Bernie Ecclestone's bizarre High Court entrance!

by Scrumpy Thu 7 Nov - 13:04

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24831606

Laugh

by CaledonianCraig Thu 7 Nov - 18:06

And to think F1 is in his hands. picard

by bogbrush Thu 7 Nov - 21:38

One of the smartest guys around. The guy has run rings around everyone for decades.

For anyone unaware of how clever he is, read this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24854220

Or even better, this for his early life and manipulative prowess.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Angel-Secret-Bernie-Ecclestone/dp/0571269362

by CaledonianCraig Fri 8 Nov - 8:00

Oh dear.

Need I go over all his hair-brained ideas again, his backtracking, his screwing the teams etc etc etc. Never took you as an admirer BB.

by dyrewolfe Fri 8 Nov - 15:56

CaledonianCraig wrote:Oh dear.

Need I go over all his hair-brained ideas again, his backtracking, his screwing the teams etc etc etc. Never took you as an admirer BB.

To be fair, I don't think you have to actually like him to admire the fact he's managed to maintain his iron-fisted grip on the sport for so many years and do such a good job of making money for himself and his company.

You have to admire his business acumen...even if you think he's a detestable money-grabbing little troll who would turn F1 into Its A Knockout on wheels, if he thought he could get away with it. Whistle

by CaledonianCraig Fri 8 Nov - 17:54

So a dictatorship is admirable? Not in my eyes.

by bogbrush Sat 9 Nov - 17:49

Bernie Eccleston created the sport in its current form and engineered control of so etching where no single entity even existed, the guys a business genius.

That's just a fact.

What you admire is irrelevant.

by CaledonianCraig Sat 9 Nov - 20:13

BB take of the tinted specs mate. F1 was around long before Ecclestone took over and many great drivers made their mark in the sport long before he was involved so spare us the tosh.

If you see someone who backtracks, makes ludicrous suggestions and umpteen dubious decisions a genius then that is your look out.

by GSC Sat 9 Nov - 22:24

You don't have to like him, but it is admirable what he's done

by CaledonianCraig Sun 10 Nov - 6:59

Admirable longevity in the job but of course that has always been his decision.

by CaledonianCraig Sun 10 Nov - 8:59

And also this has nothing to do with hate and plainly that what he has done for the sport is nothing that anyone else could not have done. Perhaps someone else would have had been able to get superpowers such as Porsche or Lamborghini for example into the sport. I am sure as well they would not have suggested replacing points system with a medal table (ghastly thought) and not said they wanted more teams in the sport then months later cut down the slice of profits the new teams get and not suggested sprinkler systems on circuits to ensure wet races. Perhaps as well they would have not ended up in court more often than that mythical character Norman Stanley Fletcher.

by GSC Sun 10 Nov - 10:30

Anyone else could've done Bernies job just as well as anyone could do Adrian Neweys job. It's a political minefield

by CaledonianCraig Sun 10 Nov - 10:43

Nope. Newey has achieved so much. If you could point to the great stuff Bernie has done for F1 that nobody else could have done I am all ears.

by GSC Sun 10 Nov - 11:00

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/23346006

If you seriously think anyone could've done what Bernies has, I despair

by CaledonianCraig Sun 10 Nov - 11:26

When I mean anybody of course I mean with a business brain such as Richard Brandon, Barry Hearn and people of that ilk and I am certain they would have done equally as well in Hearn's case but better if say Branson. I am still waiting to hear what groundbreaking stuff he has brought in or the inspired decisions he has made.

by GSC Sun 10 Nov - 11:32

So anyone has now turned into anyone with great success in a related area :Picard:

Bit like saying Fernando Alonso could've won 4 WDC in the RB. Doesn't make it any less impressive

by CaledonianCraig Sun 10 Nov - 11:41

Convince me. What has he done to enhance F1? He did not create the sport you know? He has built up a strong regime and could never be toppled. Remember the F1 teams were perilously close to revolting not so long ago.

If you want to point to improved safety the late Professor Sid Watkins is credited with that so where are these genius decisions he has made (just to counterbalance all the loony suggestions he tried pushing through).

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 9:45

Craig, when he arrived the teams paid the circuits for the privilege of racing there. There was no useful TV. Now the circuits beg to pay huge sums, and he swats them around to improve their standards. For example, Silverstone was an entitled mess, abusing fans because of who they were with helpful fools like Jackie Stewart backing them up. Bernie just explained the facts of life; they weren't indispensable, he'd move it away and who needed a British GP anyway? Next thing you know they're brought to heel and a proper event is possible.

Bernie Eccleston, though being a superior negotiator, changed everything. He did this for wholly selfish reasons, reaching a peak of personally taking about 60%+ of the revenue the sport generated, yet without actually having a "thing" he owned! He outthought everyone in the sport.

The teams have ALWAYS been perilously close to revolting, and it's been him who has drawn it back, usually through devious and cunning machinations.

Like I say, the guy's a genius.

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 9:48

CaledonianCraig wrote:When I mean anybody of course I mean with a business brain such as Richard Brandon, Barry Hearn and people of that ilk and I am certain they would have done equally as well in Hearn's case but better if say Branson. I am still waiting to hear what groundbreaking stuff he has brought in or the inspired decisions he has made.

Yeah, because Branson did so well in the sport picard

by CaledonianCraig Mon 11 Nov - 10:22

There are so many that got started the way Bernie did such as Bruce McLaren, Frank Williams, Ross Brawn etc etc and I would say they wouldn't come out with loony ideas that Bernie has.

The silence is still deafening waiting to hear the groundbreaking stuff Bernie has brought to F1.

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 11:05

You don't get it Craig. There were so many people... yet only one of them had the brains to rule across all the rest, including even the mighty Ferrarri, and all the circuits, yet apparently have no actual power so to do. When he came to sell to CVC the big question was that he didn't appear to have anything to sell!!!!

You seem to be waiting to learn what great humanitarian achievement he has but the point is that the guy's a genius, not that he corresponds to your moral outlook. The reason the silence is deafening is that you're not listening.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 11 Nov - 11:31

Sorry you have a mighty weird perspective of genius. Shall we call the Mafia genius while we are at it and other such dictators. He built up a strong defence with contracts and such-like that kept him safe. If you see him as a genius for anything other than being in charge for just under 30 years then we could say the same of Robert Mugabe.

It seems you are not the one listening when Bernie opens his backside and suggests a medal table to replace point system, suggests sprinklers by the track, says he wants more new teams then cuts money paid to new teams, says he wants to cut the cost of F1 yet extends the season, brings in new heavier engines and says to hell with heavier drivers. Shall I go on?

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 13:55

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry you have a mighty weird perspective of genius. Shall we call the Mafia genius while we are at it and other such dictators. He built up a strong defence with contracts and such-like that kept him safe. If you see him as a genius for anything other than being in charge for just under 30 years then we could say the same of Robert Mugabe.

It seems you are not the one listening when Bernie opens his backside and suggests a medal table to replace point system, suggests sprinklers by the track, says he wants more new teams then cuts money paid to new teams, says he wants to cut the cost of F1 yet extends the season, brings in new heavier engines and says to hell with heavier drivers. Shall I go on?

Yeah keep going, because all you do is demonstrate what you don't understand.

One of his ways is to stick stuff out there to make people think. It's way easier than either having to work out exactly what to do or being constrained by their imagination. I run a pretty substantial business and frequently stick out ideas that I know aren't feasible in order to provoke people - ideally to come back with more feasible, worked through ideas to give me what I really want, or to flush out flat-earthers who can't cope with high value challenges.
If he really wanted a medal table, or sprinklers, they'd be there by now. That they aren't just signals that he was pushing people to think.

You think the sport should work around a drivers weight? So what is a big driver couldn't stay? It's neither here nor there.

While you're at it, can you imagine the intelligence and vision needed to remain a successful, live Mafia boss after God knows how many years of having people trying to usurp you? Yeah, you've got to be pretty smart to hold those positions down. Pretty ruthless too. Pretty much like creating a web of contracts that nobody else could penetrate to create control over something that didn't exist, and withstand assaults from every direction for decades to make you a multi-billionaire. Basically, far too clever for everyone else in the sport, and still doing it well into his 80's.

by dyrewolfe Mon 11 Nov - 14:15

Well, hopefully it won't be for too much longer, depending on how these corruption changes pan out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24854220

The legal cases he is facing in London this week and, perhaps even more seriously, in Munich early next year certainly count as serious threats to Ecclestone's position as the chief executive - and overlord - of Formula 1.

If he loses in court, and is convicted of corruption and/or bribery, it is hard to see how he could carry on in that role. Yet behind the scenes in the sport he has made his personal fiefdom over the last 40 years, Ecclestone has, in the words of one leading team principal, "never been more powerful".

As it happens, I quite like the equation of Ecclestone's position to that of a Mafia boss...and I'm quite shocked that anyone would admire either, as a human being.

Bullying, bribing and threatening people, just to get your own way and stay in power are not qualities to be admired.

The ONLY thing BE has done that I can admire, is to take F1 to new parts of the world and reach new audiences. Barring one or two instances, it seems to have been mostly successful...even if the newer Tilke-dromes don't always offer the best racing.

Over the last 20 years or so, F1 has been run by a combination of the teams, the CRH and governing body the FIA. The CRH made the money, and the FIA made the rules, with input from the teams and the CRH.

But an apparently subtle change over the last few months has shifted the balance of power dramatically, significantly weakening the position of the FIA under its president Jean Todt and strengthening that of Ecclestone.

Todt has, in the words of one senior figure, "auctioned off the FIA's ability to make the rules".

The process has also effectively disenfrachised the smaller teams and concentrated influence in the hands of the wealthy few.

It has come about because Todt wanted more money from Ecclestone so the Frenchman could carry through his plans to reform aspects of the FIA.

Ecclestone was reluctant to give it to him, and they compromised on an arrangement whereby the FIA increased the F1 entry fees for the teams, adding in an extra levy per championship point scored.

This has given Todt an extra £40m a year to play with. In return, he has agreed to a change in the rule-making process that appears on the face of it to strengthen the FIA's influence, but to those who understand how things work in F1, does the exact opposite.

Previously, changes to the rules were discussed in two working groups made up of experts from the teams and the FIA - one for technical matters and one for sporting matters.

Their recommendations were passed to the F1 Commission, a group of 26 members, compromised of representatives of the 11 teams, eight race promoters, the FIA, Ecclestone and suppliers of engines, tyres, fuel and sponsors. Eighteen votes are needed for a vote to pass.

In turn, the F1 Commission sent its recommendations to the FIA World Council, the governing body's legislative arm, which Ecclestone and Ferrari also sit on. This has tended to be a rubber-stamping process.

Under the new system, the technical and sporting working groups have been disbanded and replaced by a 'strategy group', comprising six teams. Five teams are permanent members - Ferrari, Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes and Williams - and the sixth seat is given to the most successful current team not in that group. At the moment, that is Lotus.

The strategy group can seek advice from any quarter it likes, but there is no obligation for it to seek the general approval of the teams in a round-table forum such as the technical or sporting working groups.

In terms of decision-making, the six teams on the strategy group have one vote each, while Ecclestone and the FIA have six each, with motions passed by a simple majority.

On the face of it, then, the FIA has significant influence. But in reality it does not work like that. Because any motion only needs 10 votes to pass, Ecclestone only needs four teams to support him to win any vote on the strategy group.

Red Bull, who are extremely close to him, are considered pretty much a given, and to get three more "straightened out", as one senior figure puts it, is child's play for a man of Ecclestone's influence. So, in reality, Ecclestone effectively controls the strategy group.

The same goes for the F1 Commission, where the eight race promoters, tyre supplier and sponsors, along with the majority of the teams, again weigh things in Ecclestone's favour.

And how's this for yet another of Barmy Bernie's "bright ideas"?

The teams not represented on the strategy group have grave concerns about being excluded, and one of their biggest worries at the moment surrounds discussions about the introduction of 'customer' cars.

It is well known that several of the smaller teams are struggling with the costs of F1. One solution being talked about is, rather than them being forced to design and build their own cars, to allow them to buy second-hand cars from the big teams.

At first glance, this sounds like a good idea. It saves the small teams millions of pounds by allowing them to buy off-the-shelf cars and generates extra income for the big teams.

But the potential downsides are much more serious. The small teams say it will deprive them of their core businesses and force them to lay off hundreds of people - and may eventually as a result force them out of business. It also reduces the diversity of the F1 grid, removes a core tenet of the sport, and potentially causes problems that could undermine the future of the sport.

After all, if customer cars were part of F1, who after a season like 2013 would want to buy anything but a Red Bull? And if in the future, say, two of the smaller teams had year-old Red Bulls which happened to be faster than a new Mercedes, how long would Mercedes want to stay in the sport?

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 14:36

Yet more conflation of moral approval and recognition of intelligence.

As for the car idea, well if Mercedes can't make a car better than a second hand, out of date Red Bull, well why shouldn't they feel the pain? And if the small team would rather not come out of development then they'd presumably be free not to do so. Their call.

The free market is a cruel but fair mistress.

As for the charges, don't hold your breath. I doubt he'll come out with a scratch on him.

by dyrewolfe Mon 11 Nov - 14:58

bogbrush wrote:Yet more conflation of moral approval and recognition of intelligence.

As for the car idea, well if Mercedes can't make a car better than a second hand, out of date Red Bull, well why shouldn't they feel the pain? And if the small team would rather not come out of development then they'd presumably be free not to do so. Their call.

The free market is a cruel but fair mistress.

As for the charges, don't hold your breath. I doubt he'll come out with a scratch on him.

Your approval of capitalism and the free market is all well and good, but ultimately it means you're allowed to do anything as long as you have the money and intellect/cunning/ruthlessness to hoodwink, bribe or threaten your colleagues/peers/underlings.

While the business element of F1 has been a major factor for some time now, it IS still supposed to be a sport and sports are meant to have rules to ensure a certain amount of fair play and competitiveness...unlike Wall Street where you're meant to just ride roughshod over the competition.

If there is little or no perceived fairness or competition, the fans...and then the sponsors, will walk away. The powers that be need to remember they're providing entertainment...a sporting spectacle...not masterminding a corporate takeover...

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 15:17

dyrewolfe wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Yet more conflation of moral approval and recognition of intelligence.

As for the car idea, well if Mercedes can't make a car better than a second hand, out of date Red Bull, well why shouldn't they feel the pain? And if the small team would rather not come out of development then they'd presumably be free not to do so. Their call.

The free market is a cruel but fair mistress.

As for the charges, don't hold your breath. I doubt he'll come out with a scratch on him.

Your approval of capitalism and the free market is all well and good, but ultimately it means you're allowed to do anything as long as you have the money and intellect/cunning/ruthlessness to hoodwink, bribe or threaten your colleagues/peers/underlings.

While the business element of F1 has been a major factor for some time now, it IS still supposed to be a sport and sports are meant to have rules to ensure a certain amount of fair play and competitiveness...unlike Wall Street where you're meant to just ride roughshod over the competition.

If there is little or no perceived fairness or competition, the fans...and then the sponsors, will walk away. The powers that be need to remember they're providing entertainment...a sporting spectacle...not masterminding a corporate takeover...

That really isn't how a free market works. The problems we see with so-called market solutions now are really caused by the lack of a free market, such as excessive regulatory barriers to entry (such as the joke of utility companies or train operators who know damn well you have no choice but to buy from them). Bribery is illegal so isn't part of a free market, it's part of criminal behaviour. Nobody suggests Bernie needed to do that to rule F1.

Take care homes. If there was free access to providing care homes and easy entry to the market, people would be free to offer the service. People might even offer to take on looking after one person. Standards would rise because of competition (you'd have plenty of choice where to put your Mum so you'd be picky) and prices would fall (same reason). They are a complete scam and hideous danger to old people now because the State regulates entry and costs so much that there's grossly limited supply restricted to people who can best pass the stupid regulatory test.

Returning to F1, actually, sport at it's purest is all about riding roughshod over the competition. It's exactly what it's all about, and why it's so compelling.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 11 Nov - 15:25

dyrewolfe wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Yet more conflation of moral approval and recognition of intelligence.

As for the car idea, well if Mercedes can't make a car better than a second hand, out of date Red Bull, well why shouldn't they feel the pain? And if the small team would rather not come out of development then they'd presumably be free not to do so. Their call.

The free market is a cruel but fair mistress.

As for the charges, don't hold your breath. I doubt he'll come out with a scratch on him.

Your approval of capitalism and the free market is all well and good, but ultimately it means you're allowed to do anything as long as you have the money and intellect/cunning/ruthlessness to hoodwink, bribe or threaten your colleagues/peers/underlings.

While the business element of F1 has been a major factor for some time now, it IS still supposed to be a sport and sports are meant to have rules to ensure a certain amount of fair play and competitiveness...unlike Wall Street where you're meant to just ride roughshod over the competition.

If there is little or no perceived fairness or competition, the fans...and then the sponsors, will walk away. The powers that be need to remember they're providing entertainment...a sporting spectacle...not masterminding a corporate takeover...

All I know is that someone doesn't qualify as a genius for doing what Bernie has done. Many despots around the world ruled their domain for many many years (some even longer than Bernie) but that does not make them geniuses. Cunning business man then yes as he has built his empire on strong foundations of bounding contracts and people under him who are his puppets.

Geniuses do not suggest getting rid of a points system that works perfectly well for F1 to try to replace them with a nutty idea of a medal system. They do not try to lure new teams into the sport then cut money paid to those teams as you will invariably kill off that team or stint their growth. Also you do not bark orders that teams must reduce costs and then INCREASE the length of the season which is only going to help increase and not decrease costs. Also dyrewolfe I must point out that F1 did venture to far flung places in the 60's and 70's as well as we used to race in South Africa and Mexico so it is nothing new what Bernie is doing on that front. Also lets not forget the recent tyre fiasco - instigated by....yes you have guessed it....Bernie. He was the one who wanted Pirelli to supply a tyre that p***ed close to the wind in terms of durability and that is what they supplied and then Pirelli got lambasted. Sorry but Bernie is no genius - a cunning, devious businessman - yes but certainly no genius.

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 16:57

Did he really try to put that medal system in? If so, why isn't it in? And why isn't it smart to bring in teams then work them harder? HE DOESN'T RUN THE SPORT FOR THE GOOD OF THE TEAMS (OR THE CIRCUITS), HE DOES IT FOR THE GOOD OF THE FRANCHISE.

Reducing costs and increasing revenue is a great idea. More races = more income. Did you consider that reducing costs might (a) mean reducing unit costs (costs / race) or (b) be a challenge? Either way, what do you think has been the impact on sport profitability?

As for the tyres, who is queuing up to revert to the tyres that didn't wear out? There is argument about how close they took it, but not it seems about making tyre wear a bigger part of the game. And as for it being Pirelli who get the crappy end of the stick, well that's Bernie being stupid? Really?? Laugh

Honestly, every time you throw up an example of his shortcomings you do the opposite. You seem to think he should be a competent administrator when all the time he's spent decades running circles around everyone and making billions.

by CaledonianCraig Mon 11 Nov - 17:09

Yes actually he did try to push the medal system through and I recall the teams voted it out. Also if Bernie is such a genius why did all the teams come so close to revolting a couple of seasons ago?

More races also means more travelling which costs money and more wages for teams to pay mechanics etc.

Well it was Pirelli who were put under the microscope even though they were following Bernie's orders so yes they did get the rough end of the stick.

And do you think he really does it for the good of the franchise? After all we hear of teams going bust quite frequently yet Bernie gets richer and richer and richer. I wonder why that is?

by CaledonianCraig Mon 11 Nov - 17:12

Besides MotoGP functions very well and successfully thank you very much - I don't see Bernie involved there. Evidence that if Bernie left now or even had left ten or twenty years ago F1 would continue without him.

by bogbrush Mon 11 Nov - 23:26

Ok, one after another then....

1. The teams always come close to revolting. Always have. Then he sorts them out.

2. More races equals more profit and more global audiences. I'm thinking that plays a part in his thinking.

3. Yes, Pirelli got the stick. Where's the bit in that that makes Bernie stupid?

4. The teams aren't the franchise. Bernie works for the latter, not the former.

5. How much money is there in Moto GP? Enough so F1 follows it around circuit after circuit?

As I said, you seem to think his mission is to be lovely to the teams.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 12 Nov - 6:39

1. No they only come close to revolting if they are disenchanted. And disenchanted they were - with Bernie.

2. And more races also means more expenses which Bernie himself was demanding was cut down. And if he is taking F1 to a global audience in this manner he sure did yank it away from a bigger audience by putting F1 largely on only pay per view television.

3. It was Bernie's idea to have dodgy tyres with far less wear was it not. Okay it was Pirelli's interpretation but Bernie should not be ordering a tyre manufacturer how to make its tyres.

4. Bernie evidently is in the franchise for all he can get - hence he is a multi-billionairre whilst teams go bust or struggle to survive. Those billions come from F1 and clearly he is not ploughing money in to the sport - that is done by corporate sponsors.

5. Not at all. MotoGP survives quite ably without Bernie's cack-handed interference and they themselves go to all parts of the world (not a Bernie exclusive trait you see) and many of those are NOT F1 circuits. MotoGP was formerly the 500cc World Championship so it still flourishes and has done for decades without Bernie involved as F1 would.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Nov - 9:15

CaledonianCraig wrote:1. No they only come close to revolting if they are disenchanted. And disenchanted they were - with Bernie. As they often have been, and as they have always been mollified / manipulated into conformance.

2. And more races also means more expenses which Bernie himself was demanding was cut down. And if he is taking F1 to a global audience in this manner he sure did yank it away from a bigger audience by putting F1 largely on only pay per view television. The pay per view brings in more money. More races bring in more money. And he forces costs into reverse. Wow, how stupid!

3. It was Bernie's idea to have dodgy tyres with far less wear was it not. Okay it was Pirelli's interpretation but Bernie should not be ordering a tyre manufacturer how to make its tyres. Yes, and how stupid of him to avoid the blame.

4. Bernie evidently is in the franchise for all he can get - hence he is a multi-billionairre whilst teams go bust or struggle to survive. Those billions come from F1 and clearly he is not ploughing money in to the sport - that is done by corporate sponsors. Yes, stupid man. In any case, teams have always struggled to survive, this is not new. The sport is as competitive as it ever has been with as many teams jostling at the front in the first half of this season as ever (and think back to last year and the unprecedented first 7 races)

5. Not at all. MotoGP survives quite ably without Bernie's cack-handed interference and they themselves go to all parts of the world (not a Bernie exclusive trait you see) and many of those are NOT F1 circuits. MotoGP was formerly the 500cc World Championship so it still flourishes and has done for decades without Bernie involved as F1 would. And how does this prove Bernie is stupid?

What you have to do is drop this idea that to be clever he has to be doing good in the World, looking after everyone else. You seem badly stuck on that point (I mean, look at point 4!).

by CaledonianCraig Tue 12 Nov - 10:40

And you seem obsessed with the idea that he is a genius who without him F1 would die.

Can I point out that F1 was the pinnacle of motor sport long before Bernie arrived on the scene thanks to the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Lotus and Mercedes and drivers like Fangio, Stewart, Lauda and such like.

F1 would certainly not die if Bernie packed it in. Look at how other forms of Motorsport have longevity without Bernie.

by dyrewolfe Tue 12 Nov - 13:35

bogbrush wrote:
dyrewolfe wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Yet more conflation of moral approval and recognition of intelligence.

As for the car idea, well if Mercedes can't make a car better than a second hand, out of date Red Bull, well why shouldn't they feel the pain? And if the small team would rather not come out of development then they'd presumably be free not to do so. Their call.

The free market is a cruel but fair mistress.

As for the charges, don't hold your breath. I doubt he'll come out with a scratch on him.

Your approval of capitalism and the free market is all well and good, but ultimately it means you're allowed to do anything as long as you have the money and intellect/cunning/ruthlessness to hoodwink, bribe or threaten your colleagues/peers/underlings.

While the business element of F1 has been a major factor for some time now, it IS still supposed to be a sport and sports are meant to have rules to ensure a certain amount of fair play and competitiveness...unlike Wall Street where you're meant to just ride roughshod over the competition.

If there is little or no perceived fairness or competition, the fans...and then the sponsors, will walk away. The powers that be need to remember they're providing entertainment...a sporting spectacle...not masterminding a corporate takeover...
That really isn't how a free market works.

(1)The problems we see with so-called market solutions now are really caused by the lack of a free market, such as excessive regulatory barriers to entry (such as the joke of utility companies or train operators who know damn well you have no choice but to buy from them).

(2) Bribery is illegal so isn't part of a free market, it's part of criminal behaviour. Nobody suggests Bernie needed to do that to rule F1.

(3) Returning to F1, actually, sport at it's purest is all about riding roughshod over the competition. It's exactly what it's all about, and why it's so compelling.

1. Funny you don't mention the 2008 stock market crash which was brought about by lack of regulation, irresponsible mortgage lenders and traders being allowed to gamble vast sums of money on high-risk deals...which is the ultimate, if not logical, extreme of free market practice.

2. Yes, bribery is illegal and nobody suggested Ecclestone needed to engage in it to rule F1, but that didn't stop him allegedly engaging in some underhanded practices to influence the decisions of others. Obviously he is innocent until proven guilty in that particular matter, but his general behaviour over the years has been that of a dictator, rather than a business partner.

3. In principle maybe, but taking anything to its logical extremes usually brings about results nobody wants and having the same team / driver dominating the sport year after year is not in anyone's interests, as it diminishes the image of F1 as a competitive sport. Some drastic measures were taken after Schumacher and Ferrari dominated for 5 years. Hopefully the latest round of changes will stop the Red Bull / Vettel borefest. There is NOTHING compelling about watching one driver cruise off into the distance while the rest scrap for podium places.

by bogbrush Tue 12 Nov - 17:47

Actually the root of the financial crash lies in state sanctioned constructions, most especially the fraud of fractional reserve banking and currency monopolies. If it was illegal to lend what you don't have we wouldn't have almost the entire money supply existing as debt, and if the a State didn't force you to hold fiat currency they wouldn't be able to force you to bail out banks.

In a free market we'd just be watching them lose all their money.

On bribery, as you say it's not relevant.

As for the final point, Eccleston is criticised elsewhere on this thread for proposing innovations to shake up the dominant order. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, it seems.......

by bogbrush Tue 12 Nov - 18:00

CaledonianCraig wrote:And you seem obsessed with the idea that he is a genius who without him F1 would die.

Can I point out that F1 was the pinnacle of motor sport long before Bernie arrived on the scene thanks to the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Lotus and Mercedes and drivers like Fangio, Stewart, Lauda and such like.

F1 would certainly not die if Bernie packed it in. Look at how other forms of Motorsport have longevity without Bernie.

No, I never said any of that. You seem to think he's a fool, I'm just trying to explain, gently, that you don't have a clue how smart he is because he operates in a way that you can't even see. You think his capability is measured by how good he is for the teams, I suggest it's by how well he's achieved what he set out to.

As he pointed out to Ron Dennis when he complained how fantastically wealthy he'd made himself, he shouldn't complain too much as he'd caused Ron to become a hugely wealthy man too.

by CaledonianCraig Tue 12 Nov - 18:08

I have tapped on smartness in creating cast iron contracts and such-like my grievance is using the term genius for one who has made potty suggestions and is accused of dirty dealings.

If he had invented Motorsport and F1 I'd agree he was a genius but he didn't. Let's just leave it at that as we are never going to agree on this.

by Sponsored content