“Each team has got the Concorde Agreement, at least from a financial side, and, if teams do not accept it, they don't need to sign it. It's as easy as that,” he pointed out, “And, if they sign it, they have to accept it. There's nothing to complain of from this side.
“I think, first of all, the teams should try to come down with the costs. It's easy to say 'yes, we should get more money' but, give the engineers one million and they ask for two, give them four million and they ask for eight million. It's something about the discipline within the teams and, as I mentioned before, we decide by ourselves to spend the money for nothing, as I explained with the testing. If the teams get more money, they go testing even more and, in my opinion, that's wrong.”
Both Tost and Claire Williams
admitted that, while the problem of the teams remaining competitive on and off the track existed, there was unlikely to be a successful resolution to the debate, leaving Boullier to suggest that there had to be tighter restrictions on spending, especially if the teams were given access to a bigger share of the revenue.
“I share the view of the other team principals that we may have missed an opportunity to just sit down with the commercial rights holder and re-negotiate something which could have been more in favour of the teams,” he conceded, “We failed. We couldn't sit down together and clearly we missed the opportunity by not taking the chance to conclude the process.
“As Franz said, the more money you get, the more money we will spend if you don't have any safeguards around you. Your engineers will always try to find out the best way to be competitive and this is why we are paying them. But, at the same time, the more open the regulations are, the more we will spend money and waste money.”