Ecclestone says banks have pulled the plug on Donington
Discussion
I'm not sure why this hasn't been spotted yet ?
It's from http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
But it doesn't appear in their news section
Ecclestone says banks have pulled the plug on Donington
Over the past few days Donington's bid to host the British Grand Prix in 2010 has suffered several severe setbacks. First it was revealed that the circuit's ultimate owner is suing the promoter, Donington Ventures Leisure (DVL) for unpaid rent. Then we learnt that DVL has not yet signed the agreement which gives planning permission for making the modifications needed to host the race. Today news has emerged that could explain the link between these blows to DVL and it comes from the unlikely mouth of F1's boss Bernie Ecclestone.
In one of his regular pub lunches with Pitpass' business editor Chris Sylt, Ecclestone revealed that DVL "had in the early days, all the funding put together, otherwise they wouldn't have started. I think because of (the recession), the banks have pulled back and left them in trouble."
DVL's bid to host the British GP depends on two forms of bank funding and if either were "pulled back", as Ecclestone says has happened, it could be fatal.
The first loan, which is at the core of its plan, is debt secured against the sales of over 6,000 seats to corporate customers. The idea is that banks would pay DVL upfront knowing that it would get the money back in from corporate hospitality sales. With annual fees of around £5,000 a seat this would guarantee £30m a year from just 5-10% of the circuit's spectator capacity.
However, even when the economy was in good health it would have been tough to secure this level of corporate interest in a product which costs twice as much as a three-day ticket to the prestigious F1 Paddock Club. In the current economic climate it would be no surprise if the banks had done a U-turn as Ecclestone suggests. The chance of DVL selling 6,000 hospitality tickets at £5,000 apiece is slim to say the least.
The second form of bank funding which DVL depends on is a £16.3m loan, and its latest accounts state that "the group should be able to operate within the level of its current banking facility and through continued financial support from the principal shareholder."
Software entrepreneur Simon Gillett and property developer Paul White majority own DVL. Both are wealthy businessmen from the Midlands but neither is in wealth's super-league. However, the accounts add that "there is currently no binding commitment on the principal shareholder to continue to provide finance to the business." In other words, if the company should hit trouble with the bank loan, there is no guarantee that the shareholders would have enough to support it and it could be curtains.
If DVL really has lost either of these forms of bank funding, as Ecclestone says, it may be no surprise that the company has not been able to pay its rent. Likewise, there is no point in signing the agreement which gives the circuit planning permission for its modifications if DVL has no money in place to pay for them.
The amount of money we are talking about is not small fry. DVL needs to raise £40m to redevelop the circuit and pay the annual £18m hosting fee to Ecclestone. In January DVL told Sylt that it would announce in March precise details of where its funding would come from, however, this deadline was missed. Of course Sylt asked DVL for comment on Ecclestone's comments about the banks pulling back and the company said it would get back to him but promptly missed the deadline for that too.
DVL does not seem to be in any position at all to fund the British GP from its own resources. In 2007 it made an after-tax loss of £12.3m and remarkably had just £28 in the bank at the end of the year.
Ecclestone revealed to Sylt that if Donington cannot host the British GP then it will simply be replaced by South Korea next year. He said that Formula One Management (FOM) has "got too many agreements in place." There are currently 17 races on F1's calendar and Ecclestone says that the teams "just about lived with 18." Next year South Korea will join and India will follow in 2011 leaving too many races according to Ecclestone… unless one departs.
He vehemently denied to Sylt that he would look for a replacement if Donington fails since there is no other suitable. Sylt tongue-in-cheek raised the possibility of returning to Brands Hatch and Ecclestone said "it would be nice if we could," before bluntly adding: "If there's no Donington, there's no British Grand Prix."
Over a coffee, Sylt put Ecclestone's comments to Damon Hill. As president of the BRDC, which owns Silverstone, Hill looks to be the only person who has a circuit in place which is able to stage the race. Ecclestone maintains that Silverstone is not up to scratch and he is adamant that "we cannot go back to Silverstone because nothing has changed there."
Hill responds that "we're not given a margin which is sufficiently strong to guarantee borrowing money to reinvest." Unlike most events, F1 race promoters don't get a share of TV or advertising revenues. Their sole source of income is from ticket sales and the British GP is one of a few which often breaks even or makes a small profit. This is quite an achievement given that the French GP has been dumped due to the downturn and Germany's event has made huge losses.
Hill adds that losing the British GP could dent F1 as a whole. "Most of the F1 teams are based in the UK so it's a very profitable race for them to come to. It has the highest ticket prices, so it's a very profitable event for FOM which obviously comes back to the teams and the debt holders." With F1 paying $270m in annual interest repayments on the loan which its owners took out to buy the sport, it needs all the money it can get. So losing a race with low costs for all concerned doesn't seem so sensible.
However, Ecclestone is sure to have done the sums and worked out that the £30m fee paid by Korea is £12m more than Donington has committed to and this more than outstrips any profits which the race may make. The impact on the sport as a whole from losing the British GP is a different matter and Hill points out that "it's got one of the best supported corporate hospitality outfits as well and one of the best TV audiences."
As a last resort, Hill throws down the gauntlet to the FIA and says that "you could argue that the promoters should be fairly treated by the FIA because without promoters and without circuits you can't have any races. So it's important that race venues are able to support themselves. So there is definitely a case to say that the FIA has responsibility to their licensed circuits and the promoters need to be protected."
Hill and the FIA may not have much time to act. Earlier this year Ecclestone said that Donington's redevelopment must be on-track by September, however, given the recent developments, its future may well be sealed long before then.
It's from http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
But it doesn't appear in their news section
Ecclestone says banks have pulled the plug on Donington
Over the past few days Donington's bid to host the British Grand Prix in 2010 has suffered several severe setbacks. First it was revealed that the circuit's ultimate owner is suing the promoter, Donington Ventures Leisure (DVL) for unpaid rent. Then we learnt that DVL has not yet signed the agreement which gives planning permission for making the modifications needed to host the race. Today news has emerged that could explain the link between these blows to DVL and it comes from the unlikely mouth of F1's boss Bernie Ecclestone.
In one of his regular pub lunches with Pitpass' business editor Chris Sylt, Ecclestone revealed that DVL "had in the early days, all the funding put together, otherwise they wouldn't have started. I think because of (the recession), the banks have pulled back and left them in trouble."
DVL's bid to host the British GP depends on two forms of bank funding and if either were "pulled back", as Ecclestone says has happened, it could be fatal.
The first loan, which is at the core of its plan, is debt secured against the sales of over 6,000 seats to corporate customers. The idea is that banks would pay DVL upfront knowing that it would get the money back in from corporate hospitality sales. With annual fees of around £5,000 a seat this would guarantee £30m a year from just 5-10% of the circuit's spectator capacity.
However, even when the economy was in good health it would have been tough to secure this level of corporate interest in a product which costs twice as much as a three-day ticket to the prestigious F1 Paddock Club. In the current economic climate it would be no surprise if the banks had done a U-turn as Ecclestone suggests. The chance of DVL selling 6,000 hospitality tickets at £5,000 apiece is slim to say the least.
The second form of bank funding which DVL depends on is a £16.3m loan, and its latest accounts state that "the group should be able to operate within the level of its current banking facility and through continued financial support from the principal shareholder."
Software entrepreneur Simon Gillett and property developer Paul White majority own DVL. Both are wealthy businessmen from the Midlands but neither is in wealth's super-league. However, the accounts add that "there is currently no binding commitment on the principal shareholder to continue to provide finance to the business." In other words, if the company should hit trouble with the bank loan, there is no guarantee that the shareholders would have enough to support it and it could be curtains.
If DVL really has lost either of these forms of bank funding, as Ecclestone says, it may be no surprise that the company has not been able to pay its rent. Likewise, there is no point in signing the agreement which gives the circuit planning permission for its modifications if DVL has no money in place to pay for them.
The amount of money we are talking about is not small fry. DVL needs to raise £40m to redevelop the circuit and pay the annual £18m hosting fee to Ecclestone. In January DVL told Sylt that it would announce in March precise details of where its funding would come from, however, this deadline was missed. Of course Sylt asked DVL for comment on Ecclestone's comments about the banks pulling back and the company said it would get back to him but promptly missed the deadline for that too.
DVL does not seem to be in any position at all to fund the British GP from its own resources. In 2007 it made an after-tax loss of £12.3m and remarkably had just £28 in the bank at the end of the year.
Ecclestone revealed to Sylt that if Donington cannot host the British GP then it will simply be replaced by South Korea next year. He said that Formula One Management (FOM) has "got too many agreements in place." There are currently 17 races on F1's calendar and Ecclestone says that the teams "just about lived with 18." Next year South Korea will join and India will follow in 2011 leaving too many races according to Ecclestone… unless one departs.
He vehemently denied to Sylt that he would look for a replacement if Donington fails since there is no other suitable. Sylt tongue-in-cheek raised the possibility of returning to Brands Hatch and Ecclestone said "it would be nice if we could," before bluntly adding: "If there's no Donington, there's no British Grand Prix."
Over a coffee, Sylt put Ecclestone's comments to Damon Hill. As president of the BRDC, which owns Silverstone, Hill looks to be the only person who has a circuit in place which is able to stage the race. Ecclestone maintains that Silverstone is not up to scratch and he is adamant that "we cannot go back to Silverstone because nothing has changed there."
Hill responds that "we're not given a margin which is sufficiently strong to guarantee borrowing money to reinvest." Unlike most events, F1 race promoters don't get a share of TV or advertising revenues. Their sole source of income is from ticket sales and the British GP is one of a few which often breaks even or makes a small profit. This is quite an achievement given that the French GP has been dumped due to the downturn and Germany's event has made huge losses.
Hill adds that losing the British GP could dent F1 as a whole. "Most of the F1 teams are based in the UK so it's a very profitable race for them to come to. It has the highest ticket prices, so it's a very profitable event for FOM which obviously comes back to the teams and the debt holders." With F1 paying $270m in annual interest repayments on the loan which its owners took out to buy the sport, it needs all the money it can get. So losing a race with low costs for all concerned doesn't seem so sensible.
However, Ecclestone is sure to have done the sums and worked out that the £30m fee paid by Korea is £12m more than Donington has committed to and this more than outstrips any profits which the race may make. The impact on the sport as a whole from losing the British GP is a different matter and Hill points out that "it's got one of the best supported corporate hospitality outfits as well and one of the best TV audiences."
As a last resort, Hill throws down the gauntlet to the FIA and says that "you could argue that the promoters should be fairly treated by the FIA because without promoters and without circuits you can't have any races. So it's important that race venues are able to support themselves. So there is definitely a case to say that the FIA has responsibility to their licensed circuits and the promoters need to be protected."
Hill and the FIA may not have much time to act. Earlier this year Ecclestone said that Donington's redevelopment must be on-track by September, however, given the recent developments, its future may well be sealed long before then.
I'm not sure that I would take what Bernie says as 100% true. Controversial I know, but that's my feeling.
But Korea! Do me a favour.
This is grandastanding. Bernie's out to push up the price. That's all he ever does. It's nothing to do with facilities, it is to do with what he gets out of it.
I think the lack of F1 in Britain, France, probably Germany, America, Canada, no doubt one less in Spain and one of the Italian GPs biting the dust, is a big threat to F1. These circuits will be looking for something to call Grand Prix and it could well be supported by the manufacturers.
Doing away with Silverstone. I ask you.
But a small point: Silverstone only makes a profit after the subsidy from the taxpayer. Ifeel sure that they have not repaid the costs of all those new roads around the circuit. That I paid for.
But Korea! Do me a favour.
This is grandastanding. Bernie's out to push up the price. That's all he ever does. It's nothing to do with facilities, it is to do with what he gets out of it.
I think the lack of F1 in Britain, France, probably Germany, America, Canada, no doubt one less in Spain and one of the Italian GPs biting the dust, is a big threat to F1. These circuits will be looking for something to call Grand Prix and it could well be supported by the manufacturers.
Doing away with Silverstone. I ask you.
But a small point: Silverstone only makes a profit after the subsidy from the taxpayer. Ifeel sure that they have not repaid the costs of all those new roads around the circuit. That I paid for.
I really dont understand this. With two Brits in commanding positions in F1 you would have thought that some element of national pride would come into the decision. If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley - do you not think that a French GP would be guaranteed?
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
This reads like BE trying to 'manage' the news, and spin the blame away from himself. Still sounds like BE engineered a situation where an unworkable and unprofitable business model found a fool and his (insufficient) money could be parted? And free up a GP date, that he could hawk off to Korea for an extra £12m? As a bonus he gets to spite Silverstone blazer brigade again.
£6K for a corporate seat, jeez krist! When a nearly access all areas 3 corporate day paddock pass is just £2K (flogged by Bernie perhaps?). No wonder the banks pulled out.
This chat over lunch sounds like a briefing set out to spin this debacle away from blaming BE, deflecting blame, in the absence of be able to make the blame s
t sticking to the government (state funding), or Silverstone (which is difficult as 'our' Damon Hill, is BRDC's Joanna Lumley), so who's left? Who could be possibly more unpopular than BE right now, in the current economic climate, that the general populace and the media, just might buy? BE, thinks, I know! Bankers... Shirly they are less popular than me?
Gillette sounds as well as, looks like a dodgy used car salesman/chancer, partner a property developer, hmmm... no cash flow problems there then, although, in Gillette's defence, pre credit crunch/sub prime, with the good times never ending, this probably, just maybe, might have worked. Same time like the ECB and Stanford, shouldn't the F1 rights holder (thats BE) have done 'due diligence' on DVL to make sure they were satisifed they had a viable business model, including on a rainy day sense. Of course not.
Not so sure about the signing the paper for the planning part of the article, I read elsewhere that Wheatcroft and Son needed to sign the paper, and had not essentially using it as a bargaining device to get DVL to cough up the two large in owed rent.
£6K for a corporate seat, jeez krist! When a nearly access all areas 3 corporate day paddock pass is just £2K (flogged by Bernie perhaps?). No wonder the banks pulled out.
This chat over lunch sounds like a briefing set out to spin this debacle away from blaming BE, deflecting blame, in the absence of be able to make the blame s
t sticking to the government (state funding), or Silverstone (which is difficult as 'our' Damon Hill, is BRDC's Joanna Lumley), so who's left? Who could be possibly more unpopular than BE right now, in the current economic climate, that the general populace and the media, just might buy? BE, thinks, I know! Bankers... Shirly they are less popular than me? Gillette sounds as well as, looks like a dodgy used car salesman/chancer, partner a property developer, hmmm... no cash flow problems there then, although, in Gillette's defence, pre credit crunch/sub prime, with the good times never ending, this probably, just maybe, might have worked. Same time like the ECB and Stanford, shouldn't the F1 rights holder (thats BE) have done 'due diligence' on DVL to make sure they were satisifed they had a viable business model, including on a rainy day sense. Of course not.
Not so sure about the signing the paper for the planning part of the article, I read elsewhere that Wheatcroft and Son needed to sign the paper, and had not essentially using it as a bargaining device to get DVL to cough up the two large in owed rent.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 1st May 18:07
Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 1st May 18:08
As I suspected the prestigious F1 Paddock Club is a venture of Allsports Management SA, guess who? Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_Group
woof said:
I'm not sure why this hasn't been spotted yet ?
It's from http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
Andy97 spotted it on Tuesday and it was in this thread:It's from http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
bordseye said:
I really dont understand this. With two Brits in commanding positions in F1 you would have thought that some element of national pride would come into the decision. If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley - do you not think that a French GP would be guaranteed?
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
I thought that the reason that Valencia was taken on as the "european GP" was because of the large number of F1 fans in Spain since Alonso became champion?They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
If this is the case how does BE justify taking away the only British race with a reigning WDC and a Brit leading the 2009 WDC. It beggars belief.
bordseye said:
I really dont understand this. With two Brits in commanding positions in F1 you would have thought that some element of national pride would come into the decision. If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley - do you not think that a French GP would be guaranteed?
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
Mosley is only a Brit by birth. He's spent very little time in this country. Once his paretns were allowed to leave the country, they sodded off and spent most of their life in France and, of course given his leanings, Spain where they were house guests of Franco. If anything I would suggest that Mossy has no love for this country. It's not as if he lives here.They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
stifler said:
bordseye said:
I really dont understand this. With two Brits in commanding positions in F1 you would have thought that some element of national pride would come into the decision. If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley - do you not think that a French GP would be guaranteed?
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
I thought that the reason that Valencia was taken on as the "european GP" was because of the large number of F1 fans in Spain since Alonso became champion?They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
If this is the case how does BE justify taking away the only British race with a reigning WDC and a Brit leading the 2009 WDC. It beggars belief.
What happened to our nation? Clearly it has nothing to do with having winners. Maybe we are so used to losing in other sports we prefer it?
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that I would take what Bernie says as 100% true. Controversial I know, but that's my feeling.
Perish the thought! You really should wash your mouth out with soap and water! 
Imagine not taking what Bernie says as the truth and nothing but the truth!One thing is certain biographies about Bernie once he has passed away (if he ever does!) are likely yo be an entertaining read!
BE is a st stirring controversial back stabbing senile old git who is motivated by two things - money and power.
Had there been a touch of reality in James Bond, then BE would be the most likely candidate to run SPECTRE!
I often wonder whether he was refused membership, or chucked out of the BRDC, which is why he hates Silverstone so much.
t stirring controversial back stabbing senile old git who is motivated by two things - money and power.Had there been a touch of reality in James Bond, then BE would be the most likely candidate to run SPECTRE!
I often wonder whether he was refused membership, or chucked out of the BRDC, which is why he hates Silverstone so much.
bordseye said:
I really dont understand this. With two Brits in commanding positions in F1 you would have thought that some element of national pride would come into the decision. If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley - do you not think that a French GP would be guaranteed?
They ought to take away Bernie's passport.
If two Frenchmen replaced Ecclestone and Moseley you would even be guaranteed a British Grand PrixThey ought to take away Bernie's passport.
As for the Shekelstone and Moselestly show, you would get more loyalty from two Pigalle district w
es.PS: Haymarket Towers; why has 'w h o r e s' been filtered?
Edited by Police State on Monday 4th May 00:44
This is looking increasingly bad news for Donnington Park.
As a Northerner Donningto represented the best circuit for me in terms of travelling time, history and spectator facilities.
I have even driven around it in anger.
However I was dismayed when the new F1 circuit was going to take away the open seating area oppposite the old hairpin which allowed full sight of overtaking moves which started down craner and finished leading into Mcleans.
Sitting in the 'far side' at Starkeys etc meant a long trek to get to the paddock whereas infield meant a short trip.
Donnington is currently a circuit in Limbo that can neither 'race' on its old layout or its new one.
If the F1 dream is going to die then lets get that decision QUICKLY before any irrepairable damage is done to this great circuit.
As a Northerner Donningto represented the best circuit for me in terms of travelling time, history and spectator facilities.
I have even driven around it in anger.
However I was dismayed when the new F1 circuit was going to take away the open seating area oppposite the old hairpin which allowed full sight of overtaking moves which started down craner and finished leading into Mcleans.
Sitting in the 'far side' at Starkeys etc meant a long trek to get to the paddock whereas infield meant a short trip.
Donnington is currently a circuit in Limbo that can neither 'race' on its old layout or its new one.
If the F1 dream is going to die then lets get that decision QUICKLY before any irrepairable damage is done to this great circuit.
From The Times
May 4, 2009
Silverstone back in Formula One frame as Donington doubts grow
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/a...
I have C&P a part of the article, which adds another 'angle' to this debate;
"Bernie Ecclestone could be reneging on the crucial commercial contract he wants Formula One teams to sign if he ditches the British Grand Prix amid fears that Donington Park is not going to be ready to hold the nation’s showpiece race.
Silverstone, the traditional home of the race, is on standby to stage it again in 2010 should Donington fall victim to its financial problems, and has £40 million of financing ready for release. But Ecclestone, chief executive of FOM, the company that controls Formula One’s finances, insists that no Donington means no British Grand Prix.
However, it emerged last night that a British race on the Formula One calendar is a key component of the new commercial contract, known as the Concord Agreement, which Ecclestone wants the teams to sign. One team principal, who refused to be named, said that the contract demands specifically that five key races are protected as part of Formula One’s heritage: in Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and Germany.
The “traditional” races are also on a protected list in the Formula One constitution held by the FIA, the world governing body of motor sport. With France already falling off the calendar, though, there seems little commitment to preserving the history of a sport focused increasingly on making profits for its commercial overlords. Six of the ten present grand-prix teams are based within an hour’s drive of Silverstone, while two of the three new teams expected on the grid next season — Prodrive and Lola — are British."
May 4, 2009
Silverstone back in Formula One frame as Donington doubts grow
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/a...
I have C&P a part of the article, which adds another 'angle' to this debate;
"Bernie Ecclestone could be reneging on the crucial commercial contract he wants Formula One teams to sign if he ditches the British Grand Prix amid fears that Donington Park is not going to be ready to hold the nation’s showpiece race.
Silverstone, the traditional home of the race, is on standby to stage it again in 2010 should Donington fall victim to its financial problems, and has £40 million of financing ready for release. But Ecclestone, chief executive of FOM, the company that controls Formula One’s finances, insists that no Donington means no British Grand Prix.
However, it emerged last night that a British race on the Formula One calendar is a key component of the new commercial contract, known as the Concord Agreement, which Ecclestone wants the teams to sign. One team principal, who refused to be named, said that the contract demands specifically that five key races are protected as part of Formula One’s heritage: in Britain, France, Italy, Belgium and Germany.
The “traditional” races are also on a protected list in the Formula One constitution held by the FIA, the world governing body of motor sport. With France already falling off the calendar, though, there seems little commitment to preserving the history of a sport focused increasingly on making profits for its commercial overlords. Six of the ten present grand-prix teams are based within an hour’s drive of Silverstone, while two of the three new teams expected on the grid next season — Prodrive and Lola — are British."
Interesting. I wonder why the this protected list has not been mentioned before, and the french havent been up in arms, knowingwhat the french are like.. The concord agreement is a secret document, it has never been published,in full, for public consumption (as far as I know), so is this why Damon is now referring to the protected list, that he didn't know about it, or only refers to it now that someone else has put this element in the public domain.
Slightly off topic, conspiracy theorists sign on here, but begs the question what is the motivation of this team owner to come out now, breaking "il merta" on the agreement with BE, if he wants to remain in the sport, free from a vendetta, he'd be keen to keep his anonymity, if hes still in f1.makes you wonder who would take the risk, who might have an axe grind, with BE, and access to The times, and rely on them not to name him. Oh the intrigue...
Slightly off topic, conspiracy theorists sign on here, but begs the question what is the motivation of this team owner to come out now, breaking "il merta" on the agreement with BE, if he wants to remain in the sport, free from a vendetta, he'd be keen to keep his anonymity, if hes still in f1.makes you wonder who would take the risk, who might have an axe grind, with BE, and access to The times, and rely on them not to name him. Oh the intrigue...
You live and learn!
I had no knoweldge of this FiA protected list. Not even a glimmer. F1 surprises me again. Mind you, not much use in me knowing about it if, apparently, neither did Bernie nor Mossy.
As an aside, after reading the article on Times online I meant to click on Ed Gorman's blog but the faith one came up. The strange thing is that once the first shock is over - the first thought that went through my mind after reading some of the contributions was 'Jesus!' - thee is an overpowering sense of deja vu. I can't help but believe that some of those who post on the F1 blog use a different name to go onto the faith one. There's all sorts of pronouncement that defy logic, go against evidence and show complete and utter contempt for facts.
I had no knoweldge of this FiA protected list. Not even a glimmer. F1 surprises me again. Mind you, not much use in me knowing about it if, apparently, neither did Bernie nor Mossy.
As an aside, after reading the article on Times online I meant to click on Ed Gorman's blog but the faith one came up. The strange thing is that once the first shock is over - the first thought that went through my mind after reading some of the contributions was 'Jesus!' - thee is an overpowering sense of deja vu. I can't help but believe that some of those who post on the F1 blog use a different name to go onto the faith one. There's all sorts of pronouncement that defy logic, go against evidence and show complete and utter contempt for facts.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff