
Why does everyone hate Tom Walkinshaw?
#1
Posted 08 June 2002 - 08:08
Why?
Because he plays hard, lies and dishonours his contracts? But surely he also faces the legal consequences of dishonouring his contracts. This is nothing unique to Tom and I would say that by Formula One standards he is in pretty good company!
Why do you hate TW?
Advertisement
#2
Posted 08 June 2002 - 08:23

#3
Posted 08 June 2002 - 08:31

#4
Posted 08 June 2002 - 08:33
#5
Posted 08 June 2002 - 08:54
I think Verstappen deserved to get sacked HHF is doing much better; personally i don't like some of the dodgy deals he jumps at taking part in like the whole phoenix thing---think he should work on bringing more quality and consistancy into his existing team rather than being so scattered in his activities. Arrows hardly test at all, and apart from thr last few races in which HHF has done well- the Arrows have been like mobile chicanes that hardly finish.
#6
Posted 08 June 2002 - 09:30
Originally posted by annica
Why?
Because he plays hard, lies and dishonours his contracts?
Tom stole Minardis TV monay with Phoenix for Arrows
Do you need any other reasons??????
#7
Posted 08 June 2002 - 09:31
Originally posted by maclaren
Tom stole Minardis TV monay with Phoenix for Arrows
Stole? Interesting choice of both verb and tense!
#8
Posted 08 June 2002 - 09:40
Missed you by two minutes. I was busy here. Go figure.Originally posted by Steve Williams
Tom stole Minardis TV monay with Phoenix for Arrows
Yes. Specially since the one maclaren & you mentioned is a non-event and a product of your imagination.Do you need any other reasons??????
#9
Posted 08 June 2002 - 10:04
He's being smart. He is doing what others failed to do. Although I wonder whether it would have any affect at all in the cash infusion from sponsors. Much effort for nothing.Originally posted by lustigson
I just think that, if (or when) all the rumours about him shifting debts from one company to another and all that stuff appears to be true, he's being stupid.
What sport?He'd be 'bringing the sport into disripute'.
OK, lets try again...
No way is he bringing the sport into 'disripute'. He's playing by the rules and stretching them to the limits. More power to him, I say. That FIA clause is ridiculously vague to pass scrutiny by any court and I don't think we should base our arguments on such a silly clause.
#10
Posted 08 June 2002 - 10:04
But u covered many answers in your own flame bait troll..
Because he plays hard, lies and dishonours his contracts? But surely he also faces the legal consequences of dishonouring his contracts. This is nothing unique to Tom and I would say that by Formula One standards he is in pretty good company!
There all wankers, but thats F1.
Are u after after some personal reasons to hate him? none here can probably answer that unless your name is Verstappen.

#11
Posted 08 June 2002 - 10:10
#12
Posted 08 June 2002 - 10:57

#13
Posted 08 June 2002 - 11:47
Or maybe smiley was wrong.Originally posted by annica
Stole? Interesting choice of both verb and tense!
Yes. Specially since the one maclaren & you mentioned is a non-event and a product of your imagination.
Another try:
Tom stole Minardis TV monay with Phoenix for Arrows



#14
Posted 08 June 2002 - 11:58
Originally posted by boost
Are u after after some personal reasons to hate him?
No. But if you have some reasons do share.
I was most perplexed because every once in a while a poster would mention how s(he) hates/dislikes TW and then there would be a trail of posters claiming how they hate/dislike TW and things like TW deserves what he gets (don't we all?).
Myself, I quite enjoy TW and appreciate the way he runs his organization.
#15
Posted 08 June 2002 - 12:02
Originally posted by maclaren
Or maybe smiley was wrong.
I don't see smilies. They get stripped out of comments. Nevertheless, the point remains.
PS: Didn't you get 'warned' about annoying smilies?!
#16
Posted 08 June 2002 - 13:53
however, over the years he has made himself a reputation of being a liar and cheater, so maybe that's a reason why many people don't like him ;)
#17
Posted 08 June 2002 - 13:55
Man didnt you guys see Michael Douglas in Wall Street?

#18
Posted 08 June 2002 - 14:07
Look how well Arrows is doing now with HHF in the team!. Jos couldnt do anything near this imo (and we can argue about that the whole day. If you think Jos is better, thats fine with me.)
#19
Posted 08 June 2002 - 14:24
Advertisement
#20
Posted 08 June 2002 - 14:39
However, he is, to quote Annette Benning's character in "The Grifters,"
"so crooked he could eat soup with a corkscrew," and a wanker, so I given a chance, I probably neither work for him nor shake his hand.
#21
Posted 08 June 2002 - 15:35
him, he's just a very, very, very unpleasant person. He gives
off the impression that at any moment he could head-butt you.
An air of impending violence fills the room when he enters.
Just the kind of guy to set up the Russian GP

#22
Posted 08 June 2002 - 15:37
#23
Posted 08 June 2002 - 16:01
Originally posted by maclaren
Tom stole Minardis TV monay with Phoenix for Arrows![]()
nah, Minardi shouldnt get the tv-money since they didnt deserve them
#24
Posted 08 June 2002 - 16:14
But there is no chance for Minardi to dissaper from the F1 scircus, becuse Bernie has promised that there will always be 22 cars racing for every week, if he don't he will get seriously fined.
Minardi will get their money, and I don't like Tom Walkinshaw either way!
#25
Posted 08 June 2002 - 16:19
#26
Posted 08 June 2002 - 16:38
#27
Posted 08 June 2002 - 17:01
See AlesiUK's post. If the situation is as black and white as you paint it to be, then Mr. Stoddart would already have got the money. No matter what it says in concorde agreement regarding distribution of money, the fact is Bernard himself isn't confident that it would stand scrutiny of the court.Originally posted by Chrissy Boy
They do deserve the money, because prost went Bankrupt.
There is a reason for this.
Courts handle bankruptcy cases daily, so to say. And in those cases they always ascertain which party has invested and therby decide which party gets the money first etc. In this case, the money was 'earned' by ProstGP and any court that comes up with this situation would find the Bernard way of distributing money very strange and contrary to their expectations. Let's see how this situation develops.
But there is no chance for Minardi to dissaper from the F1 scircus, becuse Bernie has promised that there will always be 22 cars racing for every week, if he don't he will get seriously fined.
Bernard promised what? To whom? My understanding is that the agreement with circuit owners has a condition of atleast 18 starters. Do you think the circuit owners will be able to fine him? The FIA will fine him? Who will fine Bernard? Bernard can easily renegotiate with circuit owners a la Tom Walkinshaw (fitting, isn't it!) and they have no choice but to agree with him. Also I am not too sure, but if push comes to shove lower formulae cars may be allowed to fill the slots. But that's not gonna happen. Bernard will see to it. Let's see how this situation develops.
#28
Posted 08 June 2002 - 17:07
Tom's F1 dealings are notoriously dodgy. It wouldn't surpirse anyone to discover the top people at Arrows actually have TWR contracts, so if Tom jumps ship (to DART for example) they wouls have to follow. Arrows has huge debts and is in real financial trouble, but rest assured any assets they might appear to have will be TWR's not Arrows, so nobody gets paid. He's done exactly that before.
Then you add in the needless firing of drivers days before the season, gving Mark Webber a testing contract but not letting him anywhere near the car all year and you start to see why some people don't like having him around.
#29
Posted 08 June 2002 - 18:21
Would micheal Schum be where he is today without tom?had he just stayed with jordan after that race at spa would he have gone on to be multipul world champion?Tom took him to benneton.
Walkinshaw has always done a good job,at benneton,then at ligier and now at arrows,without him arrows would be no-where.
i like jos,but the fact is that frentzen is a better driver.tom knows that.
Not only is the man behind phoenix a friend of toms,but if phoenix makes it to race,then all the tech back up and personnel will come from TWR,in return phoenix pays TWR money for there services and tom can invest that in arrows.
I love minardi and i would love to see them get more money,but if stoddart says minardi will go bust without it then stoddart is not a good buisness man.He should be spending his time trying to get new sponsors instead of spending all his time moaning at walkinshaw over money which is not minardi 's.
#30
Posted 08 June 2002 - 19:59
He isn't afraid to go to court to fight - he has been sued by many and he also lost several times.
He even brought a sponsor into the courts! Volvo bought him out of the AutoNova plant after some very harsh words, meaning that they couldn't deal with him. Basically they said that he acted like a criminal. When was the last time you ever heard VOLVO say that??? They wouldn't do accusations like that unless.... Go figure.
TW knows racing, but he shouldn't be involved in business. Ask yrself this q: who amongst the ppl in F1 actually have ever said anything positive about him?'
HHF is driving at Arrows because Prost didn't survive and Bernoldi is just driving because of his Redbull connection(read $$$$).
Think about it this way, would you like to do business with TW? I wouldn't.
#31
Posted 09 June 2002 - 01:09
He sacked de la rosa without warning
he sacked Verstappen without warning
never gave them time to find another seat
and now he's causing another team to go bankrupt
#32
Posted 09 June 2002 - 01:17
#33
Posted 09 June 2002 - 01:40
In this case, the money was 'earned' by ProstGP
Nope, there are 2 conditions to earn TV money.,
1- finish in top 10.
2 - turn up for first race of next season.
Sicne 2 wasn't fulfilled the money goes to team 11. So PS would have knoen it was his money since March, plenty of time to start budgeting it before now.
#34
Posted 09 June 2002 - 09:35
Originally posted by boost
Toms a wanker.



#35
Posted 09 June 2002 - 13:57