The Weekly Grapevine

Flavio in the spotlight

One man much in the news of late - and, refreshingly, for matters related to Formula One, not his private life - is Flavio Briatore.

The Italian, not content with being seen as main mover and shaker behind the 'peace deal', has fuelled speculation about Fernando Alonso's 2007 replacement, and sounded off over the potential 'advantage' to be gained by Bridgestone's existing partners over former Michelin users when the French company departs Formula One 11 races hence.

Plus, of course, Briatore has been the most vocal Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association delegate whenever the issue of cost-saving - often driven by himself - has arisen, and was a prime mover behind the Maranello (engine-freeze) Agreement.

He knows a thing or two about marketing: suggesting that Michael Schumacher or Kimi Raikkonen are on the Alonso replacement list ensures plenty of black ink mentions of 'Renault' in publications around the world, and, forget not, the company is in F1 primarily to sell cars.

Having the brand bandied about certainly does its strategies no harm at all, and when the ink comes free, so much the better, particularly given that Renault is the least profitable of the five major motor companies presently in Formula One.

Then, to keep Giancarlo Fisichella in the frame - despite the Italian winning just two Grands Prix during his latest Renault tenure to date versus the ten victories scored by Alonso in the same period - is a sign of man-management at its best: 'Fisico' requires kid-glove handling to give his best, and to rough-ride him, as Briatore is reputed to have once done with Alex Wurz and others, would be to unsettle him at a critical stage in Renault's title defense.

Finally, to draw Lewis Hamilton into the driver frame is a double-edged sword of the sharpest kind.

Briatore has Finland's latest Flyer, Heikki Kovalainen, under team and management contracts, so the chances of motorsport's brightest black hope, who rather incidentally happens to have a long-term McLaren contract tucked snugly into his pocket, making it into Formula One with the French outfit are probably no better than the square root of zero.

Flavio Briatore © LAT

But, again, merely mentioning Fleet Street's newest darling guaranteed ink of the best kind all whilst severely aggravating Ron Dennis - who, of course, snatched Alonso, Briatore's personally contracted champion at that, away from under the Italian's aristocratic nose.

All good fun, then, but linked to some rather serious marketing tactics, the formulation of which have long been a specialty of the man who initially studied land surveying ahead of moving into the restaurant, then rag, trades before perchance moving into F1.

Briatore's concerns about a form of Bridgestone 'advantage' come 2007 are well-founded, if not well-grounded.

True, Ferrari and Midland, the Japanese company's most long-standing partners, and relative newcomers to the brand Williams, Toyota and Super Aguri, can be expected to gain through their loyalty, but any such advantage will have come through market forces and management decisions taken in Michelin's headquarters in Clermont-Ferrand and not in the FIA's corridors at 8, place de la Concorde, 75008 Paris.

Michelin chose, totally voluntarily at that, to exit the sport a year ahead of the single-tyre rule, and, given that the team has benefited substantially from its deep-rooted relationship with Michelin, it borders on the churlish to call for rule changes purely as a result of the withdrawal of a technical partner. A major one, to be sure, but still a technical partner.

Have teams called for wholesale changes to the engine regulations after their engine partners (e.g. Renault) withdrew from the sport?

Yes, Toyota has battled to come to grips, in both the literal and figurative senses, with the transition to Bridgestone after four years spent on Michelins, but, remember, Williams, who spearheaded Michelin's re-entry into Formula One way back in 2001, had little problem amassing fastest lap - in torrid Bahrain, at that - in their first race back on Bridgestones.

Surely a championship-winning team can do same in time, if not at their first race?

Then, his suggestion that the regulations be changed to enable Bridgestone to introduce slick tyres for 2007 may strike a chord with purists, but the very notion is so impractical as to be absolutely unjustifiable.

For starters, teams, already in the throes of designing their 2007 cars - for the last year under the present regulations - would need to totally re-engineer their suspensions, whilst Bridgestone would have less than six months in which to design, engineer, manufacture and test tyre concepts before going into full scale production to supply 22 cars every fortnight. And that in the knowledge that the 2008-onwards contract, for a totally revised tyre design at that, could well end up elsewhere.

Technically, practically and financially unworkable at short notice, to say the least.

Giancarlo Fisichella (Renault) © LAT

As regards Briatore's calls for cost-cutting, are these driven by a genuine desire to save the sport, or a desire to keep his operation at the sharp end despite the pending loss of Mild Seven, who have, according to estimates, pumped upwards of $60m into the team this year, but are known to be planning their exit strategy?

Running daring livery in Spain - Mild Seven logos on both Renaults a fortnight ago technically broke European Union laws, for whilst the laws are under appeal by Spain, they presently are very much on the statute books - seems to have been a last-gasp attempt by the tobacco brand to make hay in the Spanish sun, and a Mild Seven representative recently admitted "We're gone for next year".

So, will Renault manage to find a title replacement of similar input and synergy? Unlikely, particularly given the team's blue/yellow colours, and their best alternative would appear to attract a string of smaller sponsors.

The problem, though, is that Renault already calls upon no less than 25 secondary, non-technical sponsors who, in total, contribute less than Mild Seven's spend.

Imagine, thus, a Renault with 50 minor sponsors.

On reflection, then, calling for the sport to make mass savings would be the smarter route, particularly as Ferrari and McLaren and Williams have major long-term deals in place, and Williams is said to have all but signed a title deal with Philips Electronics.

To be fair to Briatore, though, he has long campaigned for reductions in technology on the basis that exotic transmission gears don't add to the spectacle whilst considerably pushing up costs, so his stance, unlike Ferrari's desperate need to rein in spending, no doubt comes from the heart, albeit one beating slightly quicker than in the days when long-term Mild Seven funding was assured.

Briatore is correct, too, when he said earlier this week that, "We talk, and talk, but the 2008 rules are already done. They can only be changed with unanimous agreement, and people don't seem to realize that. We have one month to sort out the technical situation."

Unlike one or two team principals who, in Spain, seemed unaware that any changes to the 2008-onwards Sporting Regulations which impact upon the design of the car require unanimous agreement after 1 July (and majority vote before that date), Briatore has grasped the need for speed in sorting the regulations, and been somewhat vocal about the matter.

Whether, though, he will be able to persuade his peers to take advantage of the 37 or so days remaining for this regulatory 'amnesty' is open to conjecture.

Whilst he would appear to have rightly gained the respect of his peers, Briatore is still viewed very much as an outsider by those through whose veins course rocket fuel of the highest octane.

That doubts would appear to exist in his mind as to whether to renew his contract or embark on some other pursuit - such as running his rather extravagantly named Billionaire Night Club in Sardinia or spending increasingly more time on his game ranch in Kenya - hardly helps his acceptance by team principals.

That, though, could all change should Renault win races and championships on the same Bridgestone tyres used by Ferrari in 2004...

The long walk towards F1 peace

So, at last CVC Capital Partners and the chief executive officer of its Formula One division, Bernie Ecclestone, have signed the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between the five Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association members - BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Renault and Toyota - in the week leading up to the Spanish Grand Prix.

But, is real peace any closer?

Bernie Ecclestone © XPB/LAT

Setting aside all doubts over the fidelity of the latest document (if the Concorde Agreement is to be a contract as binding as 'marriage', then the MoU is no more than an engagement ring) and focusing upon practicalities, then the road to peace is no more than one-third traveled.

For starters, CVC still needs to divest itself, as prescribed by the EU Commission, of Dorna, its MotoGP subsidiary - and that will hardly be the work of a moment unless CVC, which, of course, has obligations towards its fund participants, is prepared to accept bargain basement offers for what mutated into an extremely lucrative operation after Ecclestone rid himself of the company in the late eighties.

Then, the MoU needs to be transformed by an army of lawyers from what is fundamentally a ceasefire agreement into a commercial manifesto, one which covers in minute detail every possible scenario - or, failing that, a mechanism to resolve the inevitable disputes inherent in any multi-billion dollar agreement - to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. And, the term 'stakeholders' covers entities from family trusts through fund participants to team owners and banks to hospitality and advertising companies.

Any slippage along the way, and peace goes right out the window...

Then, once the commercial agreement has been agreed - to which the FIA may not, in terms of its EU charter, be a party - the seriously hard work begins: the melding of the commercial agreement, the sporting regulations and the technical regulations into a composite document governing totally transparently all aspects of this multi-faceted sport.

That document could be called the 'Concorde Agreement', but, as stressed on numerous occasions in these pages, the sporting and technical regulations make no reference to Concorde.

Now, consider the disputes presently surrounding the post-2008 sporting and technical regulations, and even total, unanimous agreement on a commercial agreement is no guarantee of peace, for no such state can exist without total acceptance of the remaining two components.

Assume, though, that should the fullness of time bring the governing body, the commercial rights' holder (CVC/Ecclestone) and all twelve teams into total agreement in all three areas, then still no guarantees for peace exist, for the three would have to be crafted into one document.

Given that the sporting regulations and technical regulations total a combined 200 A4 pages, and the commercial agreement is estimated to run to at least that, then 400-odd pages need be collated into a single document legally binding the teams, the commercial rights' holder and the governing body for the good of the sport.

Now, presume that all is said and done as outlined. Will peace reign? Not according to sources, who suggest that the European Union will be rather eager to ensure that said document contains no restrictive clauses, and, as we know, Brussels moves awfully slowly at the best of times.

Peace, it seems, is unlikely to be brokered before the new era kicks in. But, then, Formula One has never led a peaceful, harmonious existence. It simply is not in the sport's nature.