Why won't they just go away...
#1
Posted 02 April 2006 - 04:23
Jordan won a few races and Stoddart got a 5th...
The sooner they are no longer involved with any future plans for F1, the better, I say.
They need to be put down.
Neither has the same substance of, say, Sir Frank.
Two ego maniacs is two more we just don't need. The grid is already full.
Discuss!
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/50655
#3
Posted 02 April 2006 - 06:06
#4
Posted 02 April 2006 - 06:16
Because now that they are out of the sport they realize that there is nothing else that else that has the same thrill.
#5
Posted 02 April 2006 - 06:43
Originally posted by LB
because, unlike you, they have racing in their blood
Preach it brother! I agree very much LB.
#6
Posted 02 July 2007 - 20:55
Originally posted by The Kanisteri
Preach it brother! I agree very much LB.
Truth to tell, racing IS in my blood. It is, however, the two wheeled variety...
Racing a bike costs a lot less than trying to do the same thing on 4 wheels...
And for the record, thus far, have not done that well. That said, I am actually out there doing it.
Peace out people!
#7
Posted 02 July 2007 - 21:14
Originally posted by LB
because, unlike you, they have racing in their blood
Especially with Eddie, who has dedicated so much of his life to it.. he set up and personally ran an F1 team for 10 years after all, along with so much other racing. He is, as Ive heard it described, "a racing man".
Paul.. well he does seem to be seriously into it, though he is open to the accusation of "hobby for a guy who got rich doing something else", but fairs fair he has put a lot into it too.
#8
Posted 02 July 2007 - 21:19
Originally posted by mp4
That said, I am actually out there doing it.
Is that why it takes you 15 months to respond to a comment?
#9
Posted 02 July 2007 - 23:17
Originally posted by mp4
They need to be put down.
That sounds harsh there...
#10
Posted 03 July 2007 - 00:31
#11
Posted 11 April 2008 - 22:10
Originally posted by Scudetto
Is that why it takes you 15 months to respond to a comment?
Yes. Yes it is.
#12
Posted 11 April 2008 - 22:16
Originally posted by mp4
Truth to tell, racing IS in my blood. It is, however, the two wheeled variety...
Racing a bike costs a lot less than trying to do the same thing on 4 wheels...
And for the record, thus far, have not done that well. That said, I am actually out there doing it.
Peace out people!
with respect m8, there's plenty of short oval racers who'd disagree.....from bangers to stock cars to autograss on a couple of grand per year
re: Eddie and Stoddy, I can't help thinking they've seen a damned sight more of this business than we have, Eddie especially having built a team from 'grass roots' (I can remember British F3, was there a specific EJR before then?) to GP winners.....Stoddart I can't speak for, I'm not familiar with his history but y'know.....they've been there m8.
#13
Posted 12 April 2008 - 03:27
#14
Posted 12 April 2008 - 05:12
Originally posted by LB
because, unlike you, they have racing in their blood
I wouldn't call it that, more like an infection. They can't stand not being in the limelight, and having people ask them their opinions, etc. You see the same thing in JYS and Moss. The latter two I can kind of forgive, especially Stirling because he was hardly a multi-millionaire so it's not like he can do a Scheckter and go off and do something completely unrelated to racing.
Jordan in particular. The way he mismanaged his team into the ground, with the worst of intentions, makes him the last person who's opinion I want to hear. The only service it provides is to show me the opposite of what you should be thinking.
#15
Posted 12 April 2008 - 10:09
#16
Posted 12 April 2008 - 10:24
#17
Posted 12 April 2008 - 10:36
Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Ross, I can understand your misgivings about Jordan. The way he mismanaged his own team does shed a sombre light on many comments he makes. But whatever has Stewart said or done that makes him less thrustworthy?
Stewart's comments about spygate for a start.
#18
Posted 12 April 2008 - 10:41
Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Ross, I can understand your misgivings about Jordan. The way he mismanaged his own team does shed a sombre light on many comments he makes. But whatever has Stewart said or done that makes him less thrustworthy?
I don't know about untrustworthy, because he's very transparent.
He's definitely got an agenda to either promote himself or discredit Mosley in just about anything he says, and on a good day he's just plugging whoever he's sold out to for that given year.
#19
Posted 12 April 2008 - 11:04
Advertisement
#20
Posted 12 April 2008 - 11:54
Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
I don't know about untrustworthy, because he's very transparent.
He's definitely got an agenda to either promote himself or discredit Mosley in just about anything he says, and on a good day he's just plugging whoever he's sold out to for that given year.
I read those allegations more often, but not by posters who I consider intelligent (like yourself, this is no sucking up). Can you give me one shred of evidence that Stewart (or either Hill or Moss, who have been accused the same way) has received money for expressing a certain opinion?
#21
Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:05
#22
Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:16
Originally posted by ensign14
Sir Jackie is excellent at mentioning sponsors at the appropriate juncture. Nothing to do with his OPINIONS being bought. Remember when Barrichello was given a Rolex for a qualifying performance when at Stewart? How and why do you think that made its way to the papers?
Ofcourse. But as you say, that is has nothing to do with opinions. When Stewart made his (premature and perhaps illjugded, yes) comments about Spygate, I am sure he was not payed for it.
#23
Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:29
#24
Posted 12 April 2008 - 12:49
Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Sorry, you misread what I said. I think when he says something he's got an agenda to promote, a political one. If he's not criticising or praising something, he's just plugging his sponsors.
Okay, fine. But doesn't everyone has an (political) agenda to promote? Clearly, Stewart dislikes Mosley. I really disliked Balestre, and after all the shenanigans (the handling of Spygate, the attack of Stewart, the lawsuit against Brundle, the reaction to the German manufacturers), I've come to dislike Mosley... Usually, when someone says he does not have an agenda, it's when I am getting really suspicious...
But I am happy we've cleared that misunderstanding and that you took the trouble....
#25
Posted 14 April 2008 - 07:27
As if Stoddard and Jordan’s opinions are less valuable than Frank Williams because they were forced to sell their teams and Frank escaped that fate.
Unlike MP4, these men have actually put their money were their mouth was. Jordan invested a lot of money, to say nothing of blood, sweat and tears, in his team. At the end, he declined to use his recently gained wealth to try to compete with the deep coffers of the works teams. This enabled him to leave F1 with a fortune after 13 years. Surely that makes him unique as most people lose money in F1.
Does this make him unworthy? A ‘money grubbing Irishman’ invading and then polluting F1?
How about Stoddard? He was a fan that entered F1 as a sponsor, then bought the Tyrrell surplus and eventually rescued Minardi from closure. He spent a lot of his own money keeping the team alive and was only forced to sell when Red Bull threatened to raise their own B team and likely take away the TV money Minardi relied upon for survival.
Somehow, they don’t seem like F1 hangers-on to me but passionate fans with a personal link. And their opinions are extremely valuable and relevant when it comes to the problems of small, independent teams. Something Frank Williams has only recently become re-acquainted with.
#26
Posted 14 April 2008 - 09:07
Originally posted by taran
This is a rubbish thread .
As if Stoddard and Jordan’s opinions are less valuable than Frank Williams because they were forced to sell their teams and Frank escaped that fate.
Unlike MP4, these men have actually put their money were their mouth was. Jordan invested a lot of money, to say nothing of blood, sweat and tears, in his team. At the end, he declined to use his recently gained wealth to try to compete with the deep coffers of the works teams.
He also took money intended for the team. At best, a draw.
#27
Posted 14 April 2008 - 11:34
Originally posted by taran
This is a rubbish thread .
As if Stoddard and Jordan’s opinions are less valuable than Frank Williams because they were forced to sell their teams and Frank escaped that fate.
Unlike MP4, these men have actually put their money were their mouth was. Jordan invested a lot of money, to say nothing of blood, sweat and tears, in his team. At the end, he declined to use his recently gained wealth to try to compete with the deep coffers of the works teams. This enabled him to leave F1 with a fortune after 13 years. Surely that makes him unique as most people lose money in F1.
Does this make him unworthy? A ‘money grubbing Irishman’ invading and then polluting F1?
How about Stoddard? He was a fan that entered F1 as a sponsor, then bought the Tyrrell surplus and eventually rescued Minardi from closure. He spent a lot of his own money keeping the team alive and was only forced to sell when Red Bull threatened to raise their own B team and likely take away the TV money Minardi relied upon for survival.
Somehow, they don’t seem like F1 hangers-on to me but passionate fans with a personal link. And their opinions are extremely valuable and relevant when it comes to the problems of small, independent teams. Something Frank Williams has only recently become re-acquainted with.
And let me add Peter Sauber to the list of racers with a track record and experience to share.
#28
Posted 14 April 2008 - 13:11
I wouldn't want to take anything away from his 3 WDCs, but he really needs to learn, in respect of his current role, 'less is more'.
#29
Posted 14 April 2008 - 13:32
Originally posted by Perigee
Jackie Stewart is an official Guiness World Record mission to try and bore everybody to death whilst taking himself far, far too seriously...all whilst (as accurately described by Mosley) dressed as a 1930s music hall man, and covered in corporate advertising.
I wouldn't want to take anything away from his 3 WDCs, but he really needs to learn, in respect of his current role, 'less is more'.
And Mosley doesn't take himself seriously? I'd rather see Sir Jackie in his tartan trousers than Mad Max stark naked being whipped by hookers dressed as Nazis.
I really love the fact that Max called Sir Jackie a "figure of fun" among the drivers last year.
I doubt he exclusively holds that title anymore...
#30
Posted 14 April 2008 - 13:48
Originally posted by potmotr
And Mosley doesn't take himself seriously? I'd rather see Sir Jackie in his tartan trousers than Mad Max stark naked being whipped by hookers dressed as Nazis.
I really love the fact that Max called Sir Jackie a "figure of fun" among the drivers last year.
I doubt he exclusively holds that title anymore...
You are quite right of course...Mosley takes himself just as seriously as Stewart, (but then he does (did!) actually have a position of some responsibility, not just somebody to lick corporate bottom), but your point still stands. And, of course, in light of the recent revelation about Mosley, it is ironic he should have called Stewart a figure of fun, when he (Mosley) has become a figure of absolute derision.
However, at least Max doesn't wear his S&M garb to the races, whereas Stewart does seem to turn up to races dressed head to toe in his "specialist fetish-wear".
Perhaps they already have so much in common that Stewart is the natural successor to Max to head the FIA?
#31
Posted 14 April 2008 - 14:10
Originally posted by Perigee
However, at least Max doesn't wear his S&M garb to the races, whereas Stewart does seem to turn up to races dressed head to toe in his "specialist fetish-wear".
Perhaps they already have so much in common that Stewart is the natural successor to Max to head the FIA?
I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Stewart is one of the good guys of the sport. Three world championships, started a Grand Prix winning team from scratch and has mentored great drivers over the years. And despite that he is very approachable.
Max is pure venom. **** of the earth.
#32
Posted 14 April 2008 - 14:19
#33
Posted 14 April 2008 - 14:22
Originally posted by potmotr
I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Stewart is one of the good guys of the sport. Three world championships, started a Grand Prix winning team from scratch and has mentored great drivers over the years. And despite that he is very approachable.
Max is pure venom. **** of the earth.
Word
#34
Posted 14 April 2008 - 14:38
If you want to move beyond the comment itself, it is better to consider the bigger picture and then re-assess the comments, since a lot of comments are uttered by people who have undeclared agendas. That doesn't make them bad people - it simply means that once you have assessed the comment at face value, a more searching bigger picture re-assessment is usually required.
Incidentally, I sgree with the sentiment that anybody whose comments start with phrases like "honestly", "with the greatest respect" and "trust me" is likely to be engaging in the opposite approaches. People who are being truthful expect to be believed, and do not even think of saying such things to bolster their position.
#35
Posted 14 April 2008 - 15:07
Well, even one of Max's nemesis, Ron Dennis, regards (in his recent speech) much of what the FIA have introduced as laudable....whilst one might not agree with everything Max says and does, or even his nocular activities, I think it would be hard to regard him, in respect of his FIA activities, as "****" and retain a great deal of respect for the rest of your argument.Originally posted by potmotr
I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Stewart is one of the good guys of the sport. Three world championships, started a Grand Prix winning team from scratch and has mentored great drivers over the years. And despite that he is very approachable.
Max is pure venom. **** of the earth.
Stewart may well be a "good guy", but, for me, he could bore to death in a matter of moments. He certainly lacks the gravitas of Moss or even Hill when he speaks, probably as he is so very over-exposed*. I've never seen him to approach him, but I will try if I should catch him in the corner of my eye.
*See - it's not just Max!
#36
Posted 14 April 2008 - 16:52
Perhaps, if and when the corporate sponsorship bubble bursts - or at the very least deflates a wee bit - we might welcome the return of the garagiste entrepreneur in love with racing cars?
#37
Posted 14 April 2008 - 17:18
Clearly you are not wanted here.
#38
Posted 14 April 2008 - 17:29
Poor Bucky he has already left the building, when will he learnOriginally posted by Pikku Pakkanen
Bye bye Buck.
Clearly you are not wanted here.
#39
Posted 14 April 2008 - 17:36
Originally posted by Sébastien
Poor Bucky he has already left the building, when will he learn
Seems strange that a few are unhappy with him here, why is that? because you don't like what he says because you don't agree with it?
Unless he is trolling, throwing insults then he should be welcome here. SO There is no need to ban him, certainly no reason to welcome it and down right disgraceful and stupid to laugh at it.
Advertisement
#40
Posted 14 April 2008 - 17:50
#41
Posted 14 April 2008 - 18:12
Originally posted by Anomnader
Seems strange that a few are unhappy with here, why is that? because you don't like what he says because you don't agree with it?
Unless he is trolling, throwing insults then he should be welcome here. SO There is no need to ban him, certainly no reason to welcome it and down disgraceful and stupid to laugh at it.
Agree. Can't really know anymore what you can talk about and with whom. And where!
I'd like to have both Jordan and Stoddart back.
#42
Posted 14 April 2008 - 19:37
I think Bucky was a great addition to the BB while it lasted, just like Paul Stoddart was a great addition to F1Originally posted by Anomnader
Seems strange that a few are unhappy with him here, why is that? because you don't like what he says because you don't agree with it?
#43
Posted 15 April 2008 - 01:17
JYS on the other hand, did a lot for the sport, from both a profile and a safety/administration perspective. I believe he has a right to talk about how the sport is run.
#44
Posted 15 April 2008 - 09:33
#45
Posted 15 April 2008 - 15:45
Originally posted by AyePirate
Why won't they go away?
Because now that they are out of the sport they realize that there is nothing else that else that has the same thrill.
I think there is some chance of money being involved. There are a lot of rich, connected Japanese drivers with no homes...please give today.
#46
Posted 15 April 2008 - 22:10
A certain Russian gent who bought Jordan is an exception, along with Tom Walkingshaw who shafted drivers wherever he went. So many accusations, some at least must have truth involved.
Prost was hopeless and sadly sullied his racer reputation, Stewart, not so. You put the car on the podium top step and you have your place in permanent history. Stewart did all that was possible to challenge Ferrari and McLaren and it was a good time before the Jag/Ford debacle - which showed how hard it is to succeed even with corporate muscle.
Lets not forget Jordan came from the lower formulae, Eddie was a competent racer. They actually hired young talent and eventually won races. Frentzen challenged for the title one year before the wheels metaphorically fell off.
Stoddart's dream was a bit realistic but hell he had a crack and saved Minardi from likely oblivion for another couple of years anyway.
In answer to why won't they go away - why the hell should they? If they love the sport good on them. Pay your way, don't cheat and lie (well not too much) and don't expect to beat Ferrari regularly.
I am far happier seeing good old fashioned "garagistes" having a crack than big car companies entering the sport for their own corporate and often short term motivations. In reality we need both types.
#47
Posted 15 April 2008 - 22:19
#48
Posted 17 April 2008 - 23:09
People previously close to the heart of the sport can choose not to take these calls and they will soon dry up, I imagine. If you still hold dreams of getting back in you would likely take the call.
#49
Posted 17 April 2008 - 23:31
He also believed for a long time that the FIA wanted smaller teams to be profitable and competitive. But that FIA rhetoric turned out to be false.Originally posted by Buttoneer
Stoddy entered F1 though just as the manufacturers took over and made the whole thing more expensive. He just didn't have the deep pockets of Mercedes, Toyota, and BMW, who were willing to spend big for the benefit of only one team.
I liked Stoddard because he wears his heart on his sleeve - he says what he thinks. Unlike most others in F1. No one tells the whole truth anymore, not even the drivers, who once had real opinions.
#50
Posted 17 April 2008 - 23:36
I believe a major factor in him quitting his team was due to his son's cancer (his son had a major management role in the team I believe).Originally posted by potmotr
I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Stewart is one of the good guys of the sport. Three world championships, started a Grand Prix winning team from scratch and has mentored great drivers over the years. And despite that he is very approachable.
Considering that JYS is a certified half wit, imagine with a whole brain what he might have achieved.