Lewis Hamilton SPOTY 2014
Discussion
LaurasOtherHalf said:
DanielSan said:
Surprised Mercedes F1 didn't win the team award, no other team in sport has been as dominant this year.
It's like the bbc version of giving the fat kid at school a special prize at sports day-simply everyone has to be included.Team of the year women's rugby? If they can find a pre-OP transsexual disabled person next year they'll have hit the jackpot.
Well done LH btw, thoroughly deserved
I often wonder, living in my little bubble, why there are so many complaints about the way womens' sport is viewed... and then I see tripe like this.
Surely he won for being British by birth, not sure the requirements included submitting tax returns FFS, he is a British product winning on our behalf.
That said, given the shortlist its hard not to think most of them would be deserving winners, Lewis is slightly fortunate to be in a very high profile sport and very recent champion.
He did seem genuinely taken aback at the win, if not he should be an actor.
That said, given the shortlist its hard not to think most of them would be deserving winners, Lewis is slightly fortunate to be in a very high profile sport and very recent champion.
He did seem genuinely taken aback at the win, if not he should be an actor.
LDN said:
Jenson, Coulthard; the lot! They all moved for tax purposes... Lewis gets the Spotlight though - why ??
how about Garth Bail?until we have a tax system they does not abuse high earners, this will always happen.
would it not be better to get a reasonable percentage of something than 50% of nothing?
Scuffers said:
how about Garth Bail?
until we have a tax system they does not abuse high earners, this will always happen.
would it not be better to get a reasonable percentage of something than 50% of nothing?
Quite - it's also rather stupid, is it not, that the government still seems to think that earnings stop increasing once you get over £150k?!until we have a tax system they does not abuse high earners, this will always happen.
would it not be better to get a reasonable percentage of something than 50% of nothing?
Would it be much more effective to have the sliding scale go further up, and then start sliding back down again? 45% from £150k to £1m, than back down to 30% from £1-2m, 20% from £2-4m etc etc.
it;s this level of stupidity that will be the ruin of this country...
if seriously high earners were not taxed out of the country, they would likely be spending their money in this country rather than boosting somebody elses economy.
maybe a simple ceiling on tax should be introduced, once you're paying £XXX that's it?
you can imagine Labour types going apoplectic over an idea like this though!
if seriously high earners were not taxed out of the country, they would likely be spending their money in this country rather than boosting somebody elses economy.
maybe a simple ceiling on tax should be introduced, once you're paying £XXX that's it?
you can imagine Labour types going apoplectic over an idea like this though!
Probably yeah - although I don't think the super rich are the problem really* they'll move out and have kick ass tax affairs no matter what you do. It's retaining and fairly taxing the people who are on the edge of 'should I live here or not' that they need to concentrate on. The ceiling would need to be quite high.
* AKA money hoarders.
I'M A MULTI BILLIONAIRE.
Good. Why? SPEND MORE OF YOUR MONEY YOU TIGHT RICH B*STARD INSTEAD OF LETTING IT SIT IN A BANK ACCOUNT ACCUMULATING INTEREST.
* AKA money hoarders.
I'M A MULTI BILLIONAIRE.
Good. Why? SPEND MORE OF YOUR MONEY YOU TIGHT RICH B*STARD INSTEAD OF LETTING IT SIT IN A BANK ACCOUNT ACCUMULATING INTEREST.
DanielSan said:
Surprised Mercedes F1 didn't win the team award, no other team in sport has been as dominant this year.
Because if one team could put 20 players on a football pitch, they'd be bloody dominant as well.How do you separate the idea of 'great team' from the reality of 'massive budget'?
SpeckledJim said:
Because if one team could put 20 players on a football pitch, they'd be bloody dominant as well.
How do you separate the idea of 'team' from the reality of 'budget'?
the Brackley teams budget is not that huge (and certainly smaller than Red Bulls, and probably Ferrari's), I would suggest it's about on a level with McLarenHow do you separate the idea of 'team' from the reality of 'budget'?
you cannot include the budget for HPE as that's not unique to them, ie, they have customers with the same engine, so would you add the HPE budget to their costs?
Scuffers said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because if one team could put 20 players on a football pitch, they'd be bloody dominant as well.
How do you separate the idea of 'team' from the reality of 'budget'?
the Brackley teams budget is not that huge (and certainly smaller than Red Bulls, and probably Ferrari's), I would suggest it's about on a level with McLarenHow do you separate the idea of 'team' from the reality of 'budget'?
you cannot include the budget for HPE as that's not unique to them, ie, they have customers with the same engine, so would you add the HPE budget to their costs?
There are 4 big teams. Two of them have been crap for years. Mercedes beat the only remaining non-small, non-crap team.
That's not a notable achievement. Hence no recognition.
SpeckledJim said:
To reasonably have their dominance celebrated, it would have to be notable. An upset of some sort. It wasn't.
There are 4 big teams. Two of them have been crap for years. Mercedes beat the only remaining non-small, non-crap team.
That's not a notable achievement. Hence no recognition.
no argument there, just making the point that the team that spent the most money did not winThere are 4 big teams. Two of them have been crap for years. Mercedes beat the only remaining non-small, non-crap team.
That's not a notable achievement. Hence no recognition.
Scuffers said:
SpeckledJim said:
To reasonably have their dominance celebrated, it would have to be notable. An upset of some sort. It wasn't.
There are 4 big teams. Two of them have been crap for years. Mercedes beat the only remaining non-small, non-crap team.
That's not a notable achievement. Hence no recognition.
no argument there, just making the point that the team that spent the most money did not winThere are 4 big teams. Two of them have been crap for years. Mercedes beat the only remaining non-small, non-crap team.
That's not a notable achievement. Hence no recognition.
If Force India or Williams had won this season, I think they'd have a decent claim to be team of the year. But not in a sports contest. In an engineering contest.
Scuffers said:
That's a bit harsh...
3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
That's sort of my point. When they were small they couldn't win. Now they are big they can.3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
So have they got better at the game? Or just bigger and so able to throw more effort at it?
Success is clearly at least partly a function of size - so it's back to Winners of Budget of The Year.
SpeckledJim said:
Scuffers said:
That's a bit harsh...
3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
That's sort of my point. When they were small they couldn't win. Now they are big they can.3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
So have they got better at the game? Or just bigger and so able to throw more effort at it?
Success is clearly at least partly a function of size - so it's back to Winners of Budget of The Year.
MrKipling43 said:
SpeckledJim said:
Scuffers said:
That's a bit harsh...
3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
That's sort of my point. When they were small they couldn't win. Now they are big they can.3 years ago, they were no bigger than Williams.
So have they got better at the game? Or just bigger and so able to throw more effort at it?
Success is clearly at least partly a function of size - so it's back to Winners of Budget of The Year.
They won it because their engineering (rules interpretation) was superior. Nobody claims they won it because that one year Jenson Button was suddenly head-and-shoulders the best driver because clearly he was as good that year as usual (which is precisely 'quite good').
It's an engineering competition, and sometimes a truly superb bit of engineering (or clever/dirty interpretation of the rules) makes a 20 horse race into a 2 horse race for the rest of the year. Then we celebrate the faster of the two drivers who had a chance to win it and marvel at their talent. Weird.
Those years where none of the engineers make a stand-out contribution, the little teams have no chance, and an attritional war between the big 4 brings a winner.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Monday 15th December 16:13
SpeckledJim said:
And that's an excellent claim to the Engineers of The Year Award.
They won it because their engineering (rules interpretation) was superior. Nobody claims they won it because that one year Jenson Button was suddenly head-and-shoulders the best driver because clearly he was as good that year as usual (which is precisely 'quite good').
It's an engineering competition, and sometimes a truly superb bit of engineering (or clever/dirty interpretation of the rules) makes a 20 horse race into a 2 horse race for the rest of the year. Then we celebrate the faster of the two drivers who had a chance to win it and marvel at their talent. Weird.
Those years where none of the engineers make a stand-out contribution, the little teams have no chance, and an attritional war between the big 4 brings a winner.
Oh, I agree with you that they shouldn't win Team of the Year in a sports competition - it would be like giving a footballing prize to the team who designed a pair of boots. That's not a sporting endeavor.They won it because their engineering (rules interpretation) was superior. Nobody claims they won it because that one year Jenson Button was suddenly head-and-shoulders the best driver because clearly he was as good that year as usual (which is precisely 'quite good').
It's an engineering competition, and sometimes a truly superb bit of engineering (or clever/dirty interpretation of the rules) makes a 20 horse race into a 2 horse race for the rest of the year. Then we celebrate the faster of the two drivers who had a chance to win it and marvel at their talent. Weird.
Those years where none of the engineers make a stand-out contribution, the little teams have no chance, and an attritional war between the big 4 brings a winner.
Although Jenson is a lot better than 'quite good', and budget and size isn't everything when it comes to success - just ask Toyota!
Lewis Hamilton is a poor role model (according to violent criminal Joey Barton).
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/joey-bart...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/joey-bart...
MrKipling43 said:
Probably yeah - although I don't think the super rich are the problem really* they'll move out and have kick ass tax affairs no matter what you do. It's retaining and fairly taxing the people who are on the edge of 'should I live here or not' that they need to concentrate on. The ceiling would need to be quite high.
* AKA money hoarders.
I'M A MULTI BILLIONAIRE.
Good. Why? SPEND MORE OF YOUR MONEY YOU TIGHT RICH B*STARD INSTEAD OF LETTING IT SIT IN A BANK ACCOUNT ACCUMULATING INTEREST.
Well if the billionaire is so s* AKA money hoarders.
I'M A MULTI BILLIONAIRE.
Good. Why? SPEND MORE OF YOUR MONEY YOU TIGHT RICH B*STARD INSTEAD OF LETTING IT SIT IN A BANK ACCOUNT ACCUMULATING INTEREST.
t stupid as to leave his/her money in a bank account they will soon be almost penniless with the laughable interest rates banks pay.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff