90 replies to this topic

[dau]

Can't be that well off, his LMP2 outfit had their cars seized at Le Mans this year on court orders after a supplier/partner claimed they hadn't been paid, it was only a last minute agreement that led to them getting their cars back in time for the race.

From what i recall, the court threw out the claim as being unfounded and had the parts returned.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Maybe Wolff said something that actually shocked Kolles and a spark of conscience made him pass on the information?

So how did he know to record the conversation beforehand, and what was so honourable about asking for money to keep the recording secret?

[oetzi]

Everyone's phone can record a conversation at the tap of a screen, not a hard thing to start (sorry, just got to reply to this text...)

Unless you know what was being said beforehand, you can't answer that.

[metz]

Obviously he feels he is entitled to some money, or a senior position at a team with the help of Wolff. It's a major personality flaw, if you ask me. He's a jerk, in short.

A meeting with him is as pleasant as a trip to the dentist.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Everyone's phone can record a conversation at the tap of a screen, not a hard thing to start (sorry, just got to reply to this text...)

Unless you know what was being said beforehand, you can't answer that.

Yeah but you wouldn't know all the scandalous things Wolff said, until after he said them. I really find it hard to believe someone thought "omg this is incendiary stuff" and started recording the call afterwards out of pure concern for the people being talked about.

[ch103]

I am not a lawyer and I do not understand how laws in the EU work, however, in the United States if you are recorded unknowingly then the recording itself has no value in a court of law.

[Cool Beans]

I am not a lawyer and I do not understand how laws in the EU work, however, in the United States if you are recorded unknowingly then the recording itself has no value in a court of law.

In the civilised world all credible evidence is taken into account. If a person has committed a crime obtaining evidence he will face his own, separate trial.
In other words a judge won't put fingers in his ears and shout la-la-la.

[NotAPineapple]

In the civilised world all credible evidence is taken into account. If a person has committed a crime obtaining evidence he will face his own, separate trial.
In other words a judge won't put fingers in his ears and shout la-la-la.

Mate, that's exactly what happens to any evidence obtained illegally.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Wolff isn't being charged with a crime though, so the admissibility of the Kolles evidence isn't relevant.

[JaredS]

So all of the people he spoke about apparently have a copy of what he said.

I wonder what Kolles hopes to gain, and strange for Wolff to be so candid with him.

My thoughts too. Also this smacks of some concerted campaign to destabilise Mercedes. By whom and for what reason, who knows. Strange.

[JaredS]

Thanks for the translation


So now a few people in the team, and more importantly senior board members know exactly what Wolff thinks of them, that must make for interesting team briefings

Hang on, there's reports of a recorded conversation. Reports that some journalist was handed over a transcript which he's handed over to Daimler.

But where's the actual audio? Does it exist?

It may well do, but I haven't heard anything further on this so appreciate if someone could point me towards it. It would be quite easy to suggest that something has been recorded, make up a transcript and hand that around saying it's based on an audio recording that doesn't exist. Because of the mere mention of "audio recording" everyone has swallowed the pill that it must be true.

Maybe it does exist, I don't know. But it seems strange that without any further proof, the mere mention of an audio recording has everyone assuming that the transcript is fact.

So, unless I'm mistaken and independent people have actually heard this audio recording, then I would hope that the senior board members are not quite as short sighted and narrow minded to believe some transcript of a supposed recording without hearing the recording or otherwise Wolff accepting that the transcript is indeed accurate. Of course I don't expect such logic by forum members!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Basically, yeah.

The only thing we know for certain is Wolff is involved.

[SealTheDiffuser]

In the civilised world all credible evidence is taken into account. If a person has committed a crime obtaining evidence he will face his own, separate trial.
In other words a judge won't put fingers in his ears and shout la-la-la.

maybe in your country

[g1n]

maybe in your country

If evidence gets ignored because it was obtained without permission then there is something wrong with your justice system

[Ross Stonefeld]

It removes the incentive to gather evidence illegally, like searching people's homes without just cause and etc.

[Cool Beans]

It also let's guilty people walk away, which is a pretty irresponsible way to ensure the legality of gathering evidence IMHO. Punishments to the people that break the law when gathering evidence should be used as the deterrent instead.

'Oh you broke the law? Bad cop, we're gonna let a murderer go now as a punishment to you' sounds pretty ridiculous to me and more like a punishment to the general population than the cop breaking the law.


And yes this is way off topic

Edited by Cool Beans, 19 July 2013 - 18:07.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You let a few of the guilty go free to protect the innocent.

[ch103]

It also let's guilty people walk away, which is a pretty irresponsible way to ensure the legality of gathering evidence IMHO. Punishments to the people that break the law when gathering evidence should be used as the deterrent instead.

'Oh you broke the law? Bad cop, we're gonna let a murderer go now as a punishment to you' sounds pretty ridiculous to me and more like a punishment to the general population than the cop breaking the law.


And yes this is way off topic

If you do not mind me asking, which country do you live in?

In the United States of America, for even trivial things such as calling AT&T or Verizon with Customer Care type questions, they have to ask for your permission to record the conversation. If they do not, they are breaking the law. It gets back to protecting the rights of innocent people, as Ross Stonefeld mentioned.

[ray b]

as the recorder was not a cop or government's agent
that changes if it would be allowed in a USA court of criminal law
as most local laws limit official actions not a private person's
as to if evidence is legal

no idea how the euro's handle this

[Ross Stonefeld]

If you do not mind me asking, which country do you live in?

In the United States of America, for even trivial things such as calling AT&T or Verizon with Customer Care type questions, they have to ask for your permission to record the conversation. If they do not, they are breaking the law. It gets back to protecting the rights of innocent people, as Ross Stonefeld mentioned.

The rules over individuals recording each other without permission varies from state to state. I'm not sure if they'd be allowed in civil trials or what not.

But Wolff was recorded and he's not the one at risk of criminal or civil challenges.

[Cool Beans]

If you do not mind me asking, which country do you live in?

A communist hellhole.

In the United States of America, for even trivial things such as calling AT&T or Verizon with Customer Care type questions, they have to ask for your permission to record the conversation. If they do not, they are breaking the law. It gets back to protecting the rights of innocent people, as Ross Stonefeld mentioned.

I think that's pretty universal. Pretty much the same everywhere with minor differences. Don't know the exact wording of the law but there are some cases here where recording your personal phone conversations is ok according to a recent court decision. And common sense stuff like not having to mute the microphone when shooting a video with your phone in a public place etc.

[oetzi]

Yeah but you wouldn't know all the scandalous things Wolff said, until after he said them. I really find it hard to believe someone thought "omg this is incendiary stuff" and started recording the call afterwards out of pure concern for the people being talked about.

People have done it before. Got halfway through a chat with someone they thought they knew and realised 'This is't right' and got some evidence in while they could.

[oetzi]

Hang on, there's reports of a recorded conversation. Reports that some journalist was handed over a transcript which he's handed over to Daimler.

But where's the actual audio? Does it exist?

It may well do, but I haven't heard anything further on this so appreciate if someone could point me towards it. It would be quite easy to suggest that something has been recorded, make up a transcript and hand that around saying it's based on an audio recording that doesn't exist. Because of the mere mention of "audio recording" everyone has swallowed the pill that it must be true.

Maybe it does exist, I don't know. But it seems strange that without any further proof, the mere mention of an audio recording has everyone assuming that the transcript is fact.

So, unless I'm mistaken and independent people have actually heard this audio recording, then I would hope that the senior board members are not quite as short sighted and narrow minded to believe some transcript of a supposed recording without hearing the recording or otherwise Wolff accepting that the transcript is indeed accurate. Of course I don't expect such logic by forum members!

Why would you apply for a court order preventing publication of something that didn't exist?

[JaredS]

Why would you apply for a court order preventing publication of something that didn't exist?

I haven't heard anything about this. Can you please provide a link?

[JaredS]

People have done it before. Got halfway through a chat with someone they thought they knew and realised 'This is't right' and got some evidence in while they could.

Sure, if the evidence was some breach of the law. Or sure, if you were hearing your best friend's wife talking to one of her friends about the affair she was having.

In this case, Wolff is having a whinge about some people at work and someone thought, quite innocently, "Oh I better tape this!" Then he supposedly transcribes it, hands it over to a journalist who then decides that it is best to pass it on to Mercedes board members. Yes it all just happened unintentionally. How ridiculous.

[JaredS]

Hang on, there's reports of a recorded conversation. Reports that some journalist was handed over a transcript which he's handed over to Daimler.

But where's the actual audio? Does it exist?

It may well do, but I haven't heard anything further on this so appreciate if someone could point me towards it. It would be quite easy to suggest that something has been recorded, make up a transcript and hand that around saying it's based on an audio recording that doesn't exist. Because of the mere mention of "audio recording" everyone has swallowed the pill that it must be true.

Maybe it does exist, I don't know. But it seems strange that without any further proof, the mere mention of an audio recording has everyone assuming that the transcript is fact.

So, unless I'm mistaken and independent people have actually heard this audio recording, then I would hope that the senior board members are not quite as short sighted and narrow minded to believe some transcript of a supposed recording without hearing the recording or otherwise Wolff accepting that the transcript is indeed accurate. Of course I don't expect such logic by forum members!

Why would you apply for a court order preventing publication of something that didn't exist?

I haven't heard anything about this. Can you please provide a link?

OK I think I found the link http://www.f1zone.ne...il-wolff/19745/

Reportedly, Wolff and Kolles have settled their dispute with the intervention of F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone, while Mercedes has obtained a court order preventing the publication of the details of the conversation.

LOL so I'm saying "Hang on, we don't know the facts of all of this and how true it is yet, does the audio even exist. Not saying it doesn't exist, but we don't know anything yet". Your reply is that the audio must exist because there is reportedly a court order.

Great work! Just easier to write "I don't like Mercedes", no?

[swerved]

If a recording did exist, we probably wouldn't be able to hear it anyway due to it being drowned out by the sheer crescendo of denials from Wolff and Co.

Or not.

[JaredS]

If a recording did exist, we probably wouldn't be able to hear it anyway due to it being drowned out by the sheer crescendo of denials from Wolff and Co.

Or not.

Still bitter about the Pirelli test? Belongs in another thread, yes?

[swerved]

Still bitter about the Pirelli test? Belongs in another thread, yes?

Belongs in this thread.

Pirelli denials belong in another thread, take them there.

[JaredS]

Belongs in this thread.

Pirelli denials belong in another thread, take them there.

Were you talking about the hypothetical crescendo of a denial that hasn't happened yet? In which case, sure it belongs in this thread, albeit it becomes a nonsense post.
Or are you talking about his previous denial regarding the Pirelli test - in which case my point stands - it doesn't belong in this thread.

Neither have I made a Pirelli denial in this thread, so there's nothing for me to take to another thread.

Anyway you've started an interesting thread on something quite controversial, though there isn't any firm information out there and only a lot of heresay and claims. The two people party to that supposed conversation haven't said anything about it yet. Of course it's reasonable that it's based on something, as they say there's no smoke without fire, but at the moment it's all just a bunch of claims. Even looking at the claims so far, the interesting part isn't that Wolff bitched about his colleagues and bosses - I don't think there are many here who could claim they've never done that - rather the interesting parts are that he was supposedly so outspoken to Kolles; how/why did Kolles record the conversation; why did Kolles give transcripts to a journalist; why did the journalist pass it to Mercedes senior people; what has Kolles to gain out of it, supposedly blackmail which makes little sense given he's a rich man and blackmail is a criminal jailable offence.

Would be good to stick to that topic rather than make nonsense remarks about a crescendo of denials that belongs in the Pirelli test thread.

[swerved]

Would be good to stick to that topic rather than make nonsense remarks about a crescendo of denials that belongs in the Pirelli test thread.

Lets try and make it simple, so that you might be able to follow.


This thread concerns the apparent blackmail of Toto Wolff, the crescendo of denials (that we haven't heard, hence the "or not") refers to the lack of any denials from Toto Wolff/Mercedes and infers that if a recording did exist its decibel level would probably be greater than that of the denials, since there have been no denials.

I hadn't mentioned the Pirelli test in this thread.

You bought the Pirelli test into this thread.

Okay ? Good!.


As to all of your questions about Kolles, i dont know the answers, and it may be that we never will know, quite likely thanks in no small part to the injunction/gagging order that Mercedes supposedly went to the trouble and expense of obtaining.



I disagree with you though, the interesting part as far as i'm concerned is excatly that Wolff supposedly bitched about his colleagues and bosses, its interesting because when Wolff and Lauda were appointed there was speculation that there might be dissent internally because of the ego's of those involved, and possibly because of Wolffs continuing financial interest in Williams GPE, this story is interesting because it seems to point to that happening sooner than some might have expected, it also reaffirms my opinion that when considering the triumvirate that is Wolff Lauda and Brawn, they're fully deserving of each other.

[JaredS]

Lets try and make it simple, so that you might be able to follow.


This thread concerns the apparent blackmail of Toto Wolff, the crescendo of denials (that we haven't heard, hence the "or not") refers to the lack of any denials from Toto Wolff/Mercedes and infers that if a recording did exist its decibel level would probably be greater than that of the denials, since there have been no denials.

Ahhhh ok denials that may or not come, and if they come they may or may not drown out an audio recording that may or may not exist. The point being.... My bad, I now see that you weren't at all referring to the Pirelli test and you simply made a nonsense post.

As to all of your questions about Kolles, i dont know the answers, and it may be that we never will know, quite likely thanks in no small part to the injunction/gagging order that Mercedes supposedly went to the trouble and expense of obtaining.

What a conundrum. It would certainly make it difficult to get down to the bottom of an alleged blackmail if the whole thing has been silenced by an alleged gag order. I also heard that, allegedly, Bernie Ecclestone was behind a mediation between Kolles and Wolff. I haven't yet heard of any rumours of Bernie allegedly making some money out of it somehow.

I disagree with you though, the interesting part as far as i'm concerned is excatly that Wolff supposedly bitched about his colleagues and bosses, its interesting because when Wolff and Lauda were appointed there was speculation that there might be dissent internally because of the ego's of those involved, and possibly because of Wolffs continuing financial interest in Williams GPE, this story is interesting because it seems to point to that happening sooner than some might have expected, it also reaffirms my opinion that when considering the triumvirate that is Wolff Lauda and Brawn, they're fully deserving of each other.

I still don't think anything is special about an employee bitching about his colleagues and bosses. However the big caveat there is the level of the bitching. If the alleged bitching was very serious e.g showed that he hated or seriously disrespected his colleagues and bosses, rather than disagree (even strongly, ok) about them, then sure that's concerning.

I partly agree - I don't see a problem with Wolff's influence in Mercedes, but Lauda's is interesting. I think like most people, and especially someone of his experience, he would be able to contribute significantly to any team. The question though is whether the positives outweigh the negatives. He seems to model himself on Helmut Marko who seems to be a controversial, and sometimes divisive influence within Red Bull. Having said that, Red Bull has been hugely successful, though we'll never know if that is in part because of, or despite of, Marko.

Lauda has always been a controversial figure. Wolff however hasn't seemed to have that kind of reputation. Though I do agree with you that it's strange that he has interests in two teams which are competitors. Whilst if both interests were purely financial, that would not be so strange. But having a management influence at Mercedes whilst having a financial influence at Williams and married to Suzie Wolff who is a team member at Williams - all seems a little strange.

I don't see the problem with Brawn. Hugely successful - 2 WDC's and 1 WCC at Benetton, 5 WDC's and 6 WCC's at Ferrari, 1 WDC and WCC at Brawn GP and now putting together a strong team at Mercedes. I guess with that success it's natural there would be green eyed detractors. A bit like Horner who's been extremely successful recently and starting to gather a following of detractors too. Though other than that, I wouldn't say the quietly spoken Brawn and rambunctious Horner are alike.

[oetzi]

So without hearing (or even believing in the existence of) the tape, you somehow you know what was said on it?

Impressive.

[JaredS]

So without hearing (or even believing in the existence of) the tape, you somehow you know what was said on it?

No, you just misunderstood yet again.

I still don't think anything is special about an employee bitching about his colleagues and bosses. However the big caveat there is the level of the bitching. If the alleged bitching was very serious e.g showed that he hated or seriously disrespected his colleagues and bosses, rather than disagree (even strongly, ok) about them, then sure that's concerning.

[oetzi]

No, you just misunderstood yet again.

No, you did.

How do you know there was any bitching?

(I'm guessing you've not heard the tape)

[oetzi]

this smacks of some concerted campaign to destabilise Mercedes.

Is this the kind of wild conclusion you're advising people not to jump to?

[JaredS]

Is this the kind of wild conclusion you're advising people not to jump to?

Not at all. Making allegations of recording a sensitive private conversation, or the actual recording of a sensitive private conversation CAN both be part of a concerted campaign to destabilise. Smacks of = suggests. Does not equal a definite conclusion

[oetzi]

Not at all. Making allegations of recording a sensitive private conversation, or the actual recording of a sensitive private conversation CAN both be part of a concerted campaign to destabilise. Smacks of = suggests. Does not equal a definite conclusion ;)

Neither is a judgement a definite conclusion.

[JaredS]

Neither is a judgement a definite conclusion.

Sure it is. Judgement ~ Opinion expressed as facts. When one makes a judgement, they've made a conclusion. It's not an indefinite conclusion either.... "He is a douche bag" It's a pretty conclusive statement. You don't usually see judgements phrased inconclusively "He is a douche bag..though I'm not so sure".

So after resorting to making things up earlier, it's now pedantry and you're not even getting that right and on top of all that, you've altogether missed the point. The point being that it's not quite right to make judgements based on rumours or alleged events. Sure, we're all guilty of it at some time or the other. I'll stick my big hand up and plead guilty to it myself, without a doubt I've done it. But I'll fully recognise if someone else responds to my judgement telling me "Hang on Jared, hold your horses fella it's only alleged and there aren't any facts yet".

Anyway all obvious stuff really and no doubt you'll come back with something inane which I'll leave for someone else to take up if they're bored. Focusing back on the topic at hand, haven't heard any further developments to this story. However I did hear one little snippet a few days ago:

Daimler's head of global communications Jorg Howe has now been quoted as saying: "He (Wolff) has our full confidence and will continue his successful work.
"We know that formula one is a shark tank," Howe told Germany's Sport1. "If you are successful, you will be pelted with mud."

What this was in response to is not conclusive, but seems it may be a response to the tape allegations. But it is good that they realise that F1 is cut throat.

I'm sure the allegations

[oetzi]

You find out all sorts on here.

I had no idea you were in charge of the English language.

Could you maybe start a blog to keep the rest of us up to date?

It would be particularly useful for us non-native speakers.

[SophieB]

Enough.

If there are substantial developments in this story, it can be re-opened.