I read Frank Williams statement as "the previously known benefits in the old agreement plus the benefits of being the only signatory of the new Concorde Agreement." His sentence wasn't clearly worded or reported.
This quote from the Independant would certainly back up my position, along with the fact that no mainstream motorsport press are reporting this in the way you are trying to:
"The FIA did have an answer to that one, and said that it was part of an extension of the governing document, the Concorde Agreement for 2008-12, which Ferrari signed in January 2005 following inducements from Mosley and Ecclestone to leave the burgeoning Grand Prix World Championship which the teams were considering. GPWC fell apart soon after."
This is in direct support of my position, all backed up by the facts contained within the original Concorde Agreement as opposed to your argument based on spurious websites reporting the same story and an ambiguous quote from Frank Williams. Further, Ferrari have won just 1 WDC since the new agreement was signed, they have had rulings go against them since the agreement was signed (see Flexi-Floor and more recently, the double diffuser) and they have united the teams against the FIA's continued meddling.
Your ad-hominem argument against my position clealy shows the lack of substance behind your claims. If you wish, I will reproduce here the actual content of the original Concorde Agreement highlighting the areas of relevance. Until such time as you can produce evidence of similar weight (i.e. what the veto allows, when it can be used, the terms for its existence etc) I shall stand by what I have stated.
Dave
|
|