Matt Bishop and McLaren

Originally posted by undersquare
Amazing how strong the FIA's response was, as though Bishop had been briefing against them rather than merely against Renault....

Originally posted by Gareth

On the eve of an FIA hearing, McLaren put out a briefing on the facts of that hearing that was wrong on virtually every count. I'm not surprised the FIA would react strongly to that.

Originally posted by undersquare


The email went out 2 weeks before the hearing, on 22nd November. The FIA hadn't published anything so they weren't being contradicted.

In the same piece, this..."McLaren had actually taken its cue from Ferrari for this. All through its own hearings earlier in the year, Ferrari had skillfully briefed Italian journalists, who had printed stories undermining McLaren."

About which the FIA said nothing at all.

Originally posted by undersquare


The email went out 2 weeks before the hearing, on 22nd November. The FIA hadn't published anything so they weren't being contradicted.

In the same piece, this..."McLaren had actually taken its cue from Ferrari for this. All through its own hearings earlier in the year, Ferrari had skillfully briefed Italian journalists, who had printed stories undermining McLaren."

About which the FIA said nothing at all.

Originally posted by kar
Had to talk about this:

http://www.sportspro....com/bishop.htm

Somewhere.

I can't believe this story has stayed buried for as long as it has. Given the implications for almost the entire corps of the British press maybe that's why.

Bishop hadn't even started before he had adopted McLaren's cock up at all costs work ethic.

Originally posted by undersquare


The email went out 2 weeks before the hearing, on 22nd November. The FIA hadn't published anything so they weren't being contradicted.

In the same piece, this..."McLaren had actually taken its cue from Ferrari for this. All through its own hearings earlier in the year, Ferrari had skillfully briefed Italian journalists, who had printed stories undermining McLaren."

About which the FIA said nothing at all.

Originally posted by kar


Emphasis on Skilfully. I.e. at least remotely truthful, if not exactly unbiased.

McLaren's PR was completely untrue, wielded with the dexterity of a jack hammer and worse, utterly transparent.

This on the back of the farce they made of the cool fuel furore too.

Originally posted by kar
The other thing in that article that was interesting is just how little Bishop was paid at Haymarket.

I mean 150K USD is now circa ~£75,000.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Depends on how you measure it, whether it's 75k before or after tax, but not many people are on anywhere near 75k in this company unless you're very important. And I mean company running, not magazine running. Journalism doesn't pay very well at any level.

But Bishop did/does lots of hosting work. Grand Prix Tours, the Sponsorship Forum, etc. Nice little side earners for public speaking.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld

And strangely I always fight with them over who pays for lunch instead of sitting back :

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
No I mean I always offer to pay. When someone is nearly twice what I am, I should let them spend spend spend.

Now as the dust settles it appears that much of the action in the 2008 Formula One season will be off the track. In one corner is Max Mosley and his PR rotweiller, Richard Woods. In the other are Ron Dennis and his novice mouthpiece Matt Bishop.

As one very experienced journalist said: “It’s easy to predict the outcome of that battle isn’t it?”

Message from Matt Bishop: As of December 20th 2007, I am no longer an employee of Haymarket Consumer Media (publishers of F1 Racing); therefore I am not be able to access the email you have just sent me. On January 2nd 2008, I start work at McLaren Group, as Group Head of Communications and Public Relations. I can be emailed on [ ] between December 21st 2007 and January 1st 2008, and on matt.bishop@mclaren.com from January 2nd 2008 onwards. My mobile number will remain the same ([redacted by moi]). If your enquiry is urgent, please feel free to call or SMS me on my mobile. Thank you.

Sometimes i wonder if the situation was much worse than we thought while some people keep insisting McLaren wasn't as guilty as charged

Originally posted by Raelene


I'm sure it was which is why they wrote the letter of apology.... they took a plea deal to stop the investigation... because the longer it went on, the more was found. They cut their losses.

Originally posted by Mat
Agreed, it is by Tom so it should all be taken with a grain of salt. but there is no doubt that matt bishop got himself into a bit of strife here. The real interesting stories are those by Ed Gorman, he was right on the story the whole time!

Originally posted by Perigee
I still find it highly amusing that McLaren decided to employ the talentless Matt Bishop. You don't need to read many of his articles discover he has an ego the size of Heathrow airport and and F1 knowledge and insight the size of a microscopic particle.

Originally posted by Oho


How insightful, however one has to wonder given these criteria why they did not hire you in Bishop's place, must be because you did not submit your CV for the job.

Originally posted by Perigee


Not quite sure what "criteria" you're referring to. The only reference I made to myself was "I still find it highly amusing...".

To be fair, most people would not take that as a claim that they are better at a given job than the person they are referring to, or as a suggestion that they themself would like to apply for the job. However, if you yourself find it distasteful to criticise anybody else about their abilities or suitability in a given role, especially a self-declared F1 guru, you are free to follow your own rules. Just don't expect to successfully impose them on anybody else.

Originally posted by Orin


You can't claim Matt Bishop is clueless about F1 and expect to be taken seriously, you're just throwing insults for the sake of it. He may be an annoying egomaniac, but he's certainly very knowledgeable about the sport.

Originally posted by Perigee

He gives the image - which apparently convince some - that he is very knowledgeable about the sport, but have a read through some of his F1 articles in recent years and the opposite becomes apparent.

Originally posted by Orin


You can't claim Matt Bishop is clueless about F1 and expect to be taken seriously, you're just throwing insults for the sake of it. He may be an annoying egomaniac, but he's certainly very knowledgeable about the sport.

Originally posted by giacomo
A team principal in the making? Whitmarsh, watch out!

Originally posted by VoidNT


Yup. And Peter Windsor as a technical director under Bishop. That would be McLaren from hell

Originally posted by Oho


How insightful, however one has to wonder given these criteria why they did not hire you in Bishop's place, must be because you did not submit your CV for the job.

Originally posted by lukywill
may this predict autosport will be more focused on critical journalism instead of snoring past figures.

What Bishop had done threatened Haymarket’s whole relationship with the FIA on which it depended.

Originally posted by BMW_F1
I don't read this magazine but I've been told that since his departure the content has become more objective and less bias. Apparently there was an article in this month's magazine written by either Bishop's replacement or his old boss, about how the entire subject of Lewis racist remarks in Barcelona had been blown up out of proportion by the media. I highly doubt something like this would have been published with Bishop around.

Originally posted by klover
It comes as no surprise that Ferrari fans don't like Bishop. He must have touched a nerve with his articles

Originally posted by former champ


such as?

Originally posted by klover
It comes as no surprise that Ferrari fans don't like Bishop. He must have touched a nerve with his articles

...in 2002 he started to change and not, in most people’s opinion, for the better. In that year, two new men came into his life. The first was 43-year-old Richard Woods, who was promoted from a minor role at the FIA Foundation to be the FIA’s director of communications. From the moment of his appointment, Woods was never again far from Mosley’s side

The relationship of Woods and Purnell with Mosley has marked the last five years of his presidency. Both men have a deep admiration for the president. That the admiration is mutual is not in doubt. They formed a troika and two years ago a person close to all three described the relationship as “homoerotic”.

In 2004 Purnell persuaded Mosley to make a change in the Formula One engine regulations from V10 3-litre engines to V8 2.4-litre engines. It was a move opposed by everyone. The motor manufacturers, led by BMW’s Mario Theissen, flatly refused to go along with it. But with the help of Richard Woods, Mosley threatened BMW that he would interfere with the crash test ratings of its new BMW 5-series model.

Paul Stoddart is one who believes Mosley was a changed man after he came under the influence of Woods and Purnell. He says: “He changed to become a dictator of the way he saw the future and was no longer prepared to listen to any reason proposed by the teams and any due process.”

After a three-day trial before a jury Mr. Rubython was awarded damages of 17,000 (english pounds) and Mr. Justice Gray ordered Mr. Woods should pay Mr. Rubython's costs on an indemnity basis from June 2006 onwards. The total costs, payable by Mr. Woods, of both Mr. Rubython and the magazine plus those of Mr. Woods are approximately UK 250,000 pounds(US $480,000).

Originally posted by alfa1
Hardly the proper role for what is supposed to be an impartial sporting administrator.
Really does look like a witch hunt.

Originally posted by giacomo
And what a huge hairy mother of a witch they caught in the process.