70 replies to this topic

[The RedBaron]

I have often wondered about Nigel's bias against M.Schumacher....so much so that I even e-mailed him about it.
Needless to say I never recieved a reply.

What I read today confirmed to me why I should take his
journalism with a pinch of salt.

Dear Nigel,
As a long time Ferrari fan (although I must confess to having had that passion tempered somewhat since the arrival of Todt, Schumacher et al – I think you know what I mean), I have often wondered whether or not the constant reference to their massive budget is justified.

Surely, considering that they produce both engine and chassis, one would expect their budget to be larger than say Williams or McLaren? Is their budget so huge when one includes BMW or Mercedes in the equation?
Fausto Furlotti

Dear Fausto,
I feel just like you. Time was – for countless years – that I was as big a Ferrari fan as anyone on earth, but I have not felt the same about it since it became a 'one-man team' in 1996, with the arrival of Herr Schumacher. Many will disagree with me, I know, but I really don't care to see a man of Rubens Barrichello's ability and character used as a slave to another driver's ambition. Still, there we are...

Take my word for it, Fausto, the references to Ferrari's massive budget are very much on the mark, however much Jean Todt and others may protest to the contrary. Consider, for example, what they pay Michael. The two-year extension to his contract, taking in the seasons of '03 and '04, is reputedly worth $68m, or $34m a year. No other team could even contemplate this kind of expenditure on a driver.

A little story to illustrate my point, and you must excuse my not using real names. A team owner – we'll call him Mr A – approached a middle-order technical man at Ferrari – Mr B – and offered him a job.

"We knew how much Ferrari pays," Mr A told me, "but this was a guy we really wanted, and so we figured we had to put a really high number on the offer, so that, OK, Mr B may not want to leave Ferrari, but at least he would have to think about our offer, because it was so high...

"Know what he said? 'Well, thanks very much for the offer, but... sorry, it's not even halfway there...'"

[squiggle bob]

Mr A. is there something you want to tell us?!

[Alvega]

To my knowledge Nigel Roebuck has always been biased in his opinions in favor of Mclaren and against Ferrari.

He was the one who predicted Ferrari would fall way behind as soon as TC was reintroduced, implying Ferrari had been cheating all along in the last couple of seasons.

I wonder what he has been writing since the Spanish GP... (not that I care much about his opinions) .

[karlth]

Originally posted by Alvega


...

I wonder what he has been writing since the Spanish GP... (not that I care much about his opinions) .

That is obvious.

[LB]

hmm, publishing a private letter without the authors consent...interesting

[mohrgan]

Glad to see there are others that feel the same way about Roebuck that I do.

[karlth]

Originally posted by LB
hmm, publishing a private letter without the authors consent...interesting

What is even more interesting is that the letter is published in Autosport with the authors consent.

It was not a private email.

[Smooth]

While I don't always agree with Nigel, he is clearly wrong here, in the simplest terms...... Ferrari's budget encompasses both chassis and engine development and production, as well as maintaining two FIA-approved circuits. Consider, simply, that McLaren's published budget is only a small percentage less than Ferrari's, it is just common sense that McLaren has more (much more) to spend on chassis development.

MS' salary is not even in play out of that budget, sponsors pick up whatever Schumacher asks.

[JPMCrew]

Nigel Roebuck shows his true colours

He has always admitted his dislike for Schumacher's tactics. I don't think he has been hiding his true colors anymore than, say, Dennis regarding Ferrari.

Would it be possible that a journalist have genuine reasons to question anything about Ferrari without being biased? I would guess someone like Roebuck has more inside info on any of the teams than any of you.

[Smooth]

JPMcrew: Nige has never made any qualms about his lack of objectivity. He doesn't like Schumacher, and he is glad to berate anything attached to him. He felt the same about Senna. The funny thing is, he applauds Montoya for exactly the things he dislikes about Schumacher and Senna....... he is not paid to write objective race reports.

[The Mirror]

Originally posted by JPMCrew
Nigel Roebuck shows his true colours


Would it be possible that a journalist have genuine reasons to question anything about Ferrari without being biased? I would guess someone like Roebuck has more inside info on any of the teams than any of you.

That's what makes this bulletin board so entertaining! All of the "expert" posters with their gems of information!
Never fails to keep me in stitches.

Go Montoya!

[chrisj]

It is amazing to me that a guy who's been around the sport 30+ years can consistently write such rubbish.

[Singing in the rain]

I can kind of understand Roebuck, he has to write selling stories for a living. Speculations sell!

We on the other hand...

[dbltop]

i think nigels bias leans to fair play.i agree with him that any teams second driver shouldn't have to move over to "give" points to a teammate,be it ferrari,maclaren or minardi. if a driver is fast enough to be ahead of his teammate he EARNED it.

[LB]

OK, I don't get Autosport til the morning...


Anyway I have always admired what most of the Autosport staff have to say in their reports it is a constant eye opener to F1 and exactly how messed up it actually is..

[Todd]

I don't expect Nigel's readers to pick up on it, but did any of you notice that Mr. B didn't say anything about the amount Ferrari paid him? All he said is that they didn't offer him half what it would take to leave Ferrari and work side by side with a bunch of slimey worms that are buddies with the like of Nigel Roebuk.

He should be prosecutable for slander for the number of lies he has published against Ferrari. I wish him frontier justice.

[130R]

Way to go Nigel!

The truth sometimes stings a bit.

[Todd]

130,

What did he write that was truthfull? I missed it. In fact, it has been quite a while.

[andy_bee]

so what, thats his opinion, thats why he is paid, he writes his opinion, thats why his work is published in countless magazines.

Just as everyone else has opinions on here, that was his, this is mine (I dont get paid though!)

[Bruce]

Yeah Nige! I knew there was a reason I liked this guy!

[Mischa]

This is what John Surtees thinks about the subject. The excerpt is taken from an interview with him by Chris Balfe, editor of planetf1.com:

One of the things that dismays me about the English scene is the way that certain sectors of the media have it in for Schumacher. Schumacher makes mistakes and at times does the odd thing that makes you wonder. However, generally he is a wonderful example of a very focussed real competitor who has created a wonderful relationship with his team. Not a loner coming along and acting the prima donna, so that as a team they have achieved so much and that should be applauded. One should not take the opportunity of picking on every slight indiscretion that may come up, and if there isn't one, finding some reason for criticism."

At this point I feel obliged to interrupt (again), I ask Surtees if this is a British media driven thing. I think largely yes," he replies. "It's largely media driven, there are one or two people. Nigel Roebuck (of Autosport) has it continuously in for Schumacher. I don't think that he's totally constructive. I think that he gets himself a bit programmed."

'It's almost fashionable to knock Schumacher," I remark. "It is not fashionable to go along and support him," replies Surtees. "It is fashionable to go along and knock him and I don't like it. I think we should give credit where it is due to someone who does a bloody fine job. How uninteresting racing became once Irvine had lost his way, and it wasn't until Schumacher came back and led Irvine into a performing group that it became interesting again. People forget this. There's a sort of character, where you can see that there is actual emotional involvement, which is why you get some of these indiscretions. It's not a question of merely doing a job and making sure you get highly paid for it. The man is emotionally involved, and that I can only applaud."

[Todd]

Somehow I'd rather side with John Surtees than side with the likes of 130R and Bruce.

[Smooth]

What does Surtees know about it? Nigel is clearly more qualified to talk about it than dear old John!

[f1racer]

Yes, that is an extremely refreshing interview with Surtees.

I'm sick of people who always have it in for Schumacher.

[karlth]

Surtees is known to have little respect for most british drivers, apart from himself.

And the merry-go-round continues ....

[Todd]

Originally posted by karlth
Surtees is known to have little respect for most british drivers, apart from himself.

And the merry-go-round continues ....

You're known to invoke Jim Clark, Innes Ireland, and Stirling Moss in your efforts to fluff up Jensen Button. Could it just be that your skewed perspective causes you to take objective evaluation of drivers such as Damon Hill, David Coulthard, and Jenson Button as being disrespectful? David is getting it together this year, but he has been an unmitigated flop for years. Jenson's hype last year was rather out of line with his performances. Not to say he did badly, but anyone pointing out that he was merely good would have really stood out like a sore thumb within the mainstream UK press.

Having watched a good bit of historic GP coverage on Speedvision, I'm left wondering whether Stirling Moss was really the best driver to never win a title, or just the most British driver to come up short with such frequency.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Todd

You're known to invoke Jim Clark, Innes Ireland, and Stirling Moss in your efforts to fluff up Jensen Button. Could it just be that your skewed perspective causes you to take objective evaluation of drivers such as Damon Hill, David Coulthard, and Jenson Button as being disrespectful?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. It is called being a fan.

Replace Damon Hill with Schumacher and you will find we are the
same breed.

[Chris G.]

Nigel provides "commentary" not "reporting." This is a big difference when it comes
to media and reporters.

The problem is that many people (myself included) don't always realize that a column
by one of these guys (Robin Miller is another example) is their editorial commentary -
not a report of the news.

It's frustrating because they pose themselves as reporters, but really they're just
editorial writers. Nigel is a prime example - a man who gets his opinion printed under
the auspices of news reporting.

[Ricardo F1]

I don't see what the fuss is about. Is there anything untrue in the response from Roebuck?? I'm not a huge fan of his either, but is someone truly saying that Ferrari has been more than a one man team since 1996? Does anyone think that another team would pay $34m for a driver (and DON'T bring the sponsor bull into this, that sponsor money would be used on the team if it weren't on the driver)?

Now I agree with Todd on the last statement, that the person in question might just want double his salary to leave Ferrari, but I guess that's all in the interpretation of the story and from where you heard it.

But did Roebuck say another wrong up there?

[se7en_24]

I'm still waiting to see an article by Nigel Roebuck where he hasnt got his tongue up Alesi's arse or without some kind of Mansell bashing in it...

[Todd]

Ricardo,

NR did write that Ferrari were cheating and that they would have their comeuppance when TC was legalized. It is now obvious that this was just wishfull thinking, but presented as supported inside information. That is dishonest, and not in a harmless way.

Would anyone else pay big bucks for MS? McLaren offered MS more than Ferrari was paying him at a time when the Ferrari # was about 25 million. When Senna was alive, McLaren paid him an amount that can be considered the equivalent of 30+ million today. What did Williams pay Prost and Senna in the early '90s? It wasn't chump change. BAR is paying JV about 20 million due to some chicanery pulled by JV and CP. How much would they pay for MS? How much would instantly appear for Ron, Frank, or Bobby to pay if they ever had a chance at signing Michael? He attracts sponsor commitment, just as Senna, Prost, and even Gilles Villeneuve did before him. Ferrari is fairly rolling in the $$ at the moment. It is a result of winning consecutive WCCs and having the #1 driver. FIAT contributes as little as a 10th as much as Mercedes does to McLaren, or Ford does to Jaguar.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
and DON'T bring the sponsor bull into this, that sponsor money would be used on the team if it weren't on the driver?

There wouldn't be that much sponsor money. Period. Marlboro would cut way back on what it provides Ferrari, or would go to another team to fly its flag. Schumacher is too good for there business, and attaching themselves to Ferrari during a resurgence is a no-brainer.

[Bruce]

I notice that Surtees doesn't mention Peter Windsor... PW kinda balances things out, I would say...

[Smooth]

But nobody takes Windsor as seriously as someone like Surtees. Windsor, I am convinced, is our very own Juan!

[Bruce]

[Melbourne Park]

I am in the machinery business. Believe me, for Ferrari to win two championships and a WDC is worth billions to Italy's many plant manufacturing businesses. An 8 colour printing press can cost millions of dollars, and the list goes on into all sort of machinery. Once Italian machinery was regarded as Junk with flair compared to German machinery, it is now regarded as excellent and better value.

If one looks at other team sports, its often surprising what a winning team does pay. For instance, I wonder what Real Madrid spends a year. And Manchester United, do they spend more than the 8th best English team? What about Bayern Munich, do they spend much more than the 8th best team? Of course they do, and they don't have to make the footballs!

Sure Roebuck's biased, but those in the know know ... That's not the problem. The problem is that despite knowing that Roebucks biased, the MS fans often can't help themselves: they just have to read it. Their sweaty fingers can't resist reading his crap.

As to this one, about the poor team that has been failing for years, no wonder they are failing. They go to a top mechanic, whose managed to get a good deal, probably with a performance bonus (I wonder if the launch control guys at McLaren are going to get much of a bonus this year ;) ), and they offer him a pittance. Then they whine about it. They are a perfect example of loosers, who should have realised by now that you get what you pay for. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. No doubt they and Nigel are happy eating bananas, drinking bear and whining about how the world's not fare ...

[Ricardo F1]

Well Todd, I'm still not convinced. There was a RUMOUR that Michael and McLaren were talking, I've never heard either party confirm whether that was true or not or what the figures discussed were. Ron Dennis is more about his car than his drivers, he's shown that many times in the past, there is no way he would go building a team around Michael the way Ferrari did.

Roebuck wrote that Ferrari would have their come-uppance once traction control was legalized? Well he had a point, are you going to argue that Ferrari's decline from a 0.5 second advantage in Melbourne is purely because everyone else has caught up?? Pretty common thinking has suggested that whatever Ferrari were doing during their gear change it was not just switching gears, I'm not saying it was illegal but it was a loophole that Ferrari seemed to be keen to keep as long as possible.

Smooth - sorry I just don't follow that argument about sponsorship at all, if Ferrari were still winning, be it with Schumacher, Coulthard, Hakkinen, Villeneuve then Marlboro would continue to pump money aboard the good ship. So give me DC for $10m and $20m of cash for the car thanks.

[Todd]

Ricardo,

I don't know why you aren't convinced. Ferrari was fastest at Melbourne, but the gap didn't last untill traction control was legalized. Look at Brazil. The first 5 cars were covered by .4 seconds, and they did not include Rubens' Ferrari. Fastest lap went to Ralf. David won. The next race was San Marino. The fastest Ferrar was 4th on the grid, .649 seconds back from DC's McLaren. Was DC 1.149 seconds faster than Michael? I doubt it. There was no .5 second advantage for Ferrari at that track.

When TC was legalized for Spain, MS returned to pole position. He also set the fastest lap. He also recorded pole at Austria. Then his LC failed at the start. That makes it look like Ferrari didn't give up any advantage to the new rules and they didn't have a fully developed LC.

You are still insisting that there is a pattern to support these ridiculous accusations, despite there being no such pattern. Why is that? For the same reason that you wanted to buy into the lies in the first place, whatever that was.

There are 3 teams that have the potential to be strongest at any given track. That was the case before the rule change. That is still the case. Did you notice that McLaren dominated in pace at the Australian GP in '98 and '99? Their gap fell to a more normal amount in the first 7 GPs too. I'm guessing that it is for the same reason. For whatever reason, Ferrari was the best prepared team this year.

As to saying that there haven't been direct quotes regarding MS and McLaren, I've seen them. Michael said the money was more. Ron said Michael was unfair for insisting on staying at the same team. Something other than money is at work. I don't blame him for not wanting to work for RD. By the way, Ron isn't the one known for putting cars ahead of drivers. Frank Williams is the one that puts an emphasis on getting recognition for his cars. I think Ron knows that drivers are important to his success.

[Williams]

I really don't care to see a man of Rubens Barrichello's ability and character used as a slave to another driver's ambition.

Funny, Rubens doesn't seem to mind too much, he signed up for another year of the same...

[BuzzingHornet]

Originally posted by Bruce
I notice that Surtees doesn't mention Peter Windsor... PW kinda balances things out, I would say...

True. The latest edition of F1 Racing is almost completely written by PW, and is becoming something of a MS tribute mag..! There's nothing wrong with saying positive things but Windsor takes it to a new level with Schumi, he's literally got the hots for him

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Smooth - sorry I just don't follow that argument about sponsorship at all, if Ferrari were still winning, be it with Schumacher, Coulthard, Hakkinen, Villeneuve then Marlboro would continue to pump money aboard the good ship. So give me DC for $10m and $20m of cash for the car thanks.

Obviously, the top teams all have the option of doing what you describe. Either Ferrari finds victories easier to come by with Schumacher, or the sponsors are more likely to pump money in for Schumacher's salary than for a DC quality driver's car. Ferrari spent a fortune trying to make champions out of Alberto, Alesi, Arnoux, Berger, Johansson, and Tambay. They spent millions more trying to get stars Prost and Mansell to show their championship form at Ferrari. None of it worked.

The structure of Ferrari hampered the consistent effort needed to deliver the very top result. Jean Todt built the team that finally did it around Michael Schumacher. There is a reason. To keep everyone motivated, they needed to know that they would get everything they worked for from the driver.

If they had a driver who wastes opportunities, like Alesi or David Coulthard(I dare you to deny this), then the team would not have stayed as focused or motivated. Considering that the prize alluded them through years of spending squillions on brilliant acts such as an R&D center in England and making Gerhard Berger the highest paid driver in F1, every penny spent on Schumacher has paid off tenfold.

[404KF2]

Schumi didn't go to McLaren because the Mafia made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Smooth - sorry I just don't follow that argument about sponsorship at all, if Ferrari were still winning, be it with Schumacher, Coulthard, Hakkinen, Villeneuve then Marlboro would continue to pump money aboard the good ship. So give me DC for $10m and $20m of cash for the car thanks.

You don't have to buy it: Look at what happened with Marlboro splitting their sponsor dollars, funding McLaren, until Schumacher commited. Ferrari were not a winner when they dumped McLaren and decided to pay whatever Ferrari said they had to to keep Schumacher. Schumacher was by then a two time WDC, and the only real bankable star on the grid. Who else was worth the $$ in driving talent, or marketability? Damon Hill? JV had an ok year in 1996, and should have been tossed by Williams after 1997. MS was, and is, worth whatever people are willing to pay him. $30 million a year US to sponsor just the car? Doubtful.

[Ricardo F1]

Well Todd I believe the 'ridiculous accusations' about the gear change doing more than just changing gear because pretty much everybody in the pit lane has either commented on it or suspects it was what was going on. Whatever it was Ferrari definitely arrived in Melbourne with a much faster car than anyone else. That they lost that by Brazil, to an extent and then further on was due more to the power of BMW Williams than anything else. Either way Michael Schumacher not being pole in Monaco certainly suggests that whatever Ferrari advantage was there is not now.

As for the direct quotes re : Michael and McLaren, dig 'em out, I'd love to see them. As for your quote about Ron not caring about his car over drivers - while I agree that Frank definitely does I think even more so - I don't think Ron has ever sold the farm to keep anyone.

As for the Marlboro issue - clearly if Ferrari started losing, Schumacher or no Schumacher, they would lower their involvement. But if Ferrari was winning, Marlboro would be paying through the nose - they would only jump ship to go to a better team. If Ferrari kept Brawn, Byrne, Martinelli and co, lost Schumacher and got Hakkinen, Villeneuve or Coulthard they would probably be in the same place they are now.

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by BuzzingHornet


True. The latest edition of F1 Racing is almost completely written by PW, and is becoming something of a MS tribute mag..! There's nothing wrong with saying positive things but Windsor takes it to a new level with Schumi, he's literally got the hots for him

Maybe it's just me, but I have much more respect for reporters who make a living writing positive stuff about drivers or teams they genuinely admire, than I do for reporters who write negative stuff about people and teams they dislike.

I don't think F1 needs villians, just competitors. It's a sport.

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Whatever it was Ferrari definitely arrived in Melbourne with a much faster car than anyone else.

Every year someone arrives in Aus with a much faster car - look it up - do they all cheat?

[Ricardo F1]

Did I call someone a cheat?? Ferrari arrived in Melbourne with a system of traction control using gear shifting that was legal, bully for them and bully for them that they did an admirable job of ensuring the legal introduction of TC/LC as late as possible. McLaren arrived in Melbourne in 98 with a perfectly legal brake pedal system - and the effects were so shattering that the FIA had to take action before the season became a farce (and no I'm not even going to get into the discussion as to who pointed them that way).

I'll I'm saying is that there was nothing in Roebucks statement that hasn't been alluded to by most of the F1 press and people working in it elsewhere.

[Daemon]

Nigel Roebuck was, is and shall always be, and embarressment for any F1 Mag he writes for. Period. The guy is biased to the point of stupidity. Roebuck is a fool.

[Indian Chief]

it became a 'one-man team' in 1996, with the arrival of Herr Schumacher. Many will disagree with me, I know, but I really don't care to see a man of Rubens Barrichello's ability and character used as a slave to another driver's ambition.

:rolleyes:

He didn't have any problem when Ferrari became "Team Gilles Villenueve" in the early 1980s. He blasted Didier Pironi for not obeying team orders in early 1982.

P.S. I am not criticising GV here - just using him as an example.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Indian Chief


:rolleyes:

He didn't have any problem when Ferrari became "Team Gilles Villenueve" in the early 1980s. He blasted Didier Pironi for not obeying team orders in early 1982.

P.S. I am not criticising GV here - just using him as an example.

That was completely different. According to Ferrari, teammates
were not supposed to race and Villeneuve was in the lead when
Pironi overtook him.

Ferrari is Schumacher's team and it in my opinion it is foolish to
deny that but he probably deserves the treatment he gets
from Ferrari.