sometimes doubt is ever possible in Formula One.

Q. Can I just ask a further question on that? How is it changed in that way?

RD:

I think that there's an understanding, a common understanding of the format, but a much sort of more effort being put into the operational aspects of the series and an alternative commercial approach, and perhaps bringing in third-party competence to bear on some of the issues. So it's, you know, an ever-changing scene at the moment.

Questions from the Floor

Q. Speaking of cost, how much better has it been to have the two North American events on consecutive weekends just from an efficiency standpoint and travel standpoint with your teams?

RD:

I'll have a go. I think, first of all, consecutive Grands Prix as regards controlling air costs have a relatively minimal impact. Obviously it is a shorter period of time people are away from home, and let's say the fixed costs, hotels, those sorts of costs, travel costs, etcetera, tend to have some small impact on it. But as a percentage of the whole cost, it's a relatively small percentage. Where the costs increase is that you have to have more people to cope with the workload, and it's a more intense period of preparation, because you're not going back to base and, therefore, you have to carry all the equipment and spares to maintain the cars between the events. So from a savings cost point of view, probably hard to say that there's any cost benefit at all. The biggest negative for us all is the tremendous pressures it puts on the workforce. It probably impacts less on the people sat in front of you than it does on the guys who are preparing the cars or who have direct responsibilities that involve them directly in the team operation. And, you know, the pressure comes not necessarily on them physically but more on their family lives and the burnout that inevitably comes with personnel traveling around the world and that being impacted by these back-to-back races. But having said all of that, the teams all contribute to the view that World Championship must be that, and America and Canada is extremely important to our calendar. It obviously gives us the ability to attract some American investment into our sport, and we wouldn't want to see these races move off the calendar. But we are all feeling the strain of what is going to be an 18-race series this year.

Q. Anything further to add anyone?

DR:

How can you add to that?

EJ: Just very briefly, I'm not sure if Ron completely touched on it. I think the workforce when we discussed it with them would rather have two races back to back like this where they're not having to stay out. For example, the previous race between Indy and Japan, they all stayed out and they -- it wasn't never viable from a time frame or a cost to go back. So from that point of view, I advocate strongly these back-to-back races because what it does do is take pressure off when we're trying to negotiate a calendar with Bernie and the other people involved putting on the races. The three-week gap in the summer is still the most vital thing that we must preserve because that does give a meaningful home life to people who have young families. That's the key. If it means back to back, they should be retained.

Q. Anything further?

PS:

I would add the back to back for us has certainly worked for us on these two races. As Eddie said before, when we had the 2002 situation with Japan, where we were out for three and a half weeks in total; that does take a heavy toll on people's home lives. We as a team probably saved a little bit of money over this. We didn't quite get raped and pillaged on our freight charges as much as we would have if it had two races instead of one.

EJ: Really?

PS: Really.

Q. I'll ask a question on settlement of rules or whatever it is. The crux of the matter very clearly is a commercial deal. And if there's a commercial deal, everything else will follow from that. Now, it seems to me that Ferrari has a deal. I would like to know if any of you have agreed terms on a deal? If not, why not? Are there any sensible offers on the table, starting with Eddie?

EJ:

Is that because you know I would give you a truthful answer? Wouldn't bet on it. (Laughter) I never knowingly told a lie. A lie is always sinful, you know that, Joe? (Laughter) The answer is -- he's spellbound, first time ever. No, I have never been offered a deal. I've heard talk about a deal and there's no deal on the plate for Jordan that I know about, and I wish there was at least something that we can look at and think about and drool over.

PS: I'm probably worse than that; I've never even had a deal discussed with me. I have no knowledge of it whatsoever. I don't feel being serious that we're going to move forward with many things in Formula One until there is a new commercial deal, and that's just a simple fact.

TP: Joe, I echo that. At the moment we've got a sport with a degree of crisis coming up with this great uncertainty of where the commercial side of life ends up. It's something that other sports have faced, especially over in the States. Where you end up is that you have the technical regulations, but we're going to need some commercial regulation, as well. It happens in business, and certainly the way Formula One is structured at the moment where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer doesn't lend itself to competition because money is such an important element of this sport. So it would be lovely to think that you could come up with a commercial arrangement somewhat inspired by the sport's out here where there's franchises, there's salary caps, there's things like drafts, you know, the weakest teams get the pick of the best players, things like that, which is a commercial regulation, is what the sport needs. And certainly I hope the mighty forces are going to act to produce something like that and make the sport good for everybody over the next 20 years. But certainly I've had no offer.

RD: It's not really a yes/no answer. I think you've got to go to the reach of the issue. The fact is that we are governed at the moment technically and commercially through to 2007 by a contract that we all willingly signed and we're all party to it. The pressure to establish a new commercial arrangement with the teams, strangely enough it's not as a result of the teams asking for money or a bigger slice. That's not where the pressure is. The pressure comes from the fact that the banks, the three banks who inherited equity by way of the demise of Kirch, and prior to that EMTV are sacked with significant debt or equity, however you want to interpret it, on their books. And they know that there is a -- that equity is reducing in value as we move closer to the end of 2007. Two of the banks have taken the prudent view of significantly writing down the value of that equity. One bank, whose involvement is currently indirectly underwritten by a government, is reluctant to write that equity down. So we have a strong desire of those three banks and the remaining shareholder to construct a commercial deal that is attractive to us enough to sign or extend either the existing agreement or a new agreement. So that there's very much a pressure on us to agree to some sort of commercial arrangement for the future. There is the inevitable soundbite language; we are only getting 23 percent of the revenue, we would like a bigger share. There's all the things that we can accurately put into the pot, but the fact remains that our destiny at the moment is not in our own hands. We're bound by a contract that we intend to honor and any movement away from that is going to require some pretty Herculean negotiations from a variety of people. And I don't think the banks realize yet how precarious their position is. And until they do, no one's going to really move from the position they've adopted. That's my view.

DR: I've forgotten the question. (Laughter)

EJ: Sorry, Joe, did we get an answer to the question?

Q. We got an answer from some people, yes.

RD:

I have an understanding of what commercial options are available to all of the teams at the moment, and the guys behind me, I'm quite sure, do not have as much information as they should have; and that is unfortunately part of the inevitable process of negotiation, keep as many people in the dark as possible, divide and rule. Am I part of a divide-and-rule strategy? Most definitely not.

DR: I've certainly not had an offer made to me, but I've had it presented to me in the form that is, I assume, going to be presented in the longer term as a renewed Concorde Agreement just as the loose outline of it; but I'm pretty sure Eddie has had the same discussions, as well. So I don't think any of us have had a privileged position.

Q. But you haven't agreed to anything?

EJ:

Were you offered a deal? The answer is no.

DR: No, not offered a deal, but I've been shown the basis on which it will be presented.

PS: Tony and me have seen something. Eddie has made his point very clear, and the other boys have seen some.

EJ: I got a piece of paper with a post-it, and there are some pieces of paper under the post-it. Are you joking? I can show you. I mean have you been shown a structured deal? The answer is no, I haven't.

DR: Not in a form that's acceptable at the moment.

EJ: Have you seen an organized document, Ron?

RD: No.

EJ: David, have you?

DR: No, I've seen the financial structure and the way it's put to us.

EJ: Was it on a post-it? (Laughter).

DR: Not that I recall.

PS: I will check the back of my packet here.

Q. Question for Tony. In the light of rumors that HSBC may not be continuing their sponsorship of Jaguar Racing next year, could you comment on stories circulating here which suggests that Sir Jackie Stewart, a non-executive director of Jaguar Racing, may have been hawking another bank, the Royal Bank of Scotland, as a sponsor to other teams?

EJ:

I love that one.

TP: Jackie has acted correctly in that he informed the board and the HSBC that he was going to take up a roll with the Royal Bank of Scotland. So there's nothing untoward there. But your suggesting here that sort of an act of betrayal which would be inconceivable, I think, for a director of a Formula One team, and you know, you've got to bear in mind Jackie is the father of Jaguar Racing. He's worked for Ford for 40 years. And you know, he's got huge standing in the sport. That implies a set of first-class ethics. So, you know, I'm inclined to discount that as rumor making and, you know, for sure Jackie's always assured us that he's steadfastly behind the team, and I'm sure he is.

Q. Tony George has advocated his desire to see another United States Grand Prix possibly on the West coast or something. He believes it would only help benefit this event. How do you feel about a second United States Grand Prix?

RD:

I think we'd all support it, providing it didn't increase the calendar size. I think a West coast race would be very beneficial to the commercial interests of all of our teams and probably Formula One as a whole.

DR: I think we've also got to think how do we get better penetration into America per se? You know, someone was telling me a story at lunchtime about how little awareness there was of Formula One despite the fact that we're here this weekend, we were in Montreal last weekend. Does an extra race in the West coast, will that help us? I'm sure it will do, but there's still an awful lot of work to be done with what we do already. As far as extra events are concerned, I have a slightly different view. I would like to do extra events and far less testing. I think extra events drive revenue and increase the value to everybody, and testing does absolutely none of that.

EJ: Just a thing, I mean there's also a rumor around that will there be a renewal of the contract on the options currently here at Indianapolis? And it's my desire, certainly is as team principal of Jordan, that there is. I think it has been a huge success and you must be a little patient. I remember not very long ago going to Barcelona to a handful of people, of going to Canada to a handful of people, and they have turned out to be probably two of the best supported events on our calendar. So I'm quite certain things will turn around. We also have to get our act together. We do realize in an American context we are not close enough to the people. We must make sure that we think carefully about this, how we -- we understand we have technology and we have newfangled cars and stuff, but we have to reach out and make that extra effort, and that is part of the American culture, and it's not for them to change, it's for us to change. If you're going to have another race in America, will you please have it in Boston so as I can get more paddys on board because this is ridiculous going off to the West coast of America doesn't suit me all. Thank you very much.

PS: I think a West coast race would be great, but I echo Ron's words that we need to look very carefully at the calendar; 18 races is a killer. We don't do a lot of testing, so I look at it from a purely race point of view and I look at people that are getting severely burned out. I fear 20 races, I really do.

TP: From Ford's point of view, we'd be delighted to have another American race. It's an American company, the biggest market for Jaguar. I think the only caution is that Americans like to be entertained, and if we don't entertain them, it won't catch on. Simple as that.

Q. Tony, just going back to something you said at the beginning of this conference that Jaguar is very disappointed with the results this season. Halfway through the season, what's been the reaction from your parent company, Ford, to the season?

TP:

They've been pretty good, really. They never give me a hard time about results. They're very steady as a company. That's my relationship with them. So, you know, no complaints, no accolades. They were impressed in Malaysia, I have to say. We need to pull something out of the bag to give everybody in the team a lift, and for sure that's what we're trying to do. Would this be a nice weekend to do it?

Q. Eddie, your impassioned plea earlier about keeping the three-week break, is that because you're under specific pressure to give it away?

EJ:

Joe, I'm not sure you're on this planet. (Laughter) Did you hear what I said? I said that it was a purely humanitarian wish.

Q. Yes, I know, but you said you wanted to keep it.

EJ:

We are trying to keep it.

Q. But are you under any specific pressure?

EJ:

No, not at all. It does come up every year, why do we need to have the three-week gap. I think in particular before David was on board, I think Ron was a very great supporter in this respect. Is that right, Ron? Three-week gap?

RD: Yes, certainly was. You're quite right. Not under pressure other than every time the calendar comes up for review, it comes under pressure.

Q. How would you get 20 races?

RD:

Exactly.

EJ: You divide 20 into 52. (Laughter) I think you get something like -- what? How do you work it out, then, Joe?

Q. You're very given to numbers.

EJ:

I've had to be. (Laughter)

Q. This habit of having a three-week break and having like a testing ban in the winter is relatively new. Can you explain to us why has it become so important in the last few years? Because you never used to have that 10 years ago.

RD:

Well, I mean if you go back to when I think I started motor racing in '66, I think we had eight Grands Prix, and there's huge amounts of time between the races. Now it's just a question, it's, you know, Eddie uses the expression humanitarian, I mean just all, everybody that's working in Grands Prix have some family and it allows the teams to plan a holiday in the middle of what is an intense racing season. It's as simple as that. It's not complicated. Winter testing, the bans that are in effect at the end and beginning of and middle of the season is purely to save money, and again, to stop the teams putting pressure on themselves to perform. Because inevitably, you know, if there's an opportunity to improve your team, you're going to take it. If that opportunity is taken away from you, then clearly you can focus on other issues, and perhaps one of those issues is giving people time off, which is desperately important.

Q. Mike King with the IMS Radio Network, we'll be doing the North American broadcast this weekend. Mr. Richards, this question is for you, and forgive my ignorance of the technical rules of Formula One. But your third car was very quick today with Anthony Davidson, second only to Rubens Barrichello. Does the third car, is it required to meet the same technical regulations as the other two cars? And if that's the case, how impressed are you with his performance here today, given it's his first appearance at the track?

DR:

The first question, yes, it has to comply with all the same technical regulations as all the other cars. He does, however, as the third driver have the benefit of additional sets of tires, which the other drivers don't; and fresh tires do make a significant difference. But nonetheless, Anthony has driven superbly all year, and he's an integral part of the team, not just on the Fridays but throughout the testing on the season and I would say well deserving of a place, a drive in Formula One in the near future.

Q. What are your thoughts, guys, on having radio transmissions between the driver and the pits available to the TV audiences and also to fans in the stands who have scanners like they do in NASCAR?

DR:

Very happy with it, no problem whatsoever from my side.

EJ: Does it have parent control?

RD: I don't have strong views either direction if it could be demonstrated to improve the spectacle, I wouldn't be violently opposed.

DR: I think, if I could have just one point, I think the one-lap qualifying would have been or could be significantly improved if you had an interface from the TV into the car on the slowing-down lap and be able to talk to the driver and get the immediate reactions about his lap. I think we haven't made the most of single-lap qualifying in the way it's presented.

PS: We've killed that now. No point.

Q. Sorry, Paul, will you say that again?

PS:

I said we've killed that one now, you've only got one more race. (Laughter)

Q. What about radio transmissions?

PS:

Great idea if we don't start looking after the public, it's a great idea. Eddie, did you want to get in there first?

EJ: No, not at all. I'm not sure everyone wants to hear some of the things that are said during the middle of a race. Some of the stuff is pretty basic. (Laughter) To say the least. So, yeah, but I mean it could be a fantastic way. We need to come up with more things. Doesn't matter, every idea is a good idea. Put them on the table, please.

Q. Tony?

TP:

I'd certainly support it, but I think it's tickling at the edges, I think, to make Grand Prix racing more entertaining. We just have to do something to make the cars overtake more easily, because I think what fans want to see is bunches of cars and overtaking. We just don't have that, and we need to.

Q. You've all signed off for the new qualifying format from Silverstone. Can you give us an indication how convinced you are? Is it a positive move and the right move? Are there any processes that have been put in place to ensure the final five minutes of the second session not a huge confusion for fans and television audiences with purple sectors and green sectors and the guy on pole not being quickest in the second session?

EJ:

I think we've answered the question. (Laughter)

RD: First of all, the teams that are constantly positioned as being solely and exclusively for change, and certainly this is one of those times. We've all contributed to trying to make the spectacle of qualifying better, and there is no question, you can look at the current situation, that we failed so far to make Formula One better than it has been in the past in the respect of qualifying. I think everybody started simply from the best of what it's ever been, and everybody said the best it's ever been is when all the cars were on the circuit at the same time and they were effectively, the drivers were faced at getting a clear lap in a 12-lap window. Everybody, I think, agreed with that perception but then immediately pointed out that that meant that in the one-hour session everybody would be very slow to go out and that would mean 20 minutes of nothing happening. That was an issue that was addressed by splitting the practice sessions and then things tacked on as teams either were successful in politicking some sort of advantage into the regulation or whether an interested party was able to politic something in. And where we have ended up is definitely a different format. Whether it is better or not, I think time will tell. But if it isn't, I don't think any team's not prepared to change it yet again. But we've got to run probably the rest of the year in this format or stay as we are. That's still a possibility, I think.

DR: I think we've consistently proven as teams that we should not be setting the agenda here, and I don't think we're actually doing things in a very rational way. I think that in most businesses you consult the customer and you actually do a bit of market research and say here are the options, and I think the way to have gone about it personally would have been come up with three, four options, whatever it might be, and go out there and see what the TV audience and the TV production teams want themselves to make the job work for them. Because we're constantly under criticism of that. But on this particular occasion, I think at the end of the day it was a request from Bernie who said, ‘This is what I'd like to do,’ and he put the thing forward. Quite frankly, he's accountable for the TV audience, he's accountable for the people coming through the turnstile, he's the promoter of the championship, so I'm afraid he got my vote on that basis. It's I don't think the right thing to do, however.

Q. Eddie?

EJ:

My concern is purely selfish, and that was that I was able to sell an element of time to my sponsors for not just terrestrial TV but for global feed. And I felt that was being taken away or could be taken away. Because whether we like it or not, there is not a person who is responsible for the production of television. He will be shot by his editor if he doesn't follow a red car. And on that basis, it will go down the next best one, whoever likely to be there. And if we are in England, you follow an English driver, and if we're in Germany, you follow a German driver and so be it all the way through. And I can't have that pot-luck effect when I'm doing proper sheets and spreadsheets about potential income and value of media. Because anyone who thinks that a sponsor does not have a media value on every and particular second that is appearance of your car, then, are crazy. Those days of somebody coming along saying, ‘Hey, I'm a chief executive, I'd like to have my sticker on your car and we're going to have some fun and we go racing and see how it goes,’ that is gone. Because you have proper marketing people who are all clamoring for other aspects of commercial viability, and Formula One is no different. You have to stand up and if the figures meet the criteria, you'll get the sponsorship. If it doesn't, you won't. So a little bit selfishly, I was considering what Jordan's prospect was. From that point of view, I probably agree with Ron that if you were to take the best scenario, so thinking of the sport for once, I think is a better solution but it has deprived Jordan of television income that I'm disappointed about.

PS: I think the point has to be made that two years ago it was recognized that the share of voice that the small teams were getting was minimal and the whole idea of single-lap qualifying was to give us all equal opportunity on the qualifying single lap. Now, that was achieved last year, and last year I felt we had something that worked. All year we had no complaints about this system. We had something to give the media on Friday. Friday meant something. We had a provisional pole position. We had a Saturday one-hour single lap that people didn't complain about. But putting the two together was a chronicle mistake. And we have to take into account the fact that we probably shouldn't have changed what we had last year. It worked, both championships went to the wire. That wouldn't have happened this year, but I don't think we would be having the complaints we're having or have had this year had we left the format alone. Famous words, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. For this new format A, as Dave said, is Bernie's suggestion, we have to wait and see. But certainly for the small teams, we're the massive losers in this. Without TV, our share of voice is really only in qualifying unless we're being lapped, and that takes it away, makes it very tough.

TP: I'm open-minded to see how it works out. Who knows, it might work out very well. It's always difficult when you try something that's not been done before. I think that if you step back, you know, what are the problems? Friday there's not much for people to come and watch. Saturday, the same thing. You know, spectators and the TV. And Sunday, we wanted to try and get some unpredictability in it. That was the idea two years ago. I'm worried that that might have got lost. So if you want a bit of fun, just here's a little suggestion. See what you think of this. You replace qualifying with miniature races as they have in some other forms of motor racing. You know, you have a 10-lap sprint race, celebrity pulls names out of the hats and have a jumbled up grid on the Friday. Have a second race with the grid reversed on the Saturday. And put all the points together. If there's a tie, the fastest lap gets the nod. And, you know, something great to watch on Friday and Saturday, masses to talk about in the press. And for sure, you'd get a jumbled up grid. What would be so nice is that drivers would have to overtake, you know, to get the good position on the Sunday. But just a bit of fun. Let's hope that the second half of the season works out very well. You never know.

Q. Why didn't you want to stage the first half of the qualifying on Friday afternoon? You could have upgraded the Friday, which is still pretty meaningless for Friday.

PS:

As I recall, the three of us at the back did want to retain the Friday. You better ask the others.

DR: No, I don't remember being asked one way or the other about that particular point. I think the fundamental point, however, is -- we're playing around with qualifying here, but Tony made the reference to the whole notion of the way it was structured in the first instance was to create, you know, a sort of not an artificial way as you do in other sports but to create a set of circumstances where there would be a grid on Sunday that was sort of different each race. What we put in the proposal that is going forward now for the latter part of this year will produce the fastest drivers at the front of the grid and will be repetitious time after time, in my opinion. It will produce, might produce interest in qualifying, I question that because I don't think it will be very easy to televise but it will certainly produce duller racing as a result of it.

RD: No, nothing to add. I think that just to restate something I said earlier, which is don't put the teams as the villains in this process. They're not. We are under constant pressure for change. And we have remarkably little voice in some of the change that takes place.

Q. To Eddie and Tony, much is made at the start of this season that Jordan and Jaguar would run with exactly the same engine. But rumors over the last few races that Jordan's engine can't run in the same configuration in terms of powers and revs because of reliability. Can you just clarify what the situation is, please?

TP:

Sure, Eddie does get the same engine as us. The contract allows for a significant upgrade mid season, which will happen. There's small variations between the engine, but on the whole, up to this race actually there hasn't been a time when I can honestly say, you know, we could have picked the engine number out of a hat and, you know, distributed them that way. This race we've got an upgrade that we're trying with MARC, which we've just built one engine and see how it goes. There's always a risk when you try an engine for a first time. But we're trying to as much as practically possible keep the engines on par.

Q. Mr. Purnell, two questions. The first question is: Do you think your performance has changed after Ford and Jaguar fired Niki Lauda two years ago? The second question is, how disappointed is it to be if you say that you have the similar engines like the Jordan team if the Jordan team is in front of you?

EJ:

Oh, I love that. (Laughter)

TP: First of all, the performance of the team, we're operating on a huge amount less money. Just about everything the technical department do is an improvement. We just have to be very, very prudent on it. And I think that the progress of the car to, you know, to produce something that can even touch the McLarens, who are undoubtedly operating on double the money that we have, I think it's outstanding. So I'm actually proud of what everybody's done over the last 18 months at Jaguar. They've done a good job. As far as the challenge of Jordan, it's very healthy. We've got to -- the Jaguar team has got to beat the Jordan team; and I'm sure Eddie's mindset is that the Jordan team has to beat the Jaguar team. If you've got the same motor, more or less, it's easy for people to judge.

Q. Eddie, he said more or less the same engine. What are your views on the engine thing this weekend?

EJ:

I have nothing to add. I mean, it's very clear. Ford have promised us quality, and I'm sure Cosworth and Tony, like what he said, does it.

TP: I think the Cosworth guys have done a good job this year. The engine is pretty reliable, and they've made some good steps with it and good show.

Q. At a time when you're trying to sell the sport here and in Canada, how do you all feel about 114,000 people leaving a circuit and millions more turning off the television sets only to find out the next day that the result has been changed? Is there a more satisfactory way of doing it?

EJ:

It was great. (Laughter) It was great.

RD: I think, fortunately, it doesn't happen that often.

EJ: And he says the same, but he won't say it. And he's a liar as well because he says it was great. (Laughter)

PS: And I just wish they disqualified two more.

EJ: What a result.

RD: It is part of Grand Prix racing. I've been on the opposite side of the fence so many times of, you know, these small infringements, most of which is certainly not performance enhancing and most of them relate to oversized by a technical staff. And, of course, the most famous of which was when one technical director stood in front of the world and acknowledged that his car didn't comply and that was subsequently reversed on the basis of a whole charade that took place post that event and cost me a Constructors Championship. That is motor racing, and it's going to happen from time to time. It's so infrequent, but teams don't normally go out and breach those sorts of regulations and there has to be a price paid and unfortunately the team suffers the points loss. And the media and the viewers suffer the consequences of information changing after a period of time. But there are things that happen much longer, athletics is, I suppose, a good example where the drugs issue in athletics can take months, sometimes a year or more before you really know what the outcome of a ruling is. So we're not unique in our sport, having a result change after a period of time. But we do try and minimize it.