Q & A with Frank Williams

So far, the most publicly outspoken critic of the two teams' plans to run customer cars has been Spyker team principal Colin Kolles, who has been unhappy about the situation for several months now.

But behind the scenes, he has found a close ally in Frank Williams. And in team principals' meetings, Williams has made it clear how deeply unhappy he is about the situation and the move towards customer cars in F1.

So far, Williams has pretty much keep quiet in public about the matter, hoping that the situation would be resolved behind the scenes.

However, with no solution in sight, Williams has spoken to autosport.com about his feelings on the Super Aguri and Toro Rosso situation, and why he fears the days of independent teams could be numbered.

Q. Colin Kolles has said that both yourselves and Spyker are looking at the customer car threat. His view is that Super Aguri and Toro Rosso are not constructors, and therefore not eligible for points under the Concorde Agreement. Is that what you see as well?

Frank Williams: There are two issues. Issue one is there are two groups, under the 2007 Concorde (Toro Rosso and Super Aguri) and then there are Max's new proposals for B-teams.

Dealing with the first matter first, we understand that Aguri perhaps and Toro Rosso and Red Bull Racing overtly are saying one company, a third party, owns the IP rights and therefore we (Red Bull and Toro Rosso) can share them.

But the definition of a constructor in the way we read in English is black and white. It is in the singular. It's expressed in the singular with absolute clarity: 'a constructor is a person or entity who owns...' All singular. It's emphatic. There's no way round it.

Q. Isn't there a problem though that Max Mosley has never seen the rules as simply black and white, they are always interpretive?

FW: It's not for Max to interpret them. It's a Concorde Agreement matter. At the end of the day it will be interpreted by a court in Lausanne. That is where we are heading for.

Q. If we turn up in Melbourne and no deal has been sorted, is the first step a protest?

FW: I would say yes, once we are sure of our facts. But we haven't seen these cars.

Q. But we know that the Super Aguri will be a version of last year's Honda, and the Toro Rosso will be virtually the same as Adrian Newey's RB3?

FW: Sure. Although to their credit they are overt about it.

Q. Won't there be a problem though in that those cars could be out there scoring points, and the arbitration action could take years?

FW: It won't take years. It might take a year, and it might get messy. But maybe Max should get more forceful then. He did say that he was not involved in it because it's a Concorde Agreement matter. But there are three parties that have signed the Concorde Agreement and he is one of them.

Q. What do you want to happen? Do you want them disqualified, withdrawn from the races or them not to score championship points?

FW: No championship points and money withdrawn. If they give us a whipping on the track then there is no way we deserve it, no matter what they have done. But on the commercial front that is the reality.

Q. But what about the talk of sharing all the television money between the 12 teams from 2008?

FW: No. We'd never accept that. That's not the basis on which we signed up for 2008. The independent teams cannot survive without a level playing field on cost and a fair income. Chassis sharing without revenue consequences will kill the independents

Q. Does this view not fly in the face of what was being said a few years ago that the independent teams were important for the future of F1?

FW: Absolutely. Max was the champion of the independents six months ago. Now he seems to have the opposite view.

Q. You mentioned recently that you have not signed any document yet that confirms customer cars for 2008. Can you clarify that please?

FW: Well, the Concorde Agreement for 2008 is not in place yet. And let's put it this way, no team has been served notice by Max that: 'Forget the Constructors' Championship as we know it, it will be quite different from now on.' He never said it. I called on the day after it was signed with Bernie (Ecclestone) in November last year and it was all congratulations. There was no mention it might be different.

Q. Do you fear that the judges dealing with the arbitration will not take this matter seriously because it involves sport?

FW: It's a highly legal matter - a deal with Concorde is a concord. It's a contract.

Q. And what about the old arbitration action from 2003. Is that still ongoing?

FW: We never started that. We started the procedure but we never registered with an arbitrator.

Q. Are you aware of any meetings planned soon between the four teams involved, or is this something Bernie has to resolve?

FW: Bernie has already made a proposal - but I don't want to say what it was. And on the 2008 Concorde Agreement, the issue there is that as things stand the rules are still in principle the same, unless there is a vote to change them. Max may try and force it through - but then there might occur the words 'misrepresentation of facts' because we were never told, and neither were most people, that the Constructors' Championship has been significantly altered.

We're not in any way attacking David Richards with whom we have truly excellent relations; he's never done anything to hurt Williams. But if you're a constructor it means you build your own racing cars - as has been the case for decades in F1. And if you buy one, ergo you're just not a constructor.

Q. But this is already happening. Two teams are already trying to run customer cars. Do you want the rules to change? Or what about the idea of being a customer for two years, building up your resources, and then becoming a constructor?

FW: You have jumped the gun. The rules say, as they are presently written and they have not yet been changed in the 2008 Concorde Agreement, that you must make your own car. And if you are overt, and you go out and buy it from McLaren then you are not a constructor. So how do you score points in the championship?

You know the championship is very dear to constructors, very important. He's got to tell us the rules are going to change.

Q. But is there not a risk that the rug could be pulled from under your feet, and that things could be put in place without your approval because you signed the Concorde Agreement?

FW: We signed with Bernie and with Max to join their championship to which there would be nothing other than, I think our text says, 'a simple tidying up of the rules'. A number of other teams have signed almost identical words. And there is a problem - it's not just little Williams. There are quite a few who have said it - Ron said, if a B-team is allowed we'll sell to them, no question - but as a question of principle I'm absolutely 100 per cent against it.

Q. There has been some suggestion of a pooling of the television rights money between Williams, Spyker, Super Aguri and Toro Rosso. Would you be open to that, or are you adamant about customer teams not scoring points?

FW: Don't score points, don't get the money. Why should David (Richards) come in with an investment of about £20 million quid while every other single team have worked their bollocks off to pay their bills? We've made Formula One without him. What commitment has David shown by buying his car? He can stop again in two years.

Q. But there doesn't seem to be an answer does there apart from a messy legal action?

FW: There isn't a problem. Because in legal terms, Bernie's lawyer says if they can't reach agreement and they've gone this far, then you operate by default to what you were doing last year. That's how it will run if we can't reach agreement. That is how it will work. By default.

Q. And what about an injunction in Melbourne to prevent the teams racing?

FW: We haven't got that far yet.

Q. Is it just yourselves and Spyker working on the legal action?

FW: Certainly on the Honda/Aguri and Red Bull matter. We have some verbal backing from other teams but they will not get directly involved.