Jump to content


Photo

Matt Bishop and McLaren


  • Please log in to reply
225 replies to this topic

#101 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:19

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....


evidently the FIA (Not Mosley in this case but Richard Woods) found out that his main purpose in writing that horse shit article about Renault and leaking it to the British press was to divert the general public from the actual Mclaren spy case and to have an effect on the ultimate ruling. No wonder they ban his ass from the Gala.

Advertisement

#102 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:23

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.


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.

#103 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:29

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.


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.

#104 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,683 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:29

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.

In an analogy with a court case, putting information out about the subject of that court case 2 weeks prior to it occurring that was wholy incorrect would see you in a lot of trouble with the court. So I don't think the 2 week gap, nor the FIA's lack of previous comment, were particularly important.

It's like saying "Ferrari's secrets were stolen, not the FIA's, why did the FIA get upset?". The FIA are there to govern the sport, coming down on entirely factually incorrect press briefings regarding FIA hearings seems sensible to me.

As for Ferrari "having done it" - 1. did they? any evidence that you or the FIA could rely on? 2. if they did, any briefings that contained factual errors?

#105 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:30

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.


Thanks for that kar, very interesting read. It only goes to show many BB posters have a lot more common sense than most journalists - and that McZip didn't exist after all...;)

#106 FAUST!!!

FAUST!!!
  • Member

  • 104 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:38

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.



Can you find something that was from "an unofficial briefing from the Ferrari team on the upcoming hearing" in an italian Magazine or Newspaper that proved to be a blatant lie ?!

#107 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:41

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.


Well I'm not pretending McLaren are anything other than rubbish at politics and PR. But clearly the FIA were reacting to the briefing as protectors of Renault.

#108 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:42

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.

I don't think that's a hell of a lot of money really for someone toward the top of his profession. Or maybe it is in journalism, I don't know. But certainly not in Finance, Engineering, or IT.

#109 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:43

hill, damon, achives this peace of news:

"My heart sinks a little bit when you talk about the championship this year.

"I am aware, and a lot of people are aware, that there is a great deal of pressure on McLaren and that affects their ability to compete. It affected their ability to compete last year and it affected their championship result."

___________

so hill thinks background effects were a danger to mclaren success.
all due to pressures come from evil i suppose.

basically he says mclaren didn´t have a problem not winning last year because the alonso pressure was for them to lose it easy.

but he backs them to win this year again. with kovalainen? no. with british hamilton.

this could be a sympathy declaration by one mclaren driver but it is a simple statement by a british silverstone defender.

i know it is a bit of a confusion. should not hill know better?

#110 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,892 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 16:56

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.


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.

#111 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:00

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.


That's a fair point. His job in many ways had bonuses that weren't necessarily the type you see on a payslip. At least not the one from your primary employer. A bit like ex-Presidents and Prime Ministers who make their money after their 'tour of duty' while being paid peanuts during it.

I find it surprising personally. I can only speak for my profession (Software design/architecture) in which someone at my level (mid-tier) is in the 45-60k bracket, and someone as senior in the organisation as Bishop would have been in his, easily £100k+.

I just thought that (and while I don't like the fact, the fact still remains) the world's premier F1 magazine's editor would have been much more highly compensated.

#112 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,892 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:05

Now that I think about it, maybe it's pretax? That'd be 40-50 after? I know people who report to board members but don't have individual decision making abilities making 40k a year after tax.

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

#113 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:12

On 75k, that's about 50k take home, the tax bracket goes up to 40p after 39.5k but at least they stop extorting NI after 34k, it drops to just 1%.

When you think about his role, and probably his lifestyle, that's not a terribly massive amount of take home pay imo.

But you're right, with the benefit he got from his profile (notoriety) he no doubt easily supplemented that figure many times over with speaking and hosting gigs.

At McLaren he is presumably on 100k+ wont be able to do anything like the speaking/hosting gigs he used to, and probably will not be able to hide much of that 100+k from the taxman. At least with ad-hoc work you can use many tax schemes to only pay the company tax rate and by taking a dividend avoid NI completely.

Wonder then, to compensate for that McLaren must have been offering a fair wack of change. And given the damage he's already done to his profile (and bridges burnt in the media), I wonder what his position might be like if he got let go from Mclaren.

#114 pRy

pRy
  • Member

  • 10,713 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:23

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld

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


I feel your pain. One of the directors here seems put out if we don't take it in turns to pay for lunch during the days I'm in the office.

Working in F1, going to every race and making 75k before tax.. sounds like a dream job to me.

#115 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 55,892 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:39

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

#116 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:45

They are probably skint - need to pay off the mortgage of that weekend home in Herts :-)

#117 polymath

polymath
  • Member

  • 912 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 06 March 2008 - 17:45

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.


We have a company policy that states the senior employee must pay the tab at business related affairs, if 2 people are the same "rank" then the one with more years of service is required to pay.

#118 DLaw

DLaw
  • Member

  • 1,612 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:02

Banned from the FIA Gala is the icing on the cake. :up:

The guy has been writing crap all these years.

#119 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:09

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?”


That quote is pure gold :-)

Who is this Richard Woods guy, he must be good at what he does if no one has ever heard of him?

Advertisement

#120 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:17

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

#121 Jodum5

Jodum5
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 06 March 2008 - 18:20

Hilarious article. Tehre are a few more on that site I'm very interested in looking at.

Oh by the way, thanks to the article:

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 [ :eek: ] 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.





#122 Norm

Norm
  • Member

  • 306 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 06 March 2008 - 23:35

While I do believe this article I have to approach it with a bit of caution. After all, it is written by Tom Rubython, who is not exactly the most trustworthy man in F1 circles. Eason's quotes do offer a basis of truth and to be honest I would not put this past McLaren. Maybe it is time for Ron to retire. The more I learn about the whole spy deal and McLarens role, the more respect I lose for Dennis and Macca.

#123 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 07 March 2008 - 01:14

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!

#124 hobbes

hobbes
  • Member

  • 889 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 01:20

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

#125 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,277 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 07 March 2008 - 01:37

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


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.

#126 Flex

Flex
  • Member

  • 57 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 06:37

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.

Actually McLaren had to wind it up so that the FIA would sign off the 2008 car.

#127 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,304 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 07 March 2008 - 09:22

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!


Indeed, there is something to be said for having 'outsider' journos coming into the press pack. The only one with any real objectivity last year and he was really his first full season in the F1 paddock.

No doubt he'll be corrupted like everyone else but his writing was certainly refreshing last year. Particularly in the climate of somewhat partisanship over objectivity in the reporting of spygate last year.

#128 Hyatt

Hyatt
  • Member

  • 1,099 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 10:27

whoever wrote that articel ... he for sure has his fun trashing mclaren ...

#129 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 10:52

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.

McLaren got what they deserved when they hired this numpty, and its been bad new for McLaren ever since.

Great article though, and just goes to highlight what a walking disaster zone Bishop is.

Still, McLaren's "gain" is definately Autosport's (actual) gain! Good riddance to total crap! :wave:

#130 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,254 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 07 March 2008 - 11:44

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.


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.

#131 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 11:49

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.


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. :wave:

#132 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:06

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. :wave:


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.

#133 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:25

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.

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.

Having years of experience in something doesn't necessarily make you good at it. (How long has Bush been president...) It is very hard to read his articles, as well as to read of his amateurish fumbling of his Haymarket exit/McLaren start, and conclude that this guy is some fountain of knowledge in F1.

I wouldn't seek to impose my opinion on others though, so if many here respect "The Bish's" *shudder* opinion on F1, that is entirely their prerogative.

#134 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:49

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.


Of course he's knowledgeable about the sport he's been intimately involved in for decades but, like some forum members here, being very knowledgeable about a subject does not predicate the ability to provide accurate and clear-headed analysis of it.

#135 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 12:54

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.


you seriously need to read some of his articles. I won't comment necessarily on his knowledge as one can't be sure of that but given his writing and the fact he changes his opinions like the wind and can't give an analysis on anything without drawing in personal spite, I'd say he's shit as a journo.

Simply look at his articles over a number of years in F1 Racing. He's a joke. If you would like examples, I'm sure we could dig up some.

#136 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 March 2008 - 17:28

Apparantly Bishop is like a duck to water at his new employer. :p


A team principal in the making? Whitmarsh, watch out!

#137 klover

klover
  • Member

  • 3,862 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 07 March 2008 - 17:31

It comes as no surprise that Ferrari fans don't like Bishop. He must have touched a nerve with his articles :lol:

#138 VoidNT

VoidNT
  • Member

  • 1,561 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 07 March 2008 - 17:45

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


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

#139 Suntrek

Suntrek
  • Member

  • 1,769 posts
  • Joined: August 07

Posted 07 March 2008 - 23:04

Originally posted by VoidNT


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


:eek: :lol:

You just scared the shit out of me.

Ron come back! Everything is forgiven, I promise!

Advertisement

#140 pUs

pUs
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 07 March 2008 - 23:21

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.


Really, you don't have to be a journo to be able to criticise the way others write. Who else should judge him anyway? It's people like us who buy his magazine, for christ sake.. or bought it.

#141 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 07 March 2008 - 23:32

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.

#142 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 March 2008 - 00:47

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.



#143 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:22

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.


now all they have to do is piss of Windsor and the magazine might actually be ok.

#144 former champ

former champ
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:22

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 :lol:


such as?

#145 Italiano Tifoso

Italiano Tifoso
  • Member

  • 1,888 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 04:37

Originally posted by former champ


such as?


Have a read champ (http://www.sportspro....com/bishop.htm).

I think there is reason enough to be critical of Bishop, even his British journalist counterparts no longer think highly of him, why should Ferrari fans.

Windsor is tolerable but his head is a little too far up Lewis's behind, having said that he also worshipped the ground Michael walked on a little too much but at least Michael had the championships behind him to validate such worship.

In his defence, they (the Brits) have been waiting for a decent British driver for sometime now, it is only expected that they embrace Lewis as they have.

#146 alfa1

alfa1
  • Member

  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 March 2008 - 05:25

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 :lol:



Well thats unfortunate, but fans are just people who can do as what they like without being answerable to anyone, but this should NOT also be the role of the FIA...

It threw Richard Woods, the FIA’s director of communications into a state of apoplexy
after he was leant on by Max Mosley to do something about it. In some ways Bishop had
played right into Woods’ hands. Woods had already targeted the former editor for some
‘treatment’ after he joined McLaren. From being an FIA favoured son, he had gone to
the top of its ‘enemies list’ maintained by Woods. Especially when he had turned F1 Racing
overnight into a pro-Dennis, anti-Mosley magazine. The briefing delivered him
straight into Woods’ arms.


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

#147 LeD

LeD
  • Member

  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 08 March 2008 - 06:47

There is nothing more hilarious, or more unedifying at the same time, than watching a bunch of journos with their snouts bloodied by another journo's entrails.

#148 LeD

LeD
  • Member

  • 1,433 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 08 March 2008 - 07:00

"who is Richard Woods?" someone asked in an earlier post. Here are some snippets:

...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.”


Here

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).



#149 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 08 March 2008 - 07:06

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.

And what a huge hairy mother of a witch they caught in the process.

#150 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,579 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 March 2008 - 09:16

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


Witch hunts always catch their witch. That's why they're called witch hunts.;)