Friday press conference - Canadian GP - Pt.1.

Team principals: Ron Dennis (McLaren), Eddie Jordan (Jordan), David Richards (BAR), Paul Stoddart (Minardi), Frank Williams (WilliamsF1)

[NB. Messrs Dennis, Jordan, Richards and Williams are absent at the start of the conference]

Q:
Paul, you've issued a press release regarding the so-called 'fighting fund' and withdrawing your agreement to rules. It reveals a certain amount of frustration obviously. Can you tell us the background to it?

Paul Stoddart:
Sadly, as you can see by the absence of any other team principals, it looks as if I have been left to tell it as it is. Let me just say at the start of this, this is not something I either want to do, that I relish doing and I think is wholly wrong for Formula One but, unfortunately, certain team principals make statements, make commitments - indeed, contracts - that are not followed through.

I [have withdrawn] my support to the changes for next year - and I have to say that I didn't agree with them in the first place [as] they were changes that I conceded as an overall package of assistance to Formula One, for larger bodywork, larger advertising space for those teams lucky enough to have sponsors, or needs for more space for sponsors.

When it was clear that the so-called fighting fund that was so committed to back on 15 January was not going to occur, I felt that, in Minardi's interests, I had no choice but to withdraw my consent to the changes to the rules. That meant it was no longer unanimous which, of course, meant that no vote was taken by the World Council.

As I said at the beginning of this, it's not something I'm proud of, but there's a lot of background to this. I'm quite disappointed that I am on my own today because much has been discussed privately, which is where it all should have been discussed over the past five months, basically. We're now at the halfway mark of the season; just when is Jordan and Minardi to receive their funds from the so-called fighting fund, if not now? It's a bit like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. So I find myself on my own here today and, perhaps, I might take this opportunity to give a bit of background to the much-publicised 'fighting fund'.

On 15 January, in the morning meeting at Heathrow, it was a unanimous agreement made to the creation of a fund that would allow ten teams to remain in the Formula One championship for 2003. It seems we have a few arrivals...

[Messrs Dennis, Jordan, Richards and Williams arrive]

As I was saying, certain commitments were made on 15 January that were supported unanimously, in the morning meeting at least, by all the team principals present. Those commitments were much publicised and, indeed, recorded even in a letter from Ron and Frank to Max Mosley - the well-publicised letter which everybody is aware of.

Over the past few months, it's become clear that there are different objectives between certain team principals that wish to have the so-called 'fighting fund' extrapolated to many other areas of issues within Formula One that each individual person would like to see resolved. That period has not been terribly easy for Minardi. We make no secret that we have struggled, and we make no secret that is our fault that we have struggled, but what I believe passionately in is that there is a need for ten teams in Formula One, and it's time that people honoured their commitments and not tried to hijack those commitments to satisfy other agendas, and basically let it keep going and going and going until a point where nothing is done. And that's what brought it to today.

Q:
So you genuinely agree that you had a verbal agreement?

PS:
Let me just read you one passage from Ron and Frank's letter to Max Mosley.... "Furthermore, in a meeting on the morning of the 15 January 2003, the team principals and Bernie Ecclestone unanimously agreed, provided there is real stability, to reallocate television income within the sport to ensure that all the current participants would be able to remain in the sport throughout the 2003 season, this included substantial sums to which McLaren and WilliamsF1 has an entitlement."

They're Frank and Ron's words, not mine.

Q:
Now, if you have a problem, if you don't get this money, what is the future of the team?

PS:
Minardi will, as I've said, continue to survive and continue to compete in and complete the rest of the season, but in what state?

Today, we were eleventh and 13th, we had equalised conditions, a bit of rain and the same tyres as everybody else. I would like to think that we can continue. We're the fourth oldest team in Formula One, behind only Ferrari, McLaren, Williams. It's not for me, I don't care, but I believe passionately that the team deserves to survive; the sport needs to have ten teams, because to not have ten teams would bring in all kinds of horrible problems.

Just take a classic example - and Eddie can speak for himself - but were Eddie, or rather Jordan and Minardi, to cease to exist after this race. Just paint a scenario here - what would happen is that there would be a ballot from the FIA to put four third cars out and just say, because it could happen, that those cars were a McLaren with Wurz, Gene in a Williams, Badoer in a Ferrari and, say, McNish in a Renault. Four of the top cars. And just say that they were first, second and third at the next grand prix, and perhaps it will be the chancellor that's presenting the trophy. He would standing to an empty podium, because that car cannot go on a podium, those drivers cannot take part in any points-scoring and, more importantly, [the points] are not reallocated to any other competitor. What sort of a message would that send out of the state of Formula One?

I don't believe it is in crisis. We did not need to have this come to this today, or this situation come to this today, but the day we start running third cars and send the message out that we can't even find ten teams to compete and that we can't honour our promises to keep ten teams competing, then you've got a crisis.

Q:
Can I go to Eddie, because he's a recipient, or a potential recipient of the so-called 'fighting fund', what is his position in this?

Eddie Jordan:
Er, well, first of all, I'm somewhat surprised with the format in the way this press conference has happened. It's not in its usual nature, is it? It's just about this one subject - or are there other subjects to discuss?

Q:
We were going to discuss other subjects. I was going to start elsewhere, but we started already with Paul because he was the only one here when we started.

EJ:
Well, Jordan's position is its own position, it's a private decision and it's a private position, with our sponsors, with our drivers. We have our own position. Paul and Minardi has theirs. I absolutely see Paul's position and support every team that has problems. We have our own problems, we've got to sort them ourselves. Paul has made a comment and that the plight of his own team is his own. I don't necessarily think this is the correct forum to be going through a lot of this. It's already been said but, at the same time, having said it, and it's now out in the public, Paul's position, if possible, should be helped.

Q:
How vital is the 'fighting fund' to you?

EJ:
I do believe that' without any doubt, this formula of ours needs more good news rather than bad news. I support... I think every single member of Formula One wants ten cars - ten teams - needs 20 cars. It's the whole fabric of how we were brought up. When I came into Formula One, there were 18 cars going for four places on the grid for pre-qualifying. It was the most daunting time of my entire life, it was horrific. Now it's the complete opposite, virtually. So we need to be careful. I think it is important to have private teams, but I think certain things have been made place with promises of engines at a certain price which will make it easier. We just have to all get through this year.

But what do you say about Jordan? Look, I have great sponsors with Benson and Hedges, they've been with me a very long time but, I promise you, it's incredibly tight. Everyone has their own individual situations. BAR has theirs, Ron has his. Frank, Paul and me, we're all different, you can't categorise... But, if certain things which Paul was talking about, the 15 of January, I do believe that certain things were said about the maintenance of the fabric of ten teams in Formula One which was very important - not to have three cars from any individual - those things were very clear. And, to do that, certain funds that were available in the sport, should be made possible. But everyone has their own different view on it. This is a big political situation at the moment and I need to get my head together exactly what is meant by it.

Q:
So can I ask Ron Dennis and Frank Williams what their position is?

Frank Williams:
My position's quite clear. Many of you know me quite well and you will well remember that I refuse to talk about business matters that pertain to Williams in a public forum. That is my position today. I should also add that I resent being set up. It was a set-up, I quite realise that long before I got to this circuit, and I reinforce what Ron has said, that this should be a sporting format. I will answer any sporting questions about Formula One or the grand prix event coming up, but I just prefer to discuss Formula One team matters in Formula One team meetings. I hope you understand my position, gentlemen and ladies.

Ron Dennis:
Well, to be honest, I'm disappointed in Paul's position. I've done probably more than anybody to try and help Paul. I know that...he made reference to the fact that I did initiate the concept of a 'fighting fund'. It's true. He read out a paragraph of a letter. It's true, absolutely true, but he fails to point out that we do not have technical stability, which was part of the process. He also has not made reference to the fact that the 'fighting fund' required Bernie to double the sum that was discussed, and a whole range of other issues. But I only echo Frank's words.

This is not the forum to find solutions to these sorts of problems. I understand and sympathise with Paul's position, but his presentation of the information understandably leaves out a whole range of complex peripheral issues that had a bearing on that [15 January] meeting. This was a meeting that preceded a very difficult meeting with the FIA, in which they changed many things and imposed on us a great deal of cost. It's true to say that, post that meeting, we've had very good progress with the FIA and found - or are finding - a very good balanced way forward for the future of Formula One. But nevertheless, it's not been without cost and significant cost.

But it's just the wrong forum to talk about a problem such as this, and that puts aside specific moments of time when Frank and myself have stepped in and assisted. I don't want to give anybody the detail. Paul knows exactly what I'm talking about, so I take quite an offence - [although] I understand his position - to being positioned as some individual who lacks sympathy, or lacks support for the smaller teams, because that is not the case. I certainly take a great deal of issue with anyone that says I don't keep my word, which is just unfounded and inaccurate. I just hope that Paul understands that I don't think it serves a function to get into some verbal game of tennis here that is just not substantiated by the facts or the circumstances that surround his difficult situation.

Q:
Paul, do you have a further comment to make?

PS:
I think the comment is very simple - that I disagree quite strongly with what's been said. Commitments were made. They were made both publicly and privately. There were conditions about real stability, but would we want to really change results of the first three races? I don't think so. What we've done for the sport this year has seen a much better format. Here we are at the halfway mark, we've got two championships - constructors' and drivers' - split by a couple of points. Chances are it will go to the wire. Compared to the year we had last year, I think we've made one hell of an improvement. I don't agree with Ron on the extra costs and I don't agree with Frank and Ron, and Eddie for that matter, that positive commitments were not made on the 15 January. They were made on the 15 January. Whether this is the right forum, I don't know? But at the end of the day, it's time the truth came out.

Q:
David, where do you stand on this?

David Richards:
Well, Paul knows exactly my position. I've been consistent from the outset, and I hope Paul would support that view. I haven't changed my position right from the beginning. But it's not a simple matter - and it's certainly not a matter that can be cleared up or clarified, even in a forum such as this.

We all face our own individual problems running teams today. The whole economic environment we're working in today is extraordinarily difficult and it's understandable that all of us at times do face situations like this, but I certainly don't think that airing these situations like this or even...

Paul's unfortunately decided not to support the changes we all agreed earlier this year to the technical regulations for next year. That's quite unfortunate, because the basic issues of those changes were to increase the engine cover, increase the rear wing endplates and the rear wing so we could give more advertising space to our sponsors, and this does seem rather a negative view that isn't going to help any of us - and certainly isn't going to help Paul in the long run.

I'm pleased that he can make the end of the season, and I hope that we can press on, because I think that we are moving towards a more equitable situation in Formula One, both in the distribution of the income that can be achieved from Formula One generally and I'm quite convinced that the car manufacturers, the engine suppliers, will come up with an engine solution. But they're certainly not going to if we continue to run down the sport and air our dirty washing in public.

Q:
If I can briefly come to another subject for you, that of Jacques Villeneuve, because here we are in Canada...

DR:
A lot easier than the one we've been on!

Q:
If I can particularly ask you about his future because that's what a lot of the Canadian press want to know about....

DR:
Well clearly, again, the situation with the drivers I've always tended to leave 'til well after mid-season, certainly after the British Grand Prix, and I've said that to all the press previously, that I'm not going to get into debates about where we are with drivers - other than the fact that we have a contract with Jenson for the long term - until the latter part of July. I have to admit that Jacques has had a very poor start to the season, not from his own making, but quite frankly through the reliability that ourselves and Honda have offered to him with the car, and that's an issue we have to address ourselves. I made that commitment to Jacques recently, when I went to Monza to see him testing last week. So we're certainly working on that together and he feels confident, he can see the team's improving, he can see the opportunities are there and so hopefully we can sort that out.