Super Aguri - Midland are the only team saying no

[Kicking-back]

Bernie may have to bung Midland a few quid - they're the only team who're refusing to give permission for Super Aguri to run next year

[Marbot]

No surprise there,they're the only team likely to be beaten by Super Aguri.So you could be right K-b,Bernie will make it alright.

[Sodemo]

Midland certainly aren't endearing themselves to me of late. They had a public spat with NK in which Kolles said some appalling things, there was their questionable actions during the 2005 Indianapolis GP (which just compounded an already bad situation) and now this blatant petty bickering over Super Aguri.
For heavens sake, F1 needs more teams, and MF1 are going to block the only new one which looks like making the grid in 3 years since Toyota?

[Super Tourer]

Playing devils advocate, IF Super Aguri had got their entry in on time, they wouldn't have to trawl around the other teams begging favours.

Why should Midland back down, they are effectively the only 'real' independent team left in F1 and if SA do manage to wangle a 2005 BAR with a Honda engine they will be a threat to them.

As Bernie has often said, 'it's no pointing sitting at the poker table if you don't have any chips', SA are playing with the big boys now and shouldn't expect an easy ride just because they missed the deadline and are late with all their plans - it's not the other teams problem.

As KB says, maybe Bernie will smooth the path for them.

[kipper]

Whilst one can sympathise with Super Aguri's plight, the fact remains that if they had got their entry fee on time then this would be an issue. As it would appear likely that Super Aguri would beat MF1 next year then it would be difficult to criticise Colin Kolles for acting in an altruistic way when few other F1 teams have done so, eg. the amount of testing undertaken by Ferrari.

[Draven]

It was always likley that MF1 would have the objection, for all the reasons already stated, and also they have links to toyota and SA would be Hondas second team. I dont think that plays a big factor but I'm sure it's looked on by some as a happy side effect.

[chezza]

Originally Posted by Super Tourer

Playing devils advocate, IF Super Aguri had got their entry in on time, they wouldn't have to trawl around the other teams begging favours.

They did get it in on time, but had it rejected for various reasons. Thats why they are having to apply again.

[BootsOntheSide]

What were those reasons? I'm curious as to whether they are things which disappear simply because other teams agree to their presence?

[Super Tourer]

Originally Posted by chezza

They did get it in on time, but had it rejected for various reasons. Thats why they are having to apply again.

"Aguri Suzuki's team failed to make the original entry list to the 2006 season after not lodging their $48 million bond with the FIA in time."

www.autosport.com

[Gt_R]

First, it's SA's fault for not putting it right the first attempt.

Secondly, partly we can question why Midland refuse to agree... but no surprises..why should Midland help their direct rival take cash prizes off them?

But i think while it's bad for spectators to not able to see more cars, it is actually good for SA. If SA is serious about F1, they should spend the next year testing and working out the details of the teams. In it's current state, it's likely that SA will be a joke even if it gets on the grid in the opening race of 06.

[Louis B.]

Could I see SA's proposed livery before taking one side or the other?

[Swiss]

Ihear what people are saying about not getting entries in on time on failing to make the bond etc but its not the first time this has happened. Williams I seem to recall were the last to fall foul. Quite simply as has been said F1 needs more teams, so what if SA are a threat to MFI ( I know its MF1 but MFI is so much better ) thery'd get move tv coverage if they had cars in a real battle even at the back rather than just being lapped all the time ....

MFI should be magnanimous and sporting let them in and just get on with it, its for the greater good and what about the old adage competition improves the breed or something like,any am sure you get my gist ...

[luke]

It just goes to show how sad the situation is as we are missing a great team. Jordan.

[Kicking-back]

Can't be living in the past, luke.

[Marcel ten Caat]

Even though I agree that SA got themselves in this position it shows what the focus of MF1 is. They're thinking about the last spot and are afraid that a new team that enters (with old Arrows cars in the first races!?!?!) will beat them.

Not really ambitious if you ask.

[davyboy]

Does anyone know definitively why SA's entry was refused at the first attempt ?

[Kicking-back]

Yes

Super Tourer told us earlier in the thread

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...15#post1482315

[chillibowl]

someone mentioned in another thread that if the team is unable to compete in the opening race of the year the team will forfeit its $48 mill bond.

if this is true what has changed on the part of SA that they are willing to risk this. and if it not true, when will they even be able to begin competing.

currently we have no idea what stage of development they are in, or whether or not they have even begun undertaking the rather serious logistics involved with getting a team to all the venues. IMO, i would rather not see a team just there for the Euro portion of the season (or any small portion of it) as it would be a bad precidence. for me, this would devalue the sport as it would pave the way for others to enter second hand entries just to get brief (albiet significant) access to advertising/consumers.

if they are ready for the whole season let them in, but if not good for MF1 for protecting their interests.

[Sodemo]

I thought the FIA scrapped the $48 million bond anyway?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

Yes

Super Tourer told us earlier in the thread

http://tentenths.com/forum/showthrea...15#post1482315

I saw that on autosport.com as well... but I'm not so sure that's the real reason. I understand that SA always had access to the USD48M bond and that if wasn't lodged in time, they chose not to lodge it. There must have been some underlying reason why. Does anyone know what that is ? Is consent from the teams necessary regardless ? Could it be that the risk of failing to make the first race and therefore jeapordizing the bond was too high for Honda ? The answers to these questions are the true determinant of whether SA will be successful this time round.

[Super Tourer]

We don't really know to what extent Honda's support manifests itself with SA.

FWIW, I think Honda were 'panicked' into some sort of action over the media reaction in Japan to dropping Sato. The expedient action was to promise Honda engines to a team that would provide a seat for Sato. This sounds a great plan in theory, but of course actually creating a team in the timescale is a different matter.

As a side issue, I believe the whole 'situation' came about because Williams bluffed Honda into believing that Button's contract was not for sale - hence they signed Ruben's as Button's replacement, not Sato's - Honda believing he would continue alongside Ruben's in 2006.

I don't buy this 'Sato is not a given' at Honda, he is key to their home and other markets where they are in (let's face it) a fight to the death with Toyota over volume sales.

[davyboy]

You could be right, but I'm not altogether sure that Honda would go to such lengths to secure Sato a seat. Assuming they did underestimate the effect not having him in the fray in 2006 would be, an easier route would have been to put him somewhere like STR, buy Rubinho out of his contract or even have Rubinho and Sato share a race drive like Liuzi and Klien did... as 'Rubhino winds down to retirement'.

SA is an expensive long term move that I imagine Honda will use to their advantage in years to come by having twice the level of data to collect at every race, doubling their development potential and getting one over the other manufacturers. Grabbing one of the last team slots available, also precludes another manufacturer from having 4 cars [chassis and engine]... something which could be the key to success in the future... c.f. Red Bull.

I think that someone at Honda may have cited that the risk of loosing the $48M by fluffing at the first hurdle was too great so they've instead opted for 2007. Everything else regarding second applications etc... is a face saving shadow dance

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by davyboy

You could be right

When it comes to F1 business matters, a good general rule of thumb is - post by Super Tourer = fact.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Kicking-back

When it comes to F1 business matters, a good general rule of thumb is - post by Super Tourer = fact.

... and as Muddly used to say F1 spelt backwards is IF :-)

[Dixie Flatline]

Originally Posted by The Monster

I thought the FIA scrapped the $48 million bond anyway?

From what I can remember, I think that's from when the current Concorde Agreement expires.