Nigel Roebuck: Fifth Column

On it goes. Hardly a day passes without some new snippet about Fernando Alonso, and the plans for his future. 'Alonso seen in Milton Keynes', ran one story last week, the implication being that, while he may have been there to top up his tan, a greater likelihood was that he was visiting Red Bull. Then there was a quote from Flavio Briatore, to the effect that Fernando was '60 per cent sure' to sign for Renault.

Given that Toyota has taken the wise step of replacing Ralf Schumacher with Timo Glock, Renault and Red Bull seem to be the extent of Alonso's options for 2008. Friends in Italy assure me that he has an offer to join Kimi Raikkonen at Ferrari in '09, that this is the reason for his difficulties at present: what he seeks is a one-year deal. Renault is demanding a three-year commitment, while Red Bull, it is said, might be prepared to accept an agreement for 2008 only.

There will, of course, be other worries swirling around Fernando's mind at the moment. When he announced his decision to leave Renault for McLaren (a year ahead of his actual departure), he insisted - like they all do - that it was not a matter of money. No, what he was looking for, he said - like they all do - was a new challenge.

Bit thin, in itself. Fernando had, after all, recently won his first world championship, and as he went on to a second, in '06, he didn't look like a man in need of a 'new challenge'. And, thinking back, one remembered a couple of other reasons he had given for leaving Renault. One, he didn't feel his efforts had been sufficiently appreciated by the hierarchy (which rings very true now, in light of his subsequent behaviour at McLaren); two, he wasn't confident that Renault had a long-term commitment to F1.

On the last point, Alonso couldn't be blamed, for at that time the Regie was equivocal about its future in racing. Early in 2006 came a firm undertaking to remain in F1 'at least until 2012', but that came a little late for Fernando.

In addition to his wish to sign only a one-year contract, Alonso is inevitably waiting, too, to see how Renault's problems with the World Motor Sport Council are resolved. On the face of it, the charges facing the team - should they be proven - are considerably weightier than those brought against McLaren in the recent past.

At the time of the WMSC's hearing, regarding the transfer of information from Ferrari's Nigel Stepney to McLaren's Mike Coughlan, no absolute proof was produced that any technology from the one had been incorporated into the design of the other - essentially, the gist of the findings was that McLaren must have benefited from simply having sight of what Ferrari was up to, because, well, because it just must have done, right? And that was enough to get the team kicked out of the 2007 constructors' championship - and to incur a fine of $100,000,000.

When engineer Phil Mackereth left McLaren for Renault, nearly two years ago, he took with him a considerable quantity of material, including drawings covering the entire blueprint of the 2006 and '07 cars. This is acknowledged by Renault - indeed, no fewer than 18 witness statements, from company employees, admit to the viewing of McLaren technical information on Renault computers - but it is denied that it played any part in the design of Renault cars.

So now we await the outcome of the case, to be heard in Paris a week today (December 6). Having punished McLaren to such a draconian degree, the FIA set something of a precedent in a situation which - presumably - it expected never to come up again. Should Renault be found similarly culpable - or perhaps more so - the governing body must inevitably find itself in a tricky situation.

When the McLaren fine was first announced, even those of us well accustomed to the ludicrous monies of F1 were shocked. A hundred million dollars - as a fine? It seemed tacky, in a footballers' wives sort of way - a message to the outside world that F1 was so awash with cash that even its fines were from the stratosphere.

Had it been Super Aguri or Jordan/Midland/Spyker/ whatever it's called this week, payment of that sort would have been utterly out of the question, so is there to be some sort of 'sliding-scale' arrangement, in which teams are penalised according to their means? McLaren, as we know, is extremely well-funded, able to bear - albeit with some pain - a loss of this kind, as, one imagines, would be Ferrari in the same situation.

Renault, though, has nothing like the budget of these two, and one wonders, in the event of the company's being required to stump up $100,000,000, what would be the Regie's response? One or two folk to whom I've spoken suggest that it just might pull the plug.

While I'm aware that both McLaren and Ferrari are involved in the manufacture of road cars, the core business of both companies is racing, as Ron Dennis has said. But if a company's core business is road cars, as with Toyota, BMW, Mercedes, Honda et al, and racing merely an optional adjunct, how different will be its response to a situation such as that potentially facing Renault? More factors have to be taken into account here, after all.

I remember, in the early 1980s, a lot of mumbling from militant trades unionists within Renault about money being 'wasted' on motor racing, about how much Alain Prost was being paid. And in 1985, when the company was not doing well and a lot of employees were laid off, it was decided that F1 was an economy that could readily be made. Thereafter, Renault continued to manufacture engines, for such as Lotus, but the team bearing its name was gone, and drivers Derek Warwick and Patrick Tambay were on the street.

By definition, therefore, the involvement in F1 of major manufacturers is different from that of people like Frank Williams, for whom racing is life. "They'll disappear when it suits them," said Bernie Ecclestone a couple of years ago. "They always have and they always will - so don't be surprised when it happens."

Now, on the heels of the Ferrari/McLaren saga, Renault faces the World Motor Sport Council, and in punishing McLaren so severely the governing body may have made something of a rod for its own back, in the sense that a tariff has been set. It's not that - should it be found guilty - Renault (the company) can't afford a monumental fine; more that elements within the Regie may look upon it as money which might have been better spent elsewhere. And it's just possible, too, that the directors of BMW, Toyota and so on might take note.

At the time of the McLaren hearing, Jackie Stewart said he thought it incomprehensible that grand prix racing was choosing to wash its dirty linen in public, that this 'exchange of information' had been going on since Job was a lad. And in an interview last week, Adrian Newey, commenting on the 'Spygate' saga, more or less echoed his words.

"My personal opinion," said Adrian, "is that the whole thing has become overhyped. Such things have always gone on in the industry - and will always continue to do so. The fact is that there have been far bigger breaches of personnel taking info with them from one team to another in the past which have gone undetected, or without penalty..."

I used to be able to smoke in pubs, but now they fine you for it, so I've given up. Going to pubs, I mean.