After five successful years, it was highly unlikely that Formula One would say goodbye to Singapore. The two cities may have water in common, but Valencia this ain't.

But with the F1 circus rolling into town for what could have been the last time were the race contract not extended, paddock people were keeping their fingers crossed that we weren't making our last visit to the much loved Singapore Grand Prix.

While some fans complain that the Marina Bay Circuit doesn't offer much in the way of overtaking, finding Singapore detractors in the F1 paddock is an impossible task.

We like the food, the people, the city, the culture, the vampire hours, and the once-in-a-season fun of racing at night.

And we remember a lot of good racing at this circuit (where overtaking does happen), not least Robert Kubica's stellar performance on these mean streets in September 2010.

So when news emerged that Bernie Ecclestone and the Singapore race organisers had called a special press conference for Saturday evening, we braced ourselves for confirmation of a contract extension. Because why would Bernie and co. hold a press conference to announce the race was finished?

Sure, Singapore had been pressing for a lower race hosting fee in light of the changing global financial climate (and their position of power as the Monaco of the east in F1 business terms), but that's no reason for FOA to bring an end to one of the most popular events on the calendar.

"We're very happy with what we've got in Singapore,” Ecclestone told reporters. “All of us without exception like being here and that made it difficult to negotiate. We eventually got there."

The Singapore Grand Prix contract has been extended to 2017, and while Marina Bay is likely to remain the backdrop of the race, the organisers admitted that they were open to the possibility of revising or moving the circuit, although no plans to do either are currently in place.

So the FIA have got clever, and now Bernie's fighting back.

At least, that's my reading of the F1 supremo's latest interview, with British tabloid the Daily Mail, in which Ecclestone suggests that it should be the front-running teams - and not motorsport's governing body - who control the Formula One rulebook.

"Now what we've got to do is look at how the technical regulations are made," Ecclestone said. "It should be the teams, though not all the teams, who do that. They are the people who have to come up with the money, not the FIA. It would be the established teams who are here to stay - Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Mercedes and probably Williams as old timers - deciding what to do."

Thing is, the current system does see the teams deciding what to do - rule changes are agreed upon by vote, and all of Formula One's stakeholders have their say.

But under this new system, proposed by Bernie, not only will more than half of the teams on the grid lose their chance of influencing the rulebook, but the FIA will lose a lot of power. And for this suggestion to come just as the FIA are making their largest power grab of the past two decades?

Not suspicious at all, is it?

Of course, Bernie's efforts to get the sport's bigger teams firmly in his camp will only work if the teams in question fall for it.

Williams and McLaren have already capitulated to Bernie's influence in previous disagreements this season - McLaren over the Bahrain Grand Prix, and Williams over Adam Parr - and there is a good chance that could be repeated.

And not just over this latest proposal, which could just be another sprinkler/medals suggestion. What we're really looking at is a push-me-pull-you between Bernie and the FIA, with the teams playing piggy in the middle till the Concorde Agreement and 2013 rule changes have all been signed, sealed, and delivered.

Mercedes have been standing firm, because they've got the clout to do so.

Ferrari traditionally go with whichever option gives them the best deal, and they're unlikely to change that approach now. So the question there is will Ferrari benefit more from an FIA-enforced RRA or the ability to control the regulations? To answer that, remember the Scuderia's infamous veto power that already gives them a certain amount of control.

And that leaves Red Bull. We already know that they're opposed to the proposals currently being considered by the FIA, and the strong relationship between Ecclestone and Christian Horner is far too valuable to the team for them to want to risk incurring the wrath of the F1 god.

With luck, Stefano Domenicali and Martin Whitmarsh will view this latest proposal not as team principals who stand to benefit, but as senior figures in FOTA, whose job it is to fight for the rights of every team, not just those who have been selected for special treatment by a pot-stirring Bernie.

My F1 news aggregator is obsessed with cost-cutting at the moment. At least, that's what it feels like. Every headline has something to do with the subject, whether it's yet another team principal contributing his thoughts on the topic or madcap schemes like the banning of tyre warmers.

And who can argue against cutting costs in the current financial climate? (If I had a penny for every time I've typed that sentence since 2008...)

But the current cost-cutting talk is about a whole lot more than just saving money. Cost-cutting is the media-friendly topic through which F1's biggest stakeholders are all trying to wrest control of the sport under the current Concorde Agreement negotiations.

Bernie Ecclestone, who has long been against the new engine formula being brought in by the FIA, has been using the cost-cutting argument to try and torpedo the 2014 switch. As an added bonus, burying the FIA president's pet project would be a demonstration of the F1 supremo's continuing power and influence.

The FIA is looking seriously at the prospect of enshrining cost cutting into the sport's regulations, something that would cost the organisation more money, but give them infinitely more power. Teams could be fined or disqualified for overspending, and the FIA would have the authority to stick their noses into all aspects of an operation, not merely a team's trackside and development work.

The teams, meanwhile, all want some form of action on costs, but continue to prod away at rivalries rather than seeking out common ground. And it's a problem - where do you set a fair cap when some teams are spending £300 million and others less than £80 million? And how do you go about restricting resources without creating a series of layoffs at the bigger teams?

Make no mistake - cost-cutting in Formula One is a very real issue, and one that needs to be addressed. But it is also being manipulated for political gain.