The Weekly Grapevine

Friendship put to the test

One intriguing, but to date little-analysed, side-effect of the entire Max Mosley matter has been the relationship between the FIA president and Formula One's de facto ringmaster and the aristocratic former barrister's friend of over 40 years, Bernie Ecclestone.

Although it has never been recorded exactly when they met, the chances are pretty damn good that the latter's management of Formula Two star Jochen Rindt through to the sport's only posthumous champion's death at Monza in September 1970 brought him into contact with erstwhile F2 racer Mosley in about 1967.

Then, when Ecclestone purchased the Brabham team in 1972 their paths crossed again for Mosley was by then team principal of March, which, like the former team, was an independent constructor relying on the own-monocoque-Cosworth-Hewland model, invariably shod by Goodyear.

Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley sit on the pit wall at the 1977 French Grand Prix at Dijon © LAT

And the two were, of course, kindred spirits in that they were driven by a desire to make a profit from their endeavours, rather than merely 'go racing' ...

At end 1977, Mosley, disillusioned by his failure to set March on a sound financial footing, turned his considerable talents to motorsport administration, and found in Ecclestone, who had by then converted the Formula One Constructors Association into a formidable negotiating force, a willing collaborator.

By 1980 the former bike and car salesman and the suave barrister, son of Britain's pre- and post-war fascist leader Sir Oswald, were as thick as the proverbial thieves, and in January the following year they crafted the Concorde Agreement, after taking Formula One to the very brink in their determination to win the sport's commercial rights off the Federation Internationale du Sport Automobile, which then administered the sport on behalf of the FIA.

Mosley then (unsuccessfully) pursued his political ambitions with Britain's Conservative Party for four years, only to return to motorsport in 1986 - just in time to negotiate a second edition of Concorde, which, in turn contractually bound the sport's two parties - governing body and the teams' collective - for another five years.

The last bi-partite agreement kicked off in in 1992 - saliently a year sandwiched by Mosley's election as president of FISA and his rise to president of the FIA, which then absorbed FISA to evolve into the present world-wide motoring organisation which administers the sport, touring and mobility, and lobbies states and governments on matters such as crash testing, road safety and traffic legislation.

The F1 agreement lasted to 1997, by which time Ecclestone and Mosley had hatched a plot to lease the sport's commercial rights to the former Brabham owner (he sold the team at end-1987 to concentrate on FOCA), which is when a 10-year tri-partite deal - binding governing body, commercial rights holder and the teams - was inked.

This agreement hinged, of course, on the original 13-year deal the FIA and Ecclestone's group of companies (CRH) had entered into, an arrangement which quickly attracted the attention of European Union administrators, who in turn ordered an investigation into monopolistic practices in motorsport.

The net effect was that the agreement between the two parties was extended by 100 years whilst the EU commissioner demanded that the FIA relinquish all commercial rights to the categories it administers, which in turn were to be sold off to individual commercial rights holders.

The blame for this utterly ridiculous situation can be placed squarely, but certainly not fairly - for Mosley and Ecclestone could so easily have reduced the leasehold period - at the feet of bumbling Brussels bureaucrats.

Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone © LAT

Since then control of the rights has changed many times - with 75 percent of the commercial rights now being held by private equity house CVC Partners and Ecclestone's family trust the rest - and it was this agreement which sparked the interesting statements and comments made by both parties in the run-up to Tuesday's vote in Paris, and referred to in the opening paragraph of this column.

In a letter written on all (222) FIA club presidents on 16 May, Mosley wrote:

'We are in the middle of a renegotiation of the 100 year commercial agreement between the FIA and the Formula One Commercial Rights Holder.

'In effect, this agreement governs Formula One. The CRH originally asked us to accept changes to the agreement in order to reduce the CRH's liability to tax. These we can probably concede. But the CRH has also now asked for control over the Formula One regulations and the right to sell the business to anyone - in effect to take over Formula One completely. I do not believe the FIA should agree to this.'

In the same letter Mosley, at 68 years of age 11 years younger than his kindred spirit, goes on to accuse the CRH (to wit Ecclestone) of wishing to use a 'new Concorde Agreement (the old one expired at end-2007, and there is unlikely to be an new one despite what Mosley infers) as another way of exercising control over the sport'.

He added that 'I believe, therefore, that whatever the Extraordinary General assembly decides, it should not reward those who have deliberately set out to destabilise the FIA at such a crucial time in its history.' As this sentence constitutes the final line under a paragraph headed 'Negotiation', the implication is utterly clear ...

It took Ecclestone, the son of a Suffolk fishing trawler captain, exactly a week to respond. First he told journalists he was ready for a war if that was what Mosley really wanted, then followed up with a letter that was not particularly short, but certainly sharp, concise and pointed in content.

He refuted that the agreement had to be renegotiated or that the CRH intended wresting control of the sport before adding:

'We have no reason to undermine the FIA or its President, on the contrary we believe a strong FIA led by a respected President is good for all key constituents of Formula One: the fans, the teams, the sponsors and suppliers, the promoters, the media companies and us, the CRH'. (Note use of adjectives).

At the time many wrote this off as posturing between the greatest double act in recent sporting history, sparring between a duo who perfected over many years the script for good cop/bad cop routines. After all, they had jostled like this in public on many previous occasions and ultimately come off best, had they not, went the line in the paddock ...

Bernie Ecclestone reads a report from the Telegraph newspaper at the Monaco Grand Prix © XPB

But the nagging thought remained that this was getting too personal, too barbed, and that there was more to this than simple Tom and Jerrying.

Then Ecclestone ratcheted the pressure on Mosley by advising him (through the media) that it would be in his best interests to agree to a compromise deal which would see him depart from office in October - a year before his elected tenure was up.

When that failed to work, he told the media that if the General Assembly voted in favour of Mosley on June 3, he, Mosley, would be seeking re-election despite vowing to stand down in October 2009.

According to sources Mosley twice alluded to the 100-year agreement as part of his defence before the General Assembly: first by suggesting that the invasion of privacy which saw his recreational activities outed were an act of terrorism against him and the FIA, and that any renegotiation would cost the FIA upwards of 200,000 euros ($300 000/£150 000) in legal fees.

By implication, the only party with an interest in damaging the FIA would be one with a vested interest in the FIA, and who else - apart from the FIA itself - has a vested interest in the body but the CRH?

(Yes, ISC, the WRC CRH has a minor vested interest - as in an £8m loss posted in the latest financial year, but that is seriously small beer in comparison to the sums invested in F1 which run at hundreds of millions - and are even undervalued by a factor of twenty on that basis.)

So heavily did Mosley harp on the terrorism angle that the vote went overwhelmingly 103:55 in his favour, with but seven abstentions and four invalid papers. Enough said.

Exactly why, though, Mosley should have been so concerned about a 200,000 euro legal bill when the cost of calling the EGM in Paris cost at least a multiple of that remains a mystery, particularly as a condition of renegotiation could be that all legal costs be carried by the CRH.

But the mere fact that it was included in his statement to the Assembly speaks volumes - for Ecclestone, a member of the World Motor Sport Council, was not present in Paris, having elected to visit New York on business despite knowing for at least two months the date of the vote.

To then further compound the situation with talk of terrorism against the FIA without exonerating possible parties points to a further breakdown in relations between the FIA and the CRH, one which has likely been brewing under the surface for some time now.

Even after the vote Ecclestone was somewhat vitriolic towards the man to whom he owes much of his multi-billion pound wealth. For example, immediately after the verdict was announced he told a daily newspaper that Mosley would remain persona non grata in certain circles.

HRH Prince Feisal Al Hussein of Jordan and Max Mosley at the 2008 Jordan Rally © LAT

'There were many people who didn't want to speak to him before. I can't think they will want to speak to him now as a result of what has happened. Nothing has changed in that respect. Just because he gets a few clubs from Africa voting for him will not make the King of Spain want to shake his hand,' he said.

What caused the rift initially is unknown, although some believe there was no real bond between them, that it was all about the dollar and nothing more.

But the mere fact that Ecclestone is now an 'employee' of CVC - or more correctly, 75 percent employee and 25 percent entrepreneur - and not a free agent able to horse-trade with his old mate Max may have something to do with it, for he is now obliged to take orders from above, rather than act unilaterally as was his style for so many years.

He could, then, for example, extend favours and offer special deals about the paddock as he saw fit and without explanation; now, though, with CVC - which borrowed in excess of $2bn ($4bn) from Royal Bank of Scotland (which was recently forced into a rights issue to raise cash) to fund the purchase of its 75 percent share - labouring heavily under an interest bill said to amount to around $15m per single grand prix, every single cent counts.

Thus, despite the vote now being to all intents and purposes over, the matter between Max and Bernie seems set to run for many months - possibly even years, for the 100-year deal kicks in on 1 January 2010, meaning they have until then to renegotiate.

Mosley's present tenure ends in November 2009 - ie just one month before the 100-year deal commences. Could that be the reason why Ecclestone was adamant Mosley would stand for re-election should he win the vote of confidence, and that it was therefore imperative he stand down before his expired?