Rally GB - Alan Gow for Prime Minister!

[Mat Hammond]

Just found this in Autosport;

British motorsport's governing body, the MSA, met today and agreed to underwrite the £2.2m cost of running the Cardiff-based event - following the onset of a legal case between Rally GB and its sponsor, the Welsh Assembly Government.

Chairman of both the MSA and the MSA's commercial arm, IMS, Alan Gow said: "In recent years, the MSA has exercised prudent management of its finances to create a surplus in order to protect the sport against unforeseen circumstances.

"Consequently, we have decided to underwrite this important and prestigious international event for the good of the sport, while continuing to pursue our extremely robust case against the Welsh Assembly Government for its breach of contract.

"IMS and everyone involved in Rally GB now have a very challenging period ahead to turn the event around in just four months. However, we are confident that the experience and professionalism of our people and clubs will make sure that this year's event is a great success."

I think Alan should run the Country "prudent management" is what we need! LOL

[stifler]

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

I would prefer to see him in Max's job though.

[flemke]

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

[touring fan]

flemke said:

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

I'm not sure anyone could really accuse Gow of being a spineless weasel. He's the opposite.
Besides Gow is not the UK's representative at the FIA. Another guy is and its him that would have voted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport...

Edited by touring fan on Wednesday 10th June 19:36

Edited by touring fan on Wednesday 10th June 19:36

[stifler]

flemke said:

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

Having worked with Alan, I can't see that he would have done that. He is quite outspoken in a good way. Very forthright. I would have thought that he would have disagreed with making the statement.

[flemke]

touring fan said:

flemke said:

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

I'm not sure anyone could really accuse Gow of being a spineless weasel. He's the opposite.
Besides Gow is not the UK's representative at the FIA. Another guy is and its him that would have voted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_World_Motor_Sport...

I am always happy to learn.

In this case, you have linked to the World Motor Sport Council, of which Briton Graham Stoker is a member. The World Motor Sport Council did not participate in the Mosley vote of confidence. It was not within their purview. Rather, the eligible member clubs voted - roughly 140 of them, IIRC.
According to both the FIA website and the MSA website, "The Motor Sports Association (MSA) is recognised as the sole motor sport governing body for the United Kingdom by the world governing body, the Federation Internationale de L'Automobile (FIA)."

According to the FIA website, Alan Gow is the MSA "President".
According to the MSA website, Gow is the MSA "Chairman".

Although we don't know how the MSA voted as a member club, one does find it hard to believe that the Chairman/President had nothing to do with their decision on how to vote.

The thing is, that's all irrelevant. We don't know how any of the individual member clubs voted. My post did not refer to how anyone voted, but to what they said to the world. In that period leading up to the vote, numerous highly-credible and widely-respected figures stated to the media that it would be in the best interests of motor sport if Mosley were to leave quietly and with whatever fragments of dignity he might have had left. That was the point - that if enough people of enough weight spoke up, collectively they might either induce Mosley to leave voluntarily, or induce the majority of member clubs to vote against him and force him to leave.
I think one could make a good argument that Mosley has done more harm to Formula One in Britain than he has done to the sport in any other country. Whether that be from his not lifting a finger to try to contain Ecclestone's BRDC grudge which imperils the British GP, from his campaign to gut the workforces of the F1 teams, which will inevitably do more harm to the UK industry than to anywhere else, or from his outrageous and indefensible ad hominem attacks on Britain's most successful constructor and on Britain's most successful driver, this British exile has not exactly been a loyal friend to British motor sport.
In all that context, and regardless of how the MSA might have voted, and regardless even of whether it was Alan Gow or the tea lady who cast their vote, why could the most visible, most senior, and presumably most important official of "the sole motor sport governing body in Britain" not speak up when it might have mattered?

[flemke]

stifler said:

flemke said:

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

Having worked with Alan, I can't see that he would have done that. He is quite outspoken in a good way. Very forthright. I would have thought that he would have disagreed with making the statement.

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

[Porlock]

Mat Hammond said:

Just found this in Autosport;

British motorsport's governing body, the MSA, met today and agreed to underwrite the £2.2m cost of running the Cardiff-based event - following the onset of a legal case between Rally GB and its sponsor, the Welsh Assembly Government.

Chairman of both the MSA and the MSA's commercial arm, IMS, Alan Gow said: "In recent years, the MSA has exercised prudent management of its finances to create a surplus in order to protect the sport against unforeseen circumstances.

"Consequently, we have decided to underwrite this important and prestigious international event for the good of the sport, while continuing to pursue our extremely robust case against the Welsh Assembly Government for its breach of contract.

"IMS and everyone involved in Rally GB now have a very challenging period ahead to turn the event around in just four months. However, we are confident that the experience and professionalism of our people and clubs will make sure that this year's event is a great success."

I think Alan should run the Country "prudent management" is what we need! LOL

So as a licence holder does this mean that the monies I have paid the MSA will be prudently used to keep motorsport alive at International Level when lesser Grass Root events are struggling with finances? And will I be able to get a discount on a ticket to see the event??

Edited by Porlock on Wednesday 10th June 21:55

[Scuffers]

Porlock said:

Mat Hammond said:

Just found this in Autosport;

British motorsport's governing body, the MSA, met today and agreed to underwrite the £2.2m cost of running the Cardiff-based event - following the onset of a legal case between Rally GB and its sponsor, the Welsh Assembly Government.

Chairman of both the MSA and the MSA's commercial arm, IMS, Alan Gow said: "In recent years, the MSA has exercised prudent management of its finances to create a surplus in order to protect the sport against unforeseen circumstances.

"Consequently, we have decided to underwrite this important and prestigious international event for the good of the sport, while continuing to pursue our extremely robust case against the Welsh Assembly Government for its breach of contract.

"IMS and everyone involved in Rally GB now have a very challenging period ahead to turn the event around in just four months. However, we are confident that the experience and professionalism of our people and clubs will make sure that this year's event is a great success."

I think Alan should run the Country "prudent management" is what we need! LOL

So as a licence holder does this mean that the monies I have paid the MSA will be prudently used to keep motorsport alive at International Level when lesser Grass Root events are struggling with finances? And will I be able to get a discount on a ticket to see the event??

Edited by Porlock on Wednesday 10th June 21:55

good question!

[stifler]

flemke said:

stifler said:

flemke said:

stifler said:

Not sure about having another foreigner as PM.

Or another spineless weasel...

A year ago, when anyone with sense enough to pour pi55 out of a boot was calling for Mosley to do the right thing and resign, the silence of the MSA was deafening.
Within minutes of Mosley's then "winning" the vote of confidence, the MSA was straight to the news media to issue a statement of support.
Not their finest hour.

Having worked with Alan, I can't see that he would have done that. He is quite outspoken in a good way. Very forthright. I would have thought that he would have disagreed with making the statement.

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

I wish I knew. A bit out of character, one could say.

[Graham]

MMM one I'd like to know the answer too... Perhaps a portion of that money could have been put behind JT and the 24hr at silverstone... but the MSA dont seem to have realised that exists yet..

[stifler]

Graham said:

MMM one I'd like to know the answer too... Perhaps a portion of that money could have been put behind JT and the 24hr at silverstone... but the MSA dont seem to have realised that exists yet..

2 years ago, Alan Gow was in the race..... He, as president/chairman of the MSA, is well aware of the race.

[touring fan]

flemke said:

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

A chairman of an organisation like the MSA can't always do what he wants to do. Its not a dictatorship.
The board would make decisions like that and the chairman can't just go against what the board decide.

[flemke]

touring fan said:

flemke said:

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

A chairman of an organisation like the MSA can't always do what he wants to do. Its not a dictatorship.
The board would make decisions like that and the chairman can't just go against what the board decide.

"Can't", or won't? One doubts that he was bound and gagged for six weeks. If he is that good at his job, the board, even if reluctantly, would have been willing to tolerate measured, respectful dissension. And tell me what kind of guy would cave in to a board if it had made such an ill-judged decision.

And was it the board, who might meet once a month or, more likely, once a quarter, who would have rushed out the statement of MSA support of the Mosley decision within minutes of its having been made?
Even if the MSA board had chosen to be strictly neutral, notwithstanding that this was not a political matter but an ethical and governance matter, neutrality should have led them to remain reserved after the vote, rather than wading in asap. Their actions had all the appearances of a group, or person, that lacked the backbone to take a side when it might have made a difference but, as soon as the winner was known, dared not waste a moment before sucking up to him.

[touring fan]

flemke said:

touring fan said:

flemke said:

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

A chairman of an organisation like the MSA can't always do what he wants to do. Its not a dictatorship.
The board would make decisions like that and the chairman can't just go against what the board decide.

"Can't", or won't? One doubts that he was bound and gagged for six weeks. If he is that good at his job, the board, even if reluctantly, would have been willing to tolerate measured, respectful dissension. And tell me what kind of guy would cave in to a board if it had made such an ill-judged decision.

And was it the board, who might meet once a month or, more likely, once a quarter, who would have rushed out the statement of MSA support of the Mosley decision within minutes of its having been made?
Even if the MSA board had chosen to be strictly neutral, notwithstanding that this was not a political matter but an ethical and governance matter, neutrality should have led them to remain reserved after the vote, rather than wading in asap. Their actions had all the appearances of a group, or person, that lacked the backbone to take a side when it might have made a difference but, as soon as the winner was known, dared not waste a moment before sucking up to him.

I don't really know why we are having this discussion as none of us know what went on in the background. Who's to say that they didn't vote against Mosely in the secret ballot and that when he got back in had to quickly show their support?

If you think about it, that would have been the smartest way to go about it; secretly vote against him but not make it known because, as it turns out, thank heavens they didn't come out "publicly" against Mosely or he would have made damn sure he 'got back at them' in his own inimitable fashion. Maybe they played it just right so as not to compromise the UK's relationship with el-Presidente whilst still trying to kick him out by registering their vote against him. Its a win-win for them and that's exactly what i would have done if i were them.

[flemke]

touring fan said:

flemke said:

touring fan said:

flemke said:

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

A chairman of an organisation like the MSA can't always do what he wants to do. Its not a dictatorship.
The board would make decisions like that and the chairman can't just go against what the board decide.

"Can't", or won't? One doubts that he was bound and gagged for six weeks. If he is that good at his job, the board, even if reluctantly, would have been willing to tolerate measured, respectful dissension. And tell me what kind of guy would cave in to a board if it had made such an ill-judged decision.

And was it the board, who might meet once a month or, more likely, once a quarter, who would have rushed out the statement of MSA support of the Mosley decision within minutes of its having been made?
Even if the MSA board had chosen to be strictly neutral, notwithstanding that this was not a political matter but an ethical and governance matter, neutrality should have led them to remain reserved after the vote, rather than wading in asap. Their actions had all the appearances of a group, or person, that lacked the backbone to take a side when it might have made a difference but, as soon as the winner was known, dared not waste a moment before sucking up to him.

I don't really know why we are having this discussion as none of us know what went on in the background. Who's to say that they didn't vote against Mosely in the secret ballot and that when he got back in had to quickly show their support?

If you think about it, that would have been the smartest way to go about it; secretly vote against him but not make it known because, as it turns out, thank heavens they didn't come out "publicly" against Mosely or he would have made damn sure he 'got back at them' in his own inimitable fashion. Maybe they played it just right so as not to compromise the UK's relationship with el-Presidente whilst still trying to kick him out by registering their vote against him. Its a win-win for them and that's exactly what i would have done if i were them.

"Win-win"? Only if you consider it "winning" to be manipulative, hypocritical and gutless. Yes, that might be standard operating procedure for much of the activity of the FIA itself, but one would hope that its member clubs could be better than that.

As I said above, much of the point of taking a public stand before the vote was to improve the likelihood that Mosley would be gone. As the representative of one of the top five motor sports nations in the world, what the MSA says should matter. If what it says matters, it can potentially influence Mosley's decision before the vote, and influence the votes of other member clubs.

Beyond that, there is the matter of one's ethical obligations. Some of us tend to think more highly of those who have the courage, and the good judgment, to stand up and repudiate villains and their scumbaggery, than we do of those who cower in the corner silently.

[touring fan]

flemke said:

touring fan said:

flemke said:

touring fan said:

flemke said:

That is certainly the impression that he gives to the public.
Which inevitably raises the question: "If he as such a tough guy, a fearless guy who tells it like it is, why the silence?"

A chairman of an organisation like the MSA can't always do what he wants to do. Its not a dictatorship.
The board would make decisions like that and the chairman can't just go against what the board decide.

"Can't", or won't? One doubts that he was bound and gagged for six weeks. If he is that good at his job, the board, even if reluctantly, would have been willing to tolerate measured, respectful dissension. And tell me what kind of guy would cave in to a board if it had made such an ill-judged decision.

And was it the board, who might meet once a month or, more likely, once a quarter, who would have rushed out the statement of MSA support of the Mosley decision within minutes of its having been made?
Even if the MSA board had chosen to be strictly neutral, notwithstanding that this was not a political matter but an ethical and governance matter, neutrality should have led them to remain reserved after the vote, rather than wading in asap. Their actions had all the appearances of a group, or person, that lacked the backbone to take a side when it might have made a difference but, as soon as the winner was known, dared not waste a moment before sucking up to him.

I don't really know why we are having this discussion as none of us know what went on in the background. Who's to say that they didn't vote against Mosely in the secret ballot and that when he got back in had to quickly show their support?

If you think about it, that would have been the smartest way to go about it; secretly vote against him but not make it known because, as it turns out, thank heavens they didn't come out "publicly" against Mosely or he would have made damn sure he 'got back at them' in his own inimitable fashion. Maybe they played it just right so as not to compromise the UK's relationship with el-Presidente whilst still trying to kick him out by registering their vote against him. Its a win-win for them and that's exactly what i would have done if i were them.

"Win-win"? Only if you consider it "winning" to be manipulative, hypocritical and gutless. Yes, that might be standard operating procedure for much of the activity of the FIA itself, but one would hope that its member clubs could be better than that.

As I said above, much of the point of taking a public stand before the vote was to improve the likelihood that Mosley would be gone. As the representative of one of the top five motor sports nations in the world, what the MSA says should matter. If what it says matters, it can potentially influence Mosley's decision before the vote, and influence the votes of other member clubs.

Beyond that, there is the matter of one's ethical obligations. Some of us tend to think more highly of those who have the courage, and the good judgment, to stand up and repudiate villains and their scumbaggery, than we do of those who cower in the corner silently.

Like I said, we will never know what went on so there is no point in trying to rake over something that we are completely clueless about. But what I do know is that Gow is one of the very smartest operators in UK motorsport, regardless of if you like him or not, and I would think that he knows how to go about things in his sphere far better than you or I. I'm sorry I can't agree with you as I think there are a whole lot more complex factors at play than the more simplistic view that you give. Everyone has different opinions and just because mine is different to yours doesn't make it is any less valid.

Edited by touring fan on Thursday 11th June 00:44

[flemke]

touring fan said:

Like I said, we will never know what went on so there is no point in trying to rake over something that we are completely clueless about. But what I do know is that Gow is one of the very smartest operators in UK motorsport, regardless of if you like him or not, and I would think that he knows how to go about things in his sphere far better than you or I.

We're just having a friendly discussion here.
I myself do not accept that argument, that whatever "technical" issues there were within the business, they would necessarily trump the ethical and governance issues on which one does not need to be an insider to know what is right.
That argument is often the one trotted out by insiders to justify their own self-interest: "Well, the public wouldn't really understand. What we're doing is in the best interests of the sport, but you'd have to be part of it to appreciate that fact."

touring fan said:

I'm sorry I can't agree with you as I think there are a whole lot more complex factors at play than the more simplistic view that you give. Everyone has different opinions and just because mine is different to yours doesn't make it is any less valid.

Absolutely. At the same time, the fact that any two people have equal rights under the law does not mean that their differing opinions must be equally right.

[Alfie Noakes]

One must assume that before committing £2.2m to back this rally they have reviewed their chances of getting the money back from the Taff’s and believe themselves to have a good chance.
I think it would be out of order for them to fund one particular event by using their member’s subscriptions.

[Nic jones]

Marvellous, I wonder how much my Comp licence will go up by for next year.

By the time all cars have entered at silly numbers of thousands of pounds how can it possibly still cost £2.2 million?