Marussia saga has become a timebomb

With all the claims, counter-claims, accusations, denials and statements floating about, Formula 1's 2015 entry procedure has - two months after the closing date and with exactly four weeks to go before the start of the season-opening Australian Grand Prix - descended into absolute farce, with none being any the wiser whether the grid will comprise 18, 20 or 22 cars as Marussia (Manor) continues to press its case.

Essentially the matter is simple: on the one hand there is an entity ('team' would be a misnomer, for it consists of a handful of personnel working on fundamentally 2014 cars in barebones, by F1 standards, facilities and with minimal equipment) fighting for its very survival; on the other it is up against F1's convoluted governance process.

As always in this complex business financial issues lie at the core. Compounding the situation is the vexing question of who the rightful owner of around $45million (£30million) is: the original team's administrators/creditors, F1's beneficiary teams, F1's commercial rights holder, or the entity itself, now entered under a different name to what went before.

It looked like game over for both Caterham and Marussia after Sochi © LAT

As if that were not enough, regardless of the specific outcome - and this thorny issue will not simply disappear in a puff of exhaust smoke during upcoming months - the (interim?) verdict handed down by the powers-that-be has already resulted in the demise of another team, namely Caterham.

In brief, when Marussia and Caterham plunged into administration in October last year after scoring but two points between them (by Marussia in Monaco that year) in the preceding four-and-a-bit seasons while racing under four different team names, it all seemed simple: teams in liquidation are not viewed as fit and proper entrants, and therefore excluded from participation.

However, liquidation is the final step after administration, and at that stage neither was (yet) wound-up.

'Participation' includes whatever share of F1's revenues may be due for results posted, and thus the sport's remaining nine teams believed they were due the money by a process to be decided after three beleaguered outfits (Lotus, Force India, Sauber) pleaded publicly to be granted Marussia's slice to prevent them sharing the same fate. That is how it had been in the past; however, this logic overlooks four key factors:

1) Marussia saw administration looming, and entered the 2015 championship under its former entrant name, Manor Grand Prix, and with a change of chassis name to Manor prior to entering administration. However, it covered the eventuality of not racing by making payment of the base entry fee ($500k) conditional upon it racing - with the points' premium ($10k) to follow.

2) F1's covenants allegedly permit teams to miss three races per season due to 'force majeure' (a term that has become increasingly elastic over the years), and both went into administration three races from the end of 2014. Thus they may be permitted to miss the first three races of 2015 without sporting penalty.

3) Only minor, mainly safety-related, changes differentiate the 2014 and '15 regulations, with the year-on-year performance differentials said to be minimal save for four clauses. Thus, with minor modifications (and the $45m), 'Manor' could, with exemptions, take to the grid with modified 2014 cars.

Marussia/Manor's F1 stint started as Virgin in 2010 © XPB

4) The sport's governing body, the FIA, is desperate maintain the integrity of the grid in what is, after all, the FIA Formula 1 World Championship and merely promoted by Formula One Management, a company ultimately controlled by venture fund CVC Capital Partners.

These factors, combined with an inequitable (and, frankly, indefensible) governance procedure not only as clear as murky mud but that permits major teams to vote on the fate of disenfranchised operations, conspired to deliver the current controversy - at a time when the EU Commission is closely examining F1's contracts.

The main point, whether 2014 cars may be raced in 2015, goes back to early December, when the strategy group, and subsequently the Formula 1 Commission, were asked to consider a request by Marussia/Manor - allegedly proposed by Ron Dennis of McLaren - that 2014 cars be permitted in 2015 (albeit with certain regulatory exemptions) in order to preserve grid numbers.

As the item was not formally tabled, it was discussed but a decision deferred to the next strategy group meeting, scheduled for February 6 in Paris. Although administration is defined as the step prior to liquidation, Marussia/Manor cleverly hedged its bets by exiting administration on February 4, instead entering into a Company Voluntary Arrangement specifically to circumvent this obstacle. Caterham did not enter into CVA, and its assets are up for auction.

But the crux of the matter is that last week the strategy group was not asked to vote specifically on Marussia/Manor's case, but rather on the concept of adapted 2014 cars participating in 2015 subject to certain exemptions from the prevailing regulations.

For the record these exemptions, stated by Graeme Lowdon to have been outlined by the FIA in a letter to the two affected teams in January 2015, are: Articles 3.7.9, 15.4.3, 15.4.4 and 16.2 of the 2015 technical regulations.

Lowdon has strived hard to get Marussia back on the grid © XPB

However, these exemptions are tantamount to regulation change, and as such require unanimous agreement from the F1 commission - the next regulatory step after the strategy group, and precursor to ratification by the FIA World Motor Sport Council - as the proposal had passed the June 30 (February 28 from 2015 onwards) cut-off for a 70 per cent majority vote.

Although the strategy group operates on a simple majority basis - FIA/FOM have six votes each and each of six teams has one apiece, with 10 votes sufficient to carry any motion - it was decided that, due to the gravity of the matter, unanimity would be required before escalating the proposal to the F1 commission.

Why (and by whom) this unusual decision was taken remains unclear, but regardless it is doubtful whether it ultimately affected the outcome given the vested interested at play. Sources advise that the FIA was pro the exemption, as were Ferrari and Mercedes - the latter perhaps to negate the possibility of having to run third cars should grid numbers drop - with all others anti.

With the team votes made up of 'constructors' championship bonus (CCB)' teams Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari, plus Mercedes (as a major manufacturer), Williams (via its heritage) and Force India (highest-placed team non-strategy group team in the prior year's championship, a position previously held by Lotus), there are myriad reasons for their positions, not least being that cashflow-challenged Force India would stand to gain a substantial portion of the additional revenues.

FOM, too, is said to have been anti, being desperate to introduce customer cars (or three-car teams) by any means in order to reduce disbursements to teams, and each team fewer is one step closer to that objective. So, the numbers are clear: FOM plus four teams against (10 votes); Ferrari plus two teams (eight) - and simple majority wins the day.

Call the vote myopic if you like due to its overall effect on grid sizes; selfish if you will due to its devastating effect on Marussia/Manor stakeholders and creditors, but, as McLaren's Jonathan Neale so succinctly put it during in an interview, "in this business you eat what you kill", and the structure of F1 has long made it the most cannibalistic of sports.

Marussia insists its 2014 car would only be a stopgap © LAT

Simply put, the strategy group was, on principle, voting for possible survival of one team versus almost certain demise of three others, and, to hijack a medical phrase, surgeons cannot be blamed for blood on their hands. Yes, Marussia/Manor has every reason to feel aggrieved about the decision, but due process (as it exists) was followed and voted on. Does that scupper Marussia/Manor? Not yet...

One vital factor was overlooked in the mudslinging, and that is that in December last year the FIA agreed to consider the 2014-car proposal subject to technical compliance (with exemptions where granted) but further insisted upon sustainable business plans being lodged by the applicants - specifically in order to avoid the 'will they, won't they?' speculation that damaged F1 during USF1's dying days in 2010.

Lowdon disputes this requirement but sources are adamant this was insisted upon during discussions, and hence the reference by Bob Fernley, Force India's deputy team principal, who put out a statement to this effect after the latest strategy group meeting.

Where to now for Marussia/Manor? As Fernley said in a follow-up interview, the team should reapply, using due process and supporting documentation to sway any vote. However, just how often should this process be permitted? Since when does 'no' simply mean 'try again by other means', particularly with the new season looming?

The other option is for Marussia/Manor to build fully compliant 2015 cars, missing up to three races if need be. After all, in a statement released by Manor GP, the team stated it "is pressing on with the development of its 2015 car to ensure it can supersede the 2014 car as soon as possible".

But, the big question is whether F1's processes permit an arbitrary change of team and chassis name (regardless of circumstances) - upon which the F1 commission may rule - and whether that qualifies the team for its share of much-needed revenues. If not, does the trio of beleaguered teams gain?

Such decisions ultimately lie in the gift of the commercial rights holder, and the clock is ticking, as is the Marussia/Manor timebomb. For Caterham it has, though, exploded already.