British GP to stay at Silverstone?
Discussion
Anyone investing in Donington's bid to host the british GP, be afraid. Be very afraid.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/...
If it is up for sale then has anyone any idea who might want to buy it?
Answers on a postacard to PH, with the words Bernie Ecclestone Competition on it.
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/...
If it is up for sale then has anyone any idea who might want to buy it?
Answers on a postacard to PH, with the words Bernie Ecclestone Competition on it.
Well as much as I don't think the bloke needs any more power, I can't help but think that this would be a good thing. It would put some investment into the circuit to "take it up to F1 spec" 
and there would be a guaranteed British GP.
That doesn't mean the idea sits easily with me though, it really doesn't.
(ph123, do you have anything to add to the arguement for or against?
)
and there would be a guaranteed British GP.
That doesn't mean the idea sits easily with me though, it really doesn't.
(ph123, do you have anything to add to the arguement for or against?
)Derek Smith said:
bernie controls where GPs are run. He takes it away from Silvestone and says he'll never return. The BRDC are obliged to put the cirtuit up for sale due to the decision by bernie.
Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
If it could be shown that Bernie had set out to damage the circuit or its owners by abusing his monopolist's position, then possibly. That would be hard to do if Bernie could show that he had been willing to give the BRDC the race for less than he would have been paid by, for example, the Abu Dhabi promoters, or the South Koreans.Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
Furthermore, I believe that Gillett had promised to pay FOM more than what the BRDC were bidding, and also to make the sorts of improvements to D'ton that Bernie had long sought for Silverstone. On that basis, the BRDC would have difficulty in demonstrating that Bernie had abused his position. He just wanted the "market" rate - distorted though it may be by indirect economic or political factors.
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
bernie controls where GPs are run. He takes it away from Silvestone and says he'll never return. The BRDC are obliged to put the cirtuit up for sale due to the decision by bernie.
Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
If it could be shown that Bernie had set out to damage the circuit or its owners by abusing his monopolist's position, then possibly. That would be hard to do if Bernie could show that he had been willing to give the BRDC the race for less than he would have been paid by, for example, the Abu Dhabi promoters, or the South Koreans.Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
Furthermore, I believe that Gillett had promised to pay FOM more than what the BRDC were bidding, and also to make the sorts of improvements to D'ton that Bernie had long sought for Silverstone. On that basis, the BRDC would have difficulty in demonstrating that Bernie had abused his position. He just wanted the "market" rate - distorted though it may be by indirect economic or political factors.
given time, it will be come more apparent how out-of-their-depth the Donington bid is, thus show the sums demanded by BE to be un-realistic (in the UK environment), if BE was then seen to make gain from this situation, it would be a relatively straightforward case to prove, the only real issue is who would take issue with it enough for this to be looked at (presumably by the competition commissioner?)
Scuffers said:
flemke said:
Derek Smith said:
bernie controls where GPs are run. He takes it away from Silvestone and says he'll never return. The BRDC are obliged to put the cirtuit up for sale due to the decision by bernie.
Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
If it could be shown that Bernie had set out to damage the circuit or its owners by abusing his monopolist's position, then possibly. That would be hard to do if Bernie could show that he had been willing to give the BRDC the race for less than he would have been paid by, for example, the Abu Dhabi promoters, or the South Koreans.Can Bernie put in a bid in these circumstances? Isn't their some law to bar him?
Furthermore, I believe that Gillett had promised to pay FOM more than what the BRDC were bidding, and also to make the sorts of improvements to D'ton that Bernie had long sought for Silverstone. On that basis, the BRDC would have difficulty in demonstrating that Bernie had abused his position. He just wanted the "market" rate - distorted though it may be by indirect economic or political factors.
given time, it will be come more apparent how out-of-their-depth the Donington bid is, thus show the sums demanded by BE to be un-realistic (in the UK environment), if BE was then seen to make gain from this situation, it would be a relatively straightforward case to prove, the only real issue is who would take issue with it enough for this to be looked at (presumably by the competition commissioner?)
You seem to be saying that Bernie could be charged with having encouraged Gillett to make too aggressive a bid, which in turn caused Silverstone to suffer a catastrophic opportunity cost. In many scenarios, aside from outright deceit, that would have been perfectly legal (if it were to have happened).
Yes, D'ton seem to be quite out of their depth - you and I have agreed on this from pretty much the day they announced that there was a deal - but I've thought that much more the result of foolish over-reaching by D'ton. So far as we are aware, are any of Donington's apparent problems with being ready for the '10 race things that have been of Bernie's making that were unknown before the contract was signed?
Bernie drives some of the hardest bargains in this world, but doing that is allowed. If a grown man who claims to have considerable business experience is quixotic/naive/dumb enough to commit to paying Bernie a lot of money for something that he's subsequently unable to deliver, that's not Bernie's fault, and certainly not actionable.
Bringing this back to Silverstone, Bernie told the BRDC that they needed to pay X for a GP, and they declined. He told them that "his" race required a certain standard of facilities, and they declined. There is nothing wrong in a legal sense with his having done that, even though to many of us it seemed indecent of him.
Proving that Bernie had materially deceived Gillett, which caused the British GP to leave Silverstone (from which Bernie was always entitled to withhold the GP anyhow), which ultimately put the BRDC in such a perilous position that they were forced to sell Silverstone, which Bernie then scooped up on the cheap, would be a high hurdle, to say the least.
As an entity, who's goning to be around longer, the BRDC or the Poison Dwarf..?
Once BE is pushing up daisies, and he is 78 FFS, I'm sure everything in the F1 world will change anyway, from whatever state that it will be in at that time, so I hope BRDC can see beyond the end of their noses.
Once BE is pushing up daisies, and he is 78 FFS, I'm sure everything in the F1 world will change anyway, from whatever state that it will be in at that time, so I hope BRDC can see beyond the end of their noses.
flemke said:
You seem to be saying that Bernie could be charged with having encouraged Gillett to make too aggressive a bid, which in turn caused Silverstone to suffer a catastrophic opportunity cost. In many scenarios, aside from outright deceit, that would have been perfectly legal (if it were to have happened).
BE is very good at the long game, love him or hate him, he is not stupid, I would not want to bet against him.
Derek Smith said:
A very odd article by Pitpass.com mentions Ecclestone's contention that the two-tier regs are dead but doesn't mention Mosley's rejection of them. Yet surely the latter is the more important. If Mosley has accepted that they are, in Ecc's words, 'pretty stupid' then why not say so? Have they been told that Mosley has made a U turn on his U turn?
I think this is more Bernie's reading on the meeting last week between the teams and Mad Maxhttp://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_533074...
Derek Smith said:
Further, the Pitpass articles ends with:
"Putting this issue the two tier proposals aside however, as Ferrari begins its legal challenge, one should also pay close attention to the point made clear by Pitpass' business editor, Chris Sylt, namely that according to the European Commission the FIA's role in F1 should be merely to enforce the rules not to write them."
Pitpass at www.pitpass.com
Strange that no one anywhere else thought of the EU's ruling in the late 90s.
I wonder if this is the basis of Ferrari's injunction."Putting this issue the two tier proposals aside however, as Ferrari begins its legal challenge, one should also pay close attention to the point made clear by Pitpass' business editor, Chris Sylt, namely that according to the European Commission the FIA's role in F1 should be merely to enforce the rules not to write them."
Pitpass at www.pitpass.com
Strange that no one anywhere else thought of the EU's ruling in the late 90s.
Scuffers said:
flemke said:
You seem to be saying that Bernie could be charged with having encouraged Gillett to make too aggressive a bid, which in turn caused Silverstone to suffer a catastrophic opportunity cost. In many scenarios, aside from outright deceit, that would have been perfectly legal (if it were to have happened).
BE is very good at the long game, love him or hate him, he is not stupid, I would not want to bet against him.
Bernie did not need to use Gillett in order to deny the GP to the BRDC. He could always have done that if he wished.
He might have seen an opportunity to pick up the Donington lease, and hold the GP there himself, by manipulating Gillett. That could not be the basis for an action by the BRDC.
And NONE of us would want to bet against him. Just ask Peter Windsor.
FourWheelDrift said:
AlpineWhite said:
I can't see Bernie's motivation for buying Silverstone. Am I missing something? Why would he want it? Surely there's no financial gain in him buying it?
He could charge it less for hosting the GP and make money on ticket sales.flemke said:
Scuffers said:
flemke said:
You seem to be saying that Bernie could be charged with having encouraged Gillett to make too aggressive a bid, which in turn caused Silverstone to suffer a catastrophic opportunity cost. In many scenarios, aside from outright deceit, that would have been perfectly legal (if it were to have happened).
BE is very good at the long game, love him or hate him, he is not stupid, I would not want to bet against him.
Bernie did not need to use Gillett in order to deny the GP to the BRDC. He could always have done that if he wished.
He might have seen an opportunity to pick up the Donington lease, and hold the GP there himself, by manipulating Gillett. That could not be the basis for an action by the BRDC.
And NONE of us would want to bet against him. Just ask Peter Windsor.
if the outcome of all this means he can snap up another cct on the cheap, then I think he would see that as a bonus.
Personally, I can't see the BRDC selling up, they may well sell the operating company though....
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff