On Friday, at Imola, a brief release confirmed what many had known for a while now: the Dutch computer peripherals company Trust would be sponsoring Eddie Jordan's team.

What was, though, strange about the announcement was that Trust logos bedecked the EJ14 before it was even launched and were removed after a bitter, and very public, war of words between Jordan, Trust and the management of Jos Verstappen, who, last year, brought the company into Formula One as a partner to Minardi.

Eventually, Giorgio Pantano raised enough finance to secure the second yellow seat - alongside the (very) underrated Nick Heidfeld, who had been retained on a salary, but with mutual get-out clauses - and Trust, it seemed, was history, certainly as far as Jordan Grand Prix was concerned.

Then, come Melbourne, Trust logos appeared on the front and side of the EJ14. Asked about it, EJ was evasive: "You had better ask Ian Phillips (Director of Business Affairs for the team)." Then, (somewhat unconvincingly) he added, "Oh, it is something to do with developing young Dutch drivers for them, nothing to do with Jos."

A Dutch media colleague, one close to the driver, provided a different angle. Jos and his manager, former F1 driver Huub Rothengatter, had an exclusive deal with Trust which tied the company to Verstappen in all matters F1 for three years. In other words, it could go, say DTM - which it has now done via Christijan Albers - without Verstappen, but could not support a Grand Prix driver until end-2005. "Jordan obviously does not know about that clause," the contact hinted.

A fortnight ago the news broke that a meeting was scheduled for last week between Trust CEO Michel Peridon, EJ and Raymond Vermeulen - who handles commercial matters on behalf of Verstappen and Rothengatter - at Trust's southern Netherlands HQ.

Of course, rumours that Verstappen would replace Pantano - who has hardly caused Jean Todt to reach for his phone - flew thick and fast; followed by (logical) suggestions that Jordan could not afford to can Pantano's €5m deal in favour of Trust's €1m contribution. He would, in any event have another legal fight on his hands, and that, given the still-lingering embarrassment of the Vodafone matter, is the last thing the team need.

In that case, continued the tales, Heidfeld's seat would go to Verstappen. But, NH, too, has a firm deal now that the season has commenced, and is hardly likely to be a push-over. Plus, Jordan's image in Germany is not of the best after his unceremonious dumping of Heinz-Harald Frentzen in 2001.

So, Jos will no doubt test the car, possibly at Vairano later this week or immediately after Catalunya, but has told his circle that he has no interest in returning to F1 with an uncompetitive car (a "shitbox" as one described it). The EJ14 has not been the revelation of the season, so, unless he feels genuinely comfortable with his prospects, Heidfeld and Pantano will retain their seats - for the time being, at least - with Timo Glock continuing in the Boy Friday role for which Verstappen is, in any event, overqualified.

At Imola, Eddie Jordan indicated as much when he stated that he would be respecting his drivers' contracts. None of this, though, addressed the original dissent, which included allegations that Rothengatter had insisted upon unrealistic commissions, said to be 28%, on any Trust F1 business. So, for a deal to have been agreed by all, large sums readily eased some massive gulping of pride. Then, from 2006 Jordan (and, of course, others) are free to pursue the computer company without reference to Rothengatter and Verstappen. Trust us.

On Friday, when GPWC b.v. advised the Imola paddock that it had withdrawn from the Memorandum of Understanding with Bernie Ecclestone's SLEC holding company, the general consensus was that the breakaway series was dead and buried. But, is it a matter of RIP, or is it just a matter of posturing, of jockeying for position?

The GPWC's release came six hours after FIA President Max Mosley circulated the outline of proposed new F1 rules to come into effect after expiration of the present Concorde Agreement at end-2007. Did that memorandum, perhaps, trigger the GPWC release?

To find an answer, the GPWC has to be split into two parts: as a negotiating forum for those European manufacturers (BMW, DaimlerChrysler/Mercedes, Fiat/Ferrari, Ford/Jaguar and Renault) in F1, and as promoters of a breakaway race series designed to go head-to-head with F1.

Whilst the media only became aware of Mosley's document on Friday morning - and there is no way that the GPWC membership could have dissected the impact thereof and reached unanimous agreement by that evening - the FIA document had been circulated to team bosses a good day or two earlier. And, with 80% of the GPWC's five members owning their own teams, it only needed Sir Frank Williams to keep BMW in the loop for it to be a full house.

So, yes, the timing could have been rules-related, for Mosley's document will, if implemented as proposed, fundamentally alter the fabric of the sport. Standardised electronic control units, for example, go against everything companies like BMW stand for. Ditto the two-race engine requirement rule, which, if breached, visibly punishes engine manufacturers as Mercedes-Benz can well testify, whilst a ban on electronics - in an age when passenger cars contain more computing power than was needed to place Neil Armstrong on the Moon - is anathema to their makers.

Then, of course, there is the single-tyre supplier ruling. Although no mechanics were supplied last Friday, the assumption was that it would be administered as in other formulae: rubber companies apply (tender, call it what you like), and a supplier is chosen and granted branding rights for a given time frame. At present tyre companies can, if they so wish (and at least one does), write off its F1 costs against original equipment contracts with motor manufacturers.

But, it is a two-way street: motor company A wishes for its F1 team to be supplied by tyre company Z, so dangles the carrot of an OE contract for, say, an additional million tyres per annum. Z supplies A - simple as that. Control-tyre rules close such options to GPWC members, and, forget not, Ford and BMW have long granted cultivated such relationships with Michelin.

The new rules may therefore influence the future participation of GPWC members, but, really, the proposals are far from finalised and cast in stone. As Mosley's covering letter said, the rules need be finalised by end-2005. Consider that he introduced 2003's "reinterpretations" in 18 hours, let alone 18 months!

A bit of strategic sabre-rattling from various directions, therefore, will see certain aspects amended well before 2008 - and who knows whether any of the five had intended staying in F1 beyond then in any event?

More likely, therefore, is that the timing of the GPWC's withdrawal from the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU as it was termed in its release) is purely coincidental, for, according to a spokesperson for one of the motor companies: "One party has not kept its side of the deal, an amount of money was offered upfront to each team, and that has suddenly decreased dramatically."

Given F1's annual revenues and retained profits, the amount on offer could as easily increase to the original level (or beyond) as it was decreased, assuming that to have been the case in the first instance. Then that reason is null and void.

So, on to the 'negotiating' responsibility of GPWC: significant is here that Ferrari Maserati Gruppo has just appointed former Ford Europe CEO Martin Leach to run the latter company. (This has not been confirmed, but, equally, a Ferrari spokesman, on Sunday, went out of his way to not deny it when questioned.) Whilst with his former employers Leach was one of the movers and shakers behind GPWC, and clearly has the ear of Luca di Montezemolo, so could well influence Fiat's participation in the body.

Ford's membership is not in doubt. Having bought Stewart Grand Prix and made further investments since, it is in for the long haul as it amortises costs. Sure, it may not agree with every statement made by the GPWC, but it realises it needs time to build the Jaguar brand, and F1 is an intrinsic part of its strategy. Bluntly, so far it is a matter of mission unaccomplished.

BMW board member Burkhard Goschel said this week that his company is committed to motorsport, but not necessarily to Formula One. "It's not just a question of Formula One. If it (Formula One) is going another way which is not congruent with our ideas and values as BMW, then we would change to another kind of motorsport," he said. "We are not fixed on Formula One." Does that sound like a company about to pull out of the GPWC?

DaimlerChrysler had made too large an investment in McLaren and Ilmor to bale out of motorsport, so would it not maintain its membership of the GPWC it was a founder of? After all, even if the umbrella body does not form its own series, it, now more than ever, desperately needs the negotiating platform - whether with Ecclestone, the FIA or whoever - so, surely, it makes sense to maintain its presence?

Renault's future, though, could well be doubtful: wholesale changes are coming at the top of the French company, and the rumoured Chairman, Carlos Ghosn, who turned Nissan around so quickly, is no petrol head. So, odds are 50:50 that the team will not be in F1, or any single-seater category for that matter, beyond 2008.

With at least 80% of the GPWC membership committed to the sport, the question is not whether the GPWC will stay together but how it stays together. Ultimately F1 needs the manufacturers, and, just as strongly, manufacturers need F1. It is not a matter of accepting a set of rules they can live with, but, rather a matter of pushing for rules they cannot live without.

So, GPWC will continue as a bargaining body for the five manufacturers, but will probably never see the light of day as race promoter. But, through negotiation it could well achieve what it would have as race promoter - without the hassles.