planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Sep 21, 2014 10:07 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic

replacing raikkonen with fernando worth it?
yes 41%  41%  [ 104 ]
no 59%  59%  [ 148 ]
Total votes : 252
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 249
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do you honestly think that the "world" cares if Ferrari paid Kimi to end his contract early and signed Fernando Alonso in his place??? Ferrari car sales & memoribilia sales will not suffer because of the perceived unfairness to Kimi by Kimi fans.

Of course, it only matters to some people like us. I am really not a staunch Kimi fan (though I like him) but it did seem to me that Ferrari could have done better by him and let him exit in a more dignified manner.

Putting aside the premise of the OP for the moment, I would worry more that inability to win championships it should have and suboptimal treatment of star drivers (perceived or otherwise) might make Ferrari less competitive. It could result in loss of morale and reluctance of top drivers to join the team. 2013 is a make or break year for some important figures in the team, not the least Stefano.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do you honestly think that the "world" cares if Ferrari paid Kimi to end his contract early and signed Fernando Alonso in his place??? Ferrari car sales & memoribilia sales will not suffer because of the perceived unfairness to Kimi by Kimi fans.

Of course, it only matters to some people like us. I am really not a staunch Kimi fan (though I like him) but it did seem to me that Ferrari could have done better by him and let him exit in a more dignified manner.

Putting aside the premise of the OP for the moment, I would worry more that inability to win championships it should have and suboptimal treatment of star drivers (perceived or otherwise) might make Ferrari less competitive. It could result in loss of morale and reluctance of top drivers to join the team. 2013 is a make or break year for some important figures in the team, not the least Stefano.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

even though you are the only F1 viewer in Iowa, you've definitely hit this one in the head! I totally agree :D

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 668
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do you honestly think that the "world" cares if Ferrari paid Kimi to end his contract early and signed Fernando Alonso in his place??? Ferrari car sales & memoribilia sales will not suffer because of the perceived unfairness to Kimi by Kimi fans.

Of course, it only matters to some people like us. I am really not a staunch Kimi fan (though I like him) but it did seem to me that Ferrari could have done better by him and let him exit in a more dignified manner.

Putting aside the premise of the OP for the moment, I would worry more that inability to win championships it should have and suboptimal treatment of star drivers (perceived or otherwise) might make Ferrari less competitive. It could result in loss of morale and reluctance of top drivers to join the team. 2013 is a make or break year for some important figures in the team, not the least Stefano.

I understand your point, but let's remember that, if you look at results from 2000 onwards, Ferrari has 7 WCCs, to Renault's 2, Brawn's 1 and RBR's 3. In terms of WDC's, it is 8 for Ferrari, 2 for Renault, 1 for McLaren, 1 for Brawn and 3 for RBR. I'd say that there are teams who should worry far more than Ferrari about their inability to win championships.

As for the treatment of drivers, Ferrari is no different from the other teams: they just want to win, and they will go with their best choice. Ask Kovalainen or Webber about feeling like the number two driver at McLaren or RBR. Any driver joining another top guy, particularly if he is the incumbent in the team, will have such concerns.

Finally, I think that everybody would agree when you mention that "Ferrari could have done better by him (Raikkonen) and let him exit in a more dignified manner"; it was a poor PR exercise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 249
Jinx wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do you honestly think that the "world" cares if Ferrari paid Kimi to end his contract early and signed Fernando Alonso in his place??? Ferrari car sales & memoribilia sales will not suffer because of the perceived unfairness to Kimi by Kimi fans.

Of course...Stefano.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

even though you are the only F1 viewer in Iowa, you've definitely hit this one in the head! I totally agree :D

:)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 249
morgana wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do ... fans.

Of ... Stefano.

Ferrari has 7 WCCs, to Renault's 2, Brawn's 1 and RBR's 3. In terms of WDC's, it is 8 for Ferrari, 2 for Renault, 1 for McLaren, 1 for Brawn and 3 for RBR. I'd say that there are teams who should worry far more than Ferrari about their inability to win championships.

As for the treatment of drivers, Ferrari is no different from the other teams:

Morgana, Ferrari won all seven WCC and all six WDC with Schumacher and Raikkonnen in the team. Both exited the team under uncomfortable circumstances. Since then, they have come close to winning the WDC three times and failed. The only other major team in the last 20-25 years that has surpassed Ferrari in its tactless handling of its #1 driver is Williams. McLaren with Prost-Senna and Alonso-Hamilton was media fodder but I would argue that the team was also put in difficult positions by the drivers involved. McLaren truly has a crisis on its hands with its dismal recent record in the WDC and WCC but Ferrari could get there if they are not careful.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1076
diablof1 wrote:
Blake wrote:
I rather like Kimi, and am very grateful for his time at Ferrari. However, and this is going to get me "flamed", I truly believe that Alonso is the better driver and a better fit for the team. Kimi and Massa were a good and very near equal pairing, with Kimi winning the WDC in 2007 and Massa coming ever so close in 2008... it was fun times.

However, as fast as Kimi is...and he is certifiably quick... I don't think he has the everyday race consistency of Alonso, nor do I think he was as dedicated to the team as Alonso has been. Chemistry and dedication are important aspects of a top team, and I think that Alonso fits that mold better... so my answer is "Yes" Ferrari is better off so it was worth it.

BTW, I think Kimi is probably happier as well... plus he got 10 million for not racing... so it is a win-win for both!
;)

:thumbup:

he got 10million for not racing and is happy with that. but it must kill him inside knowing ferrari PAID him not to race for them. :lol:


Why is that? From a business standpoint, I'd imagine it killed Ferrari to have to pay millions of dollars to an ex driver who was off racing under Red Bull colors - only to have that same team take all the championship spoils in F1 that Ferrari had hoped to gain by replacing him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
bourbon19 wrote:

Why is that? From a business standpoint, I'd imagine it killed Ferrari to have to pay millions of dollars to an ex driver who was off racing under Red Bull colors - only to have that same team take all the championship spoils in F1 that Ferrari had hoped to gain by replacing him.


as someone else mentioned here, it was probably a Santander mandated criteria and Ferrari may not have had a choice...

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2632
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
morgana wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Blake wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:
Ferrari ... drivers.


Do ... fans.

Of ... Stefano.

Ferrari has 7 WCCs, to Renault's 2, Brawn's 1 and RBR's 3. In terms of WDC's, it is 8 for Ferrari, 2 for Renault, 1 for McLaren, 1 for Brawn and 3 for RBR. I'd say that there are teams who should worry far more than Ferrari about their inability to win championships.

As for the treatment of drivers, Ferrari is no different from the other teams:

Morgana, Ferrari won all seven WCC and all six WDC with Schumacher and Raikkonnen in the team. Both exited the team under uncomfortable circumstances. Since then, they have come close to winning the WDC three times and failed. The only other major team in the last 20-25 years that has surpassed Ferrari in its tactless handling of its #1 driver is Williams. McLaren with Prost-Senna and Alonso-Hamilton was media fodder but I would argue that the team was also put in difficult positions by the drivers involved. McLaren truly has a crisis on its hands with its dismal recent record in the WDC and WCC but Ferrari could get there if they are not careful.

I agree and have never forgiven Luca for his betrayal of Schumi, who was still close to his best in '06. Schumi may have decided to retire anyway, but I don't doubt for one moment that he wasn't really given the time to decide and was 'pushed' into it. The way Schumi reacted to Luca after his win at Monza '06 left no doubt that he didn't want to celebrate with him...

IMO Kimi was never a 'good fit' for Ferrari, as they demand their no. 1 driver to be totally dedicated to the team and F1 racing. Kimi is a v fast driver when motivated, but does not have the personality to devote his life to the team and F1! Even so, the way he was treated (and I assume this was again down to Luca) was appalling.

Now Ferrari have Alonso, again one of the best drivers, but IMO they are ruining their WCC chances by allowing him to ride rough-shod over Massa - an emotional driver, who was always likely to let this affect his performance.

In short :lol: , the sooner Luca takes a back-seat the better! IMO Ferrari have not been the same since he decided to take over the reins...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:17 pm
Posts: 857
diablof1 wrote:
Blake wrote:

BTW, I think Kimi is probably happier as well... plus he got 10 million for not racing... so it is a win-win for both!
;)

:thumbup:

he got 10million for not racing and is happy with that. but it must kill him inside knowing ferrari PAID him not to race for them. :lol:


Any animosity can have some effect, but he's not an emotional character, and it played into his hands -- he was wanting to try rallying, and he got paid a fortune as a rally rookie -- by Ferrari. So he had the last laugh, plus another one when Ferrari lost the WDC by slicing their tire on his endplate.

In the end, Ferrari spent a lot of money and got nothing for it, Alonso hasn't even won them as many WDC's as Raikkonen did in the same time.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 249
LKS1 : I agree with you that Alonso is just what the doctor ordered for Ferrari. That is a sad reflection on the leadership abilities of Stefano. However I believe the situation in Ferrari is more complex. We think Alonso has this team in the palm of his hands. But Luca cracked his whip recently when he said (to paraphrase) that Alonso couldn't dictate who was to be driving alongside him until he actually won something. I wonder what would happen to Alonso if Santander backed out of F1 or Vettel merrily continued on his way winning championships.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2632
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
LKS1 : I agree with you that Alonso is just what the doctor ordered for Ferrari. That is a sad reflection on the leadership abilities of Stefano. However I believe the situation in Ferrari is more complex. We think Alonso has this team in the palm of his hands. But Luca cracked his whip recently when he said (to paraphrase) that Alonso couldn't dictate who was to be driving alongside him until he actually won something. I wonder what would happen to Alonso if Santander backed out of F1 or Vettel merrily continued on his way winning championships.

I doubt that Stefano is the real leader of the team, and suspect he is cowed by Luca - and who can blame him bearing in mind Luca managed to get rid of Brawn/Todt/Schumi, a formula that had won for a number of seasons!

OK, they messed up the car/ tyre combination in '05 and the Renault was better at the beginning of '06, but they recovered at the end of '06 (admittedly at the expense of reliability).

Even if Ferrari lose Santander sponsorship, I don't think Luca would be stupid enough to get rid of Alonso as he is undoubtedly one of the best drivers and Mediterranean, therefore loved by the Tifosi - who would not appreciate him being replaced by Seb!

I'm more concerned that Luca will continue the policy of favouring Alonso at any cost - which will not only downgrade Alonso's achievements, but possibly also be bad for the team.

Edit - plus even Luca must realise that he would look extremely stupid/incompetent having already got rid of/replaced 2 top drivers, doing the same with the 3rd...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
flyer wrote:
diablof1 wrote:
Blake wrote:

BTW, I think Kimi is probably happier as well... plus he got 10 million for not racing... so it is a win-win for both!
;)

:thumbup:

he got 10million for not racing and is happy with that. but it must kill him inside knowing ferrari PAID him not to race for them. :lol:


Any animosity can have some effect, but he's not an emotional character, and it played into his hands -- he was wanting to try rallying, and he got paid a fortune as a rally rookie -- by Ferrari. So he had the last laugh, plus another one when Ferrari lost the WDC by slicing their tire on his endplate.

In the end, Ferrari spent a lot of money and got nothing for it, Alonso hasn't even won them as many WDC's as Raikkonen did in the same time.


Good point about the rallying because I remember he was very keen to go that direction at that time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:34 pm
Posts: 709
Jinx wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:

Why is that? From a business standpoint, I'd imagine it killed Ferrari to have to pay millions of dollars to an ex driver who was off racing under Red Bull colors - only to have that same team take all the championship spoils in F1 that Ferrari had hoped to gain by replacing him.


as someone else mentioned here, it was probably a Santander mandated criteria and Ferrari may not have had a choice...


well, even if they did, business wise it makes sense so why gherkin off your new sponsor? It's not like its going to cost them a dime, I'm sure if this was Santander's condition, Ferrari's counter condition was to make them pay for it, which most probably they did


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:16 am
Posts: 1006
F1nsider wrote:
Jinx wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:

Why is that? From a business standpoint, I'd imagine it killed Ferrari to have to pay millions of dollars to an ex driver who was off racing under Red Bull colors - only to have that same team take all the championship spoils in F1 that Ferrari had hoped to gain by replacing him.


as someone else mentioned here, it was probably a Santander mandated criteria and Ferrari may not have had a choice...


well, even if they did, business wise it makes sense so why gherkin off your new sponsor? It's not like its going to cost them a dime, I'm sure if this was Santander's condition, Ferrari's counter condition was to make them pay for it, which most probably they did


It doesn't make any sense to me why Santander would pay for Kimi's buy out. They were already sponsoring McLaren and in fact they still are to this day. They hardly ever make any sound either at McLaren or at Ferrari. I find it hard to believe they would pay for that. Ferrari needed to change their driver, so they paid for it themselves. That's what I think. Were they happy ? Of course not. Its hardly ideal to pay someone so much just not to work for you. But maybe that was the best decision under he circumstances. They certainly haven't done anything till now to hint that they regret that saga. The same cannot be said about Schumacher's departure.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
callMEcrazy wrote:
F1nsider wrote:
Jinx wrote:
bourbon19 wrote:

Why is that? From a business standpoint, I'd imagine it killed Ferrari to have to pay millions of dollars to an ex driver who was off racing under Red Bull colors - only to have that same team take all the championship spoils in F1 that Ferrari had hoped to gain by replacing him.


as someone else mentioned here, it was probably a Santander mandated criteria and Ferrari may not have had a choice...


well, even if they did, business wise it makes sense so why gherkin off your new sponsor? It's not like its going to cost them a dime, I'm sure if this was Santander's condition, Ferrari's counter condition was to make them pay for it, which most probably they did


It doesn't make any sense to me why Santander would pay for Kimi's buy out. They were already sponsoring McLaren and in fact they still are to this day. They hardly ever make any sound either at McLaren or at Ferrari. I find it hard to believe they would pay for that. Ferrari needed to change their driver, so they paid for it themselves. That's what I think. Were they happy ? Of course not. Its hardly ideal to pay someone so much just not to work for you. But maybe that was the best decision under he circumstances. They certainly haven't done anything till now to hint that they regret that saga. The same cannot be said about Schumacher's departure.


I think if Ferrari did indeed pay Kimi off, then it was not worthwhile (from marketing and financial standpoints), but if it was mandated by Santander, then it would be worthwhile to Ferrari since they didn't have to foot a dime of payout and so their shareholders would not hold them accountable.

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3774
Location: Belgium
callMEcrazy wrote:
It doesn't make any sense to me why Santander would pay for Kimi's buy out.
Because their driver had just been "released" by McLaren. Although a seat was made available for him at Renault, both Alonso and Santander knew they weren't exactly ready to go win another title. That's why as early as the spring of 2008, a move was on to make a seat available at the only team besides McLaren that would realisitically have a shot at the title(s): Ferrari. And their driver had just won the world drivers' title... Ouch...

callMEcrazy wrote:
They were already sponsoring McLaren and in fact they still are to this day. They hardly ever make any sound either at McLaren or at Ferrari. I find it hard to believe they would pay for that.
No publicity being worse than bad publicity?

callMEcrazy wrote:
Ferrari needed to change their driver, so they paid for it themselves. That's what I think.
For what reason do you think they had to change their driver? He had just won the WDC, first time round. So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

On the whole, I think Santander must have scratched their heads a few times over the last 5 years, since they started to make room for Alonso. Red Bull certainly are happy with Santander, but are Ferrari? Well, they're probably pretty happy with all that money. For now.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4716
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

You having a laugh?

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3774
Location: Belgium
mcdo wrote:
Fiki wrote:
So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

You having a laugh?
No. Why? I found it very strange that by the end of the season Massa was faster than Alonso, just when Alonso needed to be at his very best. :?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 2:49 pm
Posts: 198
Yes, at Austin Alonso ran with upgrades that quite clearly didn't work (and that Ferrari should never have been trialling at that stage of the season anyway) and at Interlagos Alonso set faster lap times than Massa for two thirds of the laps.

I've yet to come across any convincing argument that Alonso could have scored more points than he did in the final few races (Suzuka notwithstanding).

It's good to see Massa recovering, though - and perhaps this simply confirms the long-held medical opnion that serious head injuries actually take a good 3 years to completely recover from (even if the victim "feels" recovered in 6 months). Towards the end of the year he looked like his 2008 self.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4716
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
mcdo wrote:
Fiki wrote:
So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

You having a laugh?
No. Why? I found it very strange that by the end of the season Massa was faster than Alonso, just when Alonso needed to be at his very best. :?

I think it goes to show how much Alonso has absolutely annihilated Massa that when Felipe finally drives 2 or 3 decent races, it's Alonso everyone is pointing the finger at.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:16 am
Posts: 1006
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
It doesn't make any sense to me why Santander would pay for Kimi's buy out.
Because their driver had just been "released" by McLaren. Although a seat was made available for him at Renault, both Alonso and Santander knew they weren't exactly ready to go win another title. That's why as early as the spring of 2008, a move was on to make a seat available at the only team besides McLaren that would realisitically have a shot at the title(s): Ferrari. And their driver had just won the world drivers' title... Ouch...

callMEcrazy wrote:
They were already sponsoring McLaren and in fact they still are to this day. They hardly ever make any sound either at McLaren or at Ferrari. I find it hard to believe they would pay for that.
No publicity being worse than bad publicity?

callMEcrazy wrote:
Ferrari needed to change their driver, so they paid for it themselves. That's what I think.
For what reason do you think they had to change their driver? He had just won the WDC, first time round. So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

On the whole, I think Santander must have scratched their heads a few times over the last 5 years, since they started to make room for Alonso. Red Bull certainly are happy with Santander, but are Ferrari? Well, they're probably pretty happy with all that money. For now.


I can't say I'm certain about Santander's involvement in that whole episode. I just said what I thought. But what I do know is that when Ferrari wants to keep a driver and that drivers wants to stay, nothing stands in the way. Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1076
callMEcrazy wrote:
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
It doesn't make any sense to me why Santander would pay for Kimi's buy out.
Because their driver had just been "released" by McLaren. Although a seat was made available for him at Renault, both Alonso and Santander knew they weren't exactly ready to go win another title. That's why as early as the spring of 2008, a move was on to make a seat available at the only team besides McLaren that would realisitically have a shot at the title(s): Ferrari. And their driver had just won the world drivers' title... Ouch...

callMEcrazy wrote:
They were already sponsoring McLaren and in fact they still are to this day. They hardly ever make any sound either at McLaren or at Ferrari. I find it hard to believe they would pay for that.
No publicity being worse than bad publicity?

callMEcrazy wrote:
Ferrari needed to change their driver, so they paid for it themselves. That's what I think.
For what reason do you think they had to change their driver? He had just won the WDC, first time round. So far, with Alonso, both driver and team threw one title away, were never really in contention the second time, and the driver faltered the third time - despite driving perhaps his best ever season in total.

On the whole, I think Santander must have scratched their heads a few times over the last 5 years, since they started to make room for Alonso. Red Bull certainly are happy with Santander, but are Ferrari? Well, they're probably pretty happy with all that money. For now.


I can't say I'm certain about Santander's involvement in that whole episode. I just said what I thought. But what I do know is that when Ferrari wants to keep a driver and that drivers wants to stay, nothing stands in the way. Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.


You mean no longer wanted. But they wanted Kimi like mad dogs after the last bone in 2006. They paid him an unheard of amount of money to drive for them for 4 years. Then things happened and they no longer wanted him to drive for them.

That was nothing new - it is how they do business. I have no reason to believe anything has changed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:49 am
Posts: 82
Is easy forget when evaluating Ferrari results the RB factor. The most significant weakness for Ferrari (like Macca) is named Red Bull. Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too. Would be: 2010: Alonso, Hamilton, Button. 2011: Button, Alonso, Hamilton. 2012: Alonso, Räikkönen, Hamilton.
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.

_________________
A man is measured by the size of its rivals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3774
Location: Belgium
callMEcrazy wrote:
Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.
I'm not sure which other teams were available to Schumacher when he wanted to leave Benetton mid-1994, but by then of course Senna was dead. And he was going to end his career (yes, that's what they all say) at Ferrari.

If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:35 pm
Posts: 1075
Damoclesfall wrote:
...... Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too.
.....
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.


Sorry, just a genuine question no punt intended:
Did you really just called Newey and Brawn newcomers?

_________________
We are worse than animals, we hunger for the kill
We put our faith in maniacs the triumph of the will
We kill for money, wealth and lust, for this we should be damned
We are disease upon the world, brotherhood of man


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
For sure everyone will agree that if ferrari kept kimi (2007 form) and fernando as teamates for 2010 it would have been great racing.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 12:28 pm
Posts: 615
diablof1 wrote:
For sure everyone will agree that if ferrari kept kimi (2007 form) and fernando as teamates for 2010 it would have been great racing.

yeah I agree totally! :thumbup:

_________________
FORZA FERNANDO * FORZA FERRARI * FORZA FELIPE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
Image

vs

Image

:nod:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:16 am
Posts: 1006
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.
I'm not sure which other teams were available to Schumacher when he wanted to leave Benetton mid-1994, but by then of course Senna was dead. And he was going to end his career (yes, that's what they all say) at Ferrari.

If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?


Just about any team was available to Schumacher after just winning 2 back to back WDCs. Not many drivers in his position would have gone to Ferrari at that point.

Although I prefer to answer questions only with logic I still have to say your second question is pretty stupid. What Ferrari thought of Kimi in '06 and '09 are different. Obviously how Kimi performed during the time in between changed their opinion. A company hires a person if it thinks he is good enough. But if he disappoints he gets fired. That's always how it is. Opinions change.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2632
callMEcrazy wrote:
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.
I'm not sure which other teams were available to Schumacher when he wanted to leave Benetton mid-1994, but by then of course Senna was dead. And he was going to end his career (yes, that's what they all say) at Ferrari.

If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?


Just about any team was available to Schumacher after just winning 2 back to back WDCs. Not many drivers in his position would have gone to Ferrari at that point.

Although I prefer to answer questions only with logic I still have to say your second question is pretty stupid. What Ferrari thought of Kimi in '06 and '09 are different. Obviously how Kimi performed during the time in between changed their opinion. A company hires a person if it thinks he is good enough. But if he disappoints he gets fired. That's always how it is. Opinions change.

:thumbup: Hard to argue against any of that.

Edit - OTT Kimi fans will argue that he was only replaced for Santander funding of course, but Kimi didn't perform as well as expected. As I've said before, I blame Luca - not the Ferrari F1 team for the fiasco 2006 onwards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:31 am
Posts: 1076
Damoclesfall wrote:
Is easy forget when evaluating Ferrari results the RB factor. The most significant weakness for Ferrari (like Macca) is named Red Bull. Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too. Would be: 2010: Alonso, Hamilton, Button. 2011: Button, Alonso, Hamilton. 2012: Alonso, Räikkönen, Hamilton.
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.


You didn't just take out Red Bull, you also took out Sebastian Vettel. But you have to remember that McLaren tried for him in 2007, and without Red Bull, Sebastian would have gone to Macca. Between Seb and Lewis it would be Macca with 4 WDCs at the moment 2008 to the present (dole um out however you like). Ferrari would not have stood a chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4716
Location: Ireland
bourbon19 wrote:
Damoclesfall wrote:
Is easy forget when evaluating Ferrari results the RB factor. The most significant weakness for Ferrari (like Macca) is named Red Bull. Without the babes of Newey's brain the whole history changes a lot, and don't miss Brawn 2009 too. Would be: 2010: Alonso, Hamilton, Button. 2011: Button, Alonso, Hamilton. 2012: Alonso, Räikkönen, Hamilton.
From 2009 newcomers dominate, no regret about, more fighters, more funny.


You didn't just take out Red Bull, you also took out Sebastian Vettel. But you have to remember that McLaren tried for him in 2007, and without Red Bull, Sebastian would have gone to Macca. Between Seb and Lewis it would be Macca with 4 WDCs at the moment 2008 to the present (dole um out however you like). Ferrari would not have stood a chance.

Nah McLaren would have found ways for Seb to lose too.

I'd be pretty confident that if Seb had taken the McLaren drive it would currently stand Lewis - 1 WDC, Seb - 0 WDCs.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQGl-q36sVk

Listen to what Patrick Head says to Montoya at the end 8O

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 6897
I think it was worth it because i believe Alonso is the better driver plus wasn't it all financed by Santander anyways?

However it wasn't nice to see Kimi being sacked so that Alonso didn't have to endure another crappy year in the Renault, plus the better line up would have been Alonso and Kimi, but i guess Kimi being on a much bigger retainer than Massa and Massa's unfortunate accident meant it was harder to get rid of Massa


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Posts: 1153
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Still going on this one.

Thanks for debating. For once a proper debate.

_________________
..

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3774
Location: Belgium
SwSpeed wrote:
Still going on this one.
Thanks for debating. For once a proper debate.
We're not finished yet! :D

Let's see:
LKS1 wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.
I'm not sure which other teams were available to Schumacher when he wanted to leave Benetton mid-1994, but by then of course Senna was dead. And he was going to end his career (yes, that's what they all say) at Ferrari.

If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?


Just about any team was available to Schumacher after just winning 2 back to back WDCs. Not many drivers in his position would have gone to Ferrari at that point.

Although I prefer to answer questions only with logic I still have to say your second question is pretty stupid. What Ferrari thought of Kimi in '06 and '09 are different. Obviously how Kimi performed during the time in between changed their opinion. A company hires a person if it thinks he is good enough. But if he disappoints he gets fired. That's always how it is. Opinions change.

:thumbup: Hard to argue against any of that.

Edit - OTT Kimi fans will argue that he was only replaced for Santander funding of course, but Kimi didn't perform as well as expected. As I've said before, I blame Luca - not the Ferrari F1 team for the fiasco 2006 onwards.
Schumacher didn't choose where to go at the end of 1995, at which point he was indeed a world champion, with undisputed speed. I wrote about 1994, and with good reason. In the summer of 1994, after Verstappen had been barbequed in Germany and Benetton's cheating was common knowledge, and with the investigation of their cheating with traction control nearing a verdict, Schumacher (and Willi Weber) had a dream scenario to fill the void left by the death of the fastest man in F1; Senna. Instead of having to loose money for breach of contract, they could now argue that Benetton had brought Schumacher's name into disrepute, and they wanted out.
Senna had been on his way to Ferrari after 2 years with Williams. Marlboro sponsoring put up the budget, which was now available for the next best thing: Schumacher.
In the end a compromise was reached, perhaps with an eye to the contracts of Berger and Alesi, and after another year with Benetton, Schumacher was free to go to the best paid seat in F1.

So, even though just about any team might have wanted Schumacher after 1995, he simply wasn't available, world title(s) or not. Any driver in his position knew there were only three teams worth going to, and he went to the one with the most money on offer. Ferrari weren't the best team on paper, but with JT getting a firm grip on things, success was only a matter of time.

It is quite possible that Ferrari's opinion about Räikkönen changed during 2007. They admitted in that year that they were astounded by the amount of oversteer he was able to live with. Although their car hadn't exactly been what he needed, both world titles were won, mission accomplished.
The problem was that Alonso had gotten himself burned at McLaren, and his spell with an underperforming Renault team was only going to last until a seat became available. This time, with tobacco sponsoring firmly on the defensive, it was a banker who provided the necessary cash. And even before the spring of 2008 was over, Ferrari's "opinion" of Kimi had changed... As they say; pull the other one! :lol:

My question stands: If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?
A new question is how much Ferrari's prestige has suffered, having just lost the titles for a third consecutive year, despite having the best driver in F1 on their books?

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:33 pm
Posts: 4716
Location: Ireland
Fiki wrote:
My question stands: If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?
A new question is how much Ferrari's prestige has suffered, having just lost the titles for a third consecutive year, despite having the best driver in F1 on their books?

The reason for hiring Kimi appears to be down to a power struggle between Luca & Todt. Back in the day Luca wanted a Schumacher-Hakkinen partnership but Schumacher & Todt wouldn't have it. Fast forward a few years and Luca made sure he hired Kimi, as if to prove a point that he was the man who made the decisions, even if it meant losing Schumacher & Todt (which is exactly what happened). Not entirely sure how accurate this is but it makes for fascinating reading:
http://www.crapwagon.com/forums/archive ... 43431.html

And if Ferrari's prestige didn't suffer in the 90s, it sure as hell isn't suffering now.

_________________
"I am a believer, but I start each Grand Prix with 195 liters of fuel behind me," he explains. "I don't rely entirely on God, I rely on Prost."


#14 for '14


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
mcdo wrote:
Fiki wrote:
My question stands: If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?
A new question is how much Ferrari's prestige has suffered, having just lost the titles for a third consecutive year, despite having the best driver in F1 on their books?

The reason for hiring Kimi appears to be down to a power struggle between Luca & Todt. Back in the day Luca wanted a Schumacher-Hakkinen partnership but Schumacher & Todt wouldn't have it. Fast forward a few years and Luca made sure he hired Kimi, as if to prove a point that he was the man who made the decisions, even if it meant losing Schumacher & Todt (which is exactly what happened). Not entirely sure how accurate this is but it makes for fascinating reading:
http://www.crapwagon.com/forums/archive ... 43431.html

And if Ferrari's prestige didn't suffer in the 90s, it sure as hell isn't suffering now.


I did not know this, interesting info :thumbup:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2632
Fiki wrote:
SwSpeed wrote:
Still going on this one.
Thanks for debating. For once a proper debate.
We're not finished yet! :D

Let's see:
LKS1 wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Fiki wrote:
callMEcrazy wrote:
Other teams, drivers, sponsors, public opinions, media and Bernie Ecclestones all came short when Ferrari and Schumacher wanted each other. And they won't now that Ferrari and Alonso want each other. You can bring stats into it as much as you like. Won't change anything. Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi.
I'm not sure which other teams were available to Schumacher when he wanted to leave Benetton mid-1994, but by then of course Senna was dead. And he was going to end his career (yes, that's what they all say) at Ferrari.

If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?


Just about any team was available to Schumacher after just winning 2 back to back WDCs. Not many drivers in his position would have gone to Ferrari at that point.

Although I prefer to answer questions only with logic I still have to say your second question is pretty stupid. What Ferrari thought of Kimi in '06 and '09 are different. Obviously how Kimi performed during the time in between changed their opinion. A company hires a person if it thinks he is good enough. But if he disappoints he gets fired. That's always how it is. Opinions change.

:thumbup: Hard to argue against any of that.

Edit - OTT Kimi fans will argue that he was only replaced for Santander funding of course, but Kimi didn't perform as well as expected. As I've said before, I blame Luca - not the Ferrari F1 team for the fiasco 2006 onwards.
Schumacher didn't choose where to go at the end of 1995, at which point he was indeed a world champion, with undisputed speed. I wrote about 1994, and with good reason. In the summer of 1994, after Verstappen had been barbequed in Germany and Benetton's cheating was common knowledge, and with the investigation of their cheating with traction control nearing a verdict, Schumacher (and Willi Weber) had a dream scenario to fill the void left by the death of the fastest man in F1; Senna. Instead of having to loose money for breach of contract, they could now argue that Benetton had brought Schumacher's name into disrepute, and they wanted out.
Senna had been on his way to Ferrari after 2 years with Williams. Marlboro sponsoring put up the budget, which was now available for the next best thing: Schumacher.
In the end a compromise was reached, perhaps with an eye to the contracts of Berger and Alesi, and after another year with Benetton, Schumacher was free to go to the best paid seat in F1.

So, even though just about any team might have wanted Schumacher after 1995, he simply wasn't available, world title(s) or not. Any driver in his position knew there were only three teams worth going to, and he went to the one with the most money on offer. Ferrari weren't the best team on paper, but with JT getting a firm grip on things, success was only a matter of time.

It is quite possible that Ferrari's opinion about Räikkönen changed during 2007. They admitted in that year that they were astounded by the amount of oversteer he was able to live with. Although their car hadn't exactly been what he needed, both world titles were won, mission accomplished.
The problem was that Alonso had gotten himself burned at McLaren, and his spell with an underperforming Renault team was only going to last until a seat became available. This time, with tobacco sponsoring firmly on the defensive, it was a banker who provided the necessary cash. And even before the spring of 2008 was over, Ferrari's "opinion" of Kimi had changed... As they say; pull the other one! :lol:

My question stands: If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?
A new question is how much Ferrari's prestige has suffered, having just lost the titles for a third consecutive year, despite having the best driver in F1 on their books?

Are you saying that Schumi decided to leave Benetton in the summer of '94, but instead of signing a contract with Ferrari and leaving (given as you say, he had the necessary excuse) he decided to wait another year before signing up with Ferrari?

Presumably you're also convinced that Schumi only left Benetton 'cos his priority was the money offered by Ferrari - even though it was a gamble whether Ferrari would become championship contenders in the future?

Why do you think "It is quite possible that Ferrari's opinion about Räikkönen changed during 2007. ... both world titles were won, mission accomplished." Surely Luca employed Kimi 'cos he was convinced that he would win the championships?

Your question "If Ferrari itself didn't want Kimi, why did they hire him? Who forced him on them?" has already been answered - although clearly you prefer to ignore this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:39 pm
Posts: 1153
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Well, this thread is not about Shuey although there is a connection.

I hear 2 versions of this "storytelling" Luca wanted Fernando Todt wanted Kimi among others and Todt wanted Kimi, so I sure hold my position that Alonso was not Tod's first choice.

But whatever happened... Ferrari tried to destroy a star driver and almost succeeded, there are loads of quotes from the time Kimi left where Luca and Stefano says really bad things... the funniest of them all, "We need a driver who can develop the car"

Well... here we are and Kimi still their last champ was it worth it?
Maybe because they got the Santander money. Did they accomplish more with Alonso. I doubt it... but we will never know anyway.

_________________
..

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when they are open


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahwooga, bigsur, Google Adsense [Bot], James14, j man, RunningMan, Zoue and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group