Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Ecclestone Denied return to F1 board


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:24


It's being reported in both the Telegraph and Daily Mail that Ecclestone has been denied a return to the board of Delta Topco. Someone at CVC must have worked out that a sale/ flotation is more likely without that 'spectre' at the party.

Advertisement

#2 Ellios

Ellios
  • Member

  • 3,070 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:43

DM link: http://www.dailymail...-One-board.html



#3 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:48

I thought there was an unwritten rule about not quoting Daily Mail sources  :lol:



#4 Newbrray

Newbrray
  • Member

  • 2,750 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:53

I thought there was an unwritten rule about not quoting Daily Mail sources :lol:


The rule only extends to Twitter and Facebook......dailymail still okay for now although from 2015 they will be included :)

Edited by Newbrray, 03 October 2014 - 06:53.


#5 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:01

Even though that sounds great, I refuse to click through to that *ahem* "news"paper

#6 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,756 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:02

I thought there was an unwritten rule about not quoting Daily Mail sources  :lol:

 

See sig. ;)



#7 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,994 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:03

See sig.  ;)

 

So it's not even unwritten  :rotfl:



#8 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:14

It's also in the Telegraph, so I think that trumps the DM rule.

#9 Ellios

Ellios
  • Member

  • 3,070 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:32

I can edit my original post to the Telegraph if that saves my soul?



#10 Andy35

Andy35
  • Member

  • 4,823 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:44

Nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, my 80 year old mother loves it.  All those medical stories and how the past was a lot better.

 

Kids eh?  That Banksy should be doing community service as well, the amount of vandalism he has done over the years.

 

Andy



#11 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:49

DailyMail are nor worse neither better than others. Anyone that can think outside the social pressure knows that newspapers only exists because they are political projects.



#12 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:54

DailyMail are nor worse neither better than others. Anyone that can think outside the social pressure knows that newspapers only exists because they are political projects.

 

True - it's just that they pretend they don't know this.



#13 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,756 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 03 October 2014 - 08:40

Nothing wrong with the Daily Mail, my 80 year old mother loves it.  All those medical stories and how the past was a lot better.

 

Daily Mail Cause Or Cure Cancer Dictionary



#14 Lotus53B

Lotus53B
  • Member

  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 October 2014 - 08:48

From the wonderful "Yes, Minister"

 

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big bits.<edited>


Edited by Lotus53B, 03 October 2014 - 08:49.


#15 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 03 October 2014 - 08:50

From the wonderful "Yes, Minister"

 

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big bits.<edited>

 

that gets me every time. That show is so timeless - most of the scripts could have been written now. It shows how little politics changes... 

 

Its the same in F1 really. 



#16 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:14

From the wonderful "Yes, Minister"

 

Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.

Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care *who* runs the country - as long as she's got big bits.<edited>

 

Yes, thank you Bernard.



#17 Richard T

Richard T
  • Member

  • 2,108 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:28

Is this a thread about a tabloid's reputation or Bernie being denied return to the F1 board?  :drunk:



#18 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:32

I think the uniform deriding of a particular newspaper or a refusal to read something outside one's normal preferred choice is an implicit admission of a lack of ability or pure laziness not to think critically about what one is reading.


Edited by hittheapex, 03 October 2014 - 09:33.


#19 Lotus53B

Lotus53B
  • Member

  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:33

Sleaze in general, I think...

 

Bernie being denied his return is very interesting, but I think we'd prefer more sources and information, the primary source newspaper has a reputation for hyperbole and extension.  It does have deeper ramifications, apparently it applies to his seat on the boards of all the subsidiaries as well - CVC etc, which ould have long term effects on F1 funding.

 

Like him or loathe him*, Bernie united F1 and created the brand, and turned a bunch of squabbling Sunday racers in multi-squillionaires, and got us our regular fix of televisual entertainment, and if he's removed, there may well be a period of turbulence which, in the short term, will benefit no-one.  Whether in the long term there are benefits, is debatable, but probably not on this thread.


Edited by Lotus53B, 03 October 2014 - 09:33.


Advertisement

#20 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:37

I think the uniform deriding of a particular newspaper or a refusal to read something outside one's normal preferred choice is an implicit admission of a lack of ability or pure laziness not to think critically about what one is reading.

If you'll look at my post history, it's from personal experience of the lazy reactionary sensationalist "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" journalism which is employed there which means I wouldn't even eat my fish & chips out of it.

I don't mind reading a topic and critically assessing it from a different source.

Sorry for the OT rant!

Edited by Maustinsj, 03 October 2014 - 09:38.


#21 Makrar

Makrar
  • New Member

  • 24 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 03 October 2014 - 09:41

Is this a thread about a tabloid's reputation or Bernie being denied return to the F1 board?  :drunk:

 

Is there much of a difference anymore?  :rotfl:



#22 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:08

Is there much of a difference anymore?  :rotfl:

Some of the things Bernie says would only have come from a tabloid if we didn't know the man better! :rotfl:



#23 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:10

If you'll look at my post history, it's from personal experience of the lazy reactionary sensationalist "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" journalism which is employed there which means I wouldn't even eat my fish & chips out of it.

I don't mind reading a topic and critically assessing it from a different source.

Sorry for the OT rant!

My apologies Maustinsj, it wasn't meant to come across as being aimed specifically at you (or anybody else) for that matter. I just wouldn't dismiss a story out of hand because of where it is published, was my point. Heck, even in the worst of the dregs I think "even a clock that is off is right twice a day" or however it goes.



#24 Maustinsj

Maustinsj
  • Member

  • 4,911 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:59

My apologies Maustinsj, it wasn't meant to come across as being aimed specifically at you (or anybody else) for that matter. I just wouldn't dismiss a story out of hand because of where it is published, was my point. Heck, even in the worst of the dregs I think "even a clock that is off is right twice a day" or however it goes.

 

No offence taken - no worries  :kiss:



#25 Petroltorque

Petroltorque
  • Member

  • 2,856 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 03 October 2014 - 11:02

I think praising Eccleston for the historical success is no longer a valid reason to keep him in post. His business plan seems to consist of reducing the payout to the teams and extorting as much money as possible from the race promoters. Combine that with double points ( a failed gambit) and 3 car teams and one sees his cupboard is bare of ideas.

#26 hittheapex

hittheapex
  • Member

  • 1,193 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 03 October 2014 - 11:06

No offence taken - no worries  :kiss:

Good to know. I have this peculiar feeling now though, the forum isn't normally as peaceful as this....think I'll have to back to one of the driver/driver threads to straighten myself out :p



#27 Coops3

Coops3
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 October 2014 - 11:10

I was going to post this exact same link  :lol:



#28 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2014 - 11:25

My apologies Maustinsj, it wasn't meant to come across as being aimed specifically at you (or anybody else) for that matter. I just wouldn't dismiss a story out of hand because of where it is published, was my point. Heck, even in the worst of the dregs I think "even a clock that is off is right twice a day" or however it goes.

Certain newspapers have a repuation for 'embellishment' and I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to be looking for other sources to validate the first.  Often we will find that the original source is a non-English report and says something slightly different or more nuanced when some of the native speakers here have had a chance to trawl through it and translate independantly.

 

One of the best services this forum offers, IMO, is the critical analysis of the provenance of a story.



#29 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 03 October 2014 - 18:45

Like him or loathe him*, Bernie united F1 and created the brand, and turned a bunch of squabbling Sunday racers in multi-squillionaires, and got us our regular fix of televisual entertainment,

 

Whenever Bernie is mentioned, someone parrots this BS about how he 'made' F1 and what a lot of good he has done and how we should all be really grateful to the greedy little bigoted git.

 

Anyone with some decent business ability could have achieved the good things for F1 that Bernie managed, and without siphoning off more than half the proceeds into his own pocket. And they probably wouldn't have inflicted the damage that Bernie has caused.


Edited by BRG, 03 October 2014 - 18:45.


#30 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2014 - 18:52

It's not BS.  But it is a long time ago.



#31 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 03 October 2014 - 19:17

It's not BS.  But it is a long time ago.

I disagree.  Bernie did what any competent promoter would have done (and lots of them did in other sports, and even other parts of motor sport) and yet some people seem to think it was something incredible and unique that only he could have achieved.  And that is truly BS.  Look at how tennis and football and golf etc were all marketed and the TV coverage developed and the rights sold to bring cash into the sport.  Kerry Packer did this with cricket for instance.  Bernie has done nothing special, other than having the brass neck to nick most of the cash.  The only thing special about him is that he has succeeded in  fooling all of the F1 people all of the time.



#32 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • Admin

  • 19,094 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 October 2014 - 20:45

 Bernie did what any competent promoter would have done

Yet nobody else did.



#33 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 6,301 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 03 October 2014 - 21:26

Certain newspapers have a repuation for 'embellishment' and I don't think that it's unreasonable for people to be looking for other sources to validate the first.  Often we will find that the original source is a non-English report and says something slightly different or more nuanced when some of the native speakers here have had a chance to trawl through it and translate independantly.

 

One of the best services this forum offers, IMO, is the critical analysis of the provenance of a story.

 

It is not certain newspapers. It is all of them. 

 I could put links here to the crap that is spouted by The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, The Economist that turned to be lie.  Dailymail was the only to cover Rotherham scandal years ago, while others dithered because it was not PC but probably some here prefer it would be silenced.  

Journalists all have a partial agenda. You just have try to get the best of them.

------------------------

 

What upsets me more about Bernie is the lack of attention for the product after the good job he done putting it in TV.

At time TV was the entertainment, there was a pipeline of what was interesting defined by TV and journalists and political , commercial interests. 

Now that barrier doesn't exist anymore at that level. It is all fragmented. Like someone said, in freedom men go in every direction.



#34 LORDBYRON

LORDBYRON
  • Member

  • 1,645 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 03 October 2014 - 21:34

As Gary would say it's absolutely fantastic.



#35 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 44,040 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 04 October 2014 - 00:42

The rule only extends to Twitter and Facebook......dailymail still okay for now although from 2015 they will be included :)

 


Who died and left you in charge?

#36 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 25,898 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 04 October 2014 - 18:52

Yet nobody else did.

I don't recall anyone else being given a chance.  Max gave the rights to his buddy boy.  In return for how much kickback, if any, we don't know.  But it doesn't alter the fact that Bernie did nothing exceptional, other than enriching himself well beyond the dreams of avarice.


Edited by BRG, 04 October 2014 - 18:52.


#37 Dolph

Dolph
  • Member

  • 12,129 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 October 2014 - 22:27

I don't recall anyone else being given a chance.  Max gave the rights to his buddy boy.  In return for how much kickback, if any, we don't know.  But it doesn't alter the fact that Bernie did nothing exceptional, other than enriching himself well beyond the dreams of avarice.

 

I might be wrong but isn't one of F1's biggest problems that the F1 rights have been sold many times over from hand to hand and every time a larger loan has been taken so more and more money has to be generated for the banks.



#38 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 22:39

So if Bernie is not allowed to retake his seat on the board where does that leave him? Does that mean his day-to-day job is under threat as well, because surely the reasons that apply to him not being wanted on the board surely apply to him running the business day-to-day?



#39 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 23:11

Moyer to the point, where does it leave them?

Advertisement

#40 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 23:15

Moyer to the point, where does it leave them?

Well without Bernie they seem to have no intermediary between them and the teams. I'd assume that's a position they want filled in some capacity by someone who knows the sport and can deal with the teams, OR they're looking to sell up anyway and getting rid of Bernie now smooths the path for that somewhat as Bernie's name isn't far off mud right now, especially for new investors...



#41 OSX

OSX
  • Member

  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 04 October 2014 - 23:34

Ecclestone Says F1 Board Reports 'Rubbish'
4 October 2014

 

edGhDWb.jpg

 

Bernie Ecclestone has slammed reports his return to Formula One's executive board has been denied.

 

British newspapers on Friday had said that despite his German legal troubles now being over, the board of F1's holding company Delta Topco put "conditions" on Ecclestone's return that were not met.

 

But the 83-year-old F1 'supremo', not in Japan this weekend, has hit back at the reports that he describes as "complete and utter rubbish".

http://www.motorspor...reports-rubbish
 



#42 SanDiegoGo

SanDiegoGo
  • Member

  • 1,065 posts
  • Joined: July 13

Posted 04 October 2014 - 23:36

So if Bernie is not allowed to retake his seat on the board where does that leave him? Does that mean his day-to-day job is under threat as well, because surely the reasons that apply to him not being wanted on the board surely apply to him running the business day-to-day?

 

thing is bernie knows where the bodies are buried, so he still runs F1 defacto. unless CVC actually fires him publically he will still be the boss till he says otherwise.



#43 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 04 October 2014 - 23:54

Well without Bernie they seem to have no intermediary between them and the teams. I'd assume that's a position they want filled in some capacity by someone who knows the sport and can deal with the teams, OR they're looking to sell up anyway and getting rid of Bernie now smooths the path for that somewhat as Bernie's name isn't far off mud right now, especially for new investors...

Or selling up means Bernie gets his job back and they don't smell.

Who else would they listen to?

#44 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 00:27

I've no idea to be honest... I just get the feeling that Bernie is being put out to pasture, but there is ultimately a reason why and that's what I'm not sure of.



#45 oetzi

oetzi
  • Member

  • 6,829 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 05 October 2014 - 02:05

That might not be as easy as they think...http://www.youtube.c...h?v=RAgsubC0zaE - just replace 'retirement home' with 'team principals' meeting'.

 

 

ps for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting Bernie shares any of the bad qualities of the subject of the video. 


Edited by oetzi, 05 October 2014 - 02:14.


#46 OSX

OSX
  • Member

  • 4,877 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 05 October 2014 - 03:44

Bernie Ecclestone Says He Is Back On F1 Board
4 October 2014

 

pFJ14vN.jpg

 

Formula One ringmaster Bernie Ecclestone rejects reports he has lost his place at the top table with Formula One's shareholders.

 

Ecclestone, 83, stood down from Delta Topco, the board consisting of F1's shareholders, when he went on trial for bribery in Munich. After handing over a £60 million settlement when the prosecution's case collapsed in August, he was bullish that he would return to the board given the charges against him had been dropped. But well-informed sources said he had not been reinstated and at the last board meeting, last month, conditions were placed on his return. However, Ecclestone said claims that he was not back on the board were “complete and utter rubbish”.

 

He told The Daily Telegraph: "The agreement was, when this trial started, I agreed to stand down from the board while the trial was on. Afterwards, it's business as usual. Yes [I am on the board]. I stood down from the board when this Munich trial was on, and went back on, well, continued after the trial."

 

http://www.telegraph...n-F1-board.html