Ecclestone: Senna's death was good for F1
Discussion
In commercial terms he is correct. In technically related safety concerns he is correct.
You must always remember the terms of reference of the context that Bernie is speaking in. Oh and remember that he is two steps ahead of you in whatever game he is playing. Bernie's Game so to speak, is invariably won by him because he ensures he sets the agenda, he provokes and ensures everybody is reacting to him, thereby giving him the most control over events.
You must always remember the terms of reference of the context that Bernie is speaking in. Oh and remember that he is two steps ahead of you in whatever game he is playing. Bernie's Game so to speak, is invariably won by him because he ensures he sets the agenda, he provokes and ensures everybody is reacting to him, thereby giving him the most control over events.
What a ridiculous statement to make, particularly over the weekend of a Brazilian GP.
True, Senna's death made F1 look seriously at safety again following a period of complacency, but I don't see how losing the most high-profile and charismatic driver of a generation can be seen as "good" in any sense?
True, Senna's death made F1 look seriously at safety again following a period of complacency, but I don't see how losing the most high-profile and charismatic driver of a generation can be seen as "good" in any sense?
ITMonkey said:
What a ridiculous statement to make, particularly over the weekend of a Brazilian GP.
True, Senna's death made F1 look seriously at safety again following a period of complacency, but I don't see how losing the most high-profile and charismatic driver of a generation can be seen as "good" in any sense?
Publicity.True, Senna's death made F1 look seriously at safety again following a period of complacency, but I don't see how losing the most high-profile and charismatic driver of a generation can be seen as "good" in any sense?
Commercial exposure.
Highlights technical safety issues.
All of which rebound on F1/GP as a commercial corporate identity, therefore the need to control/organise at a corporate level is highlighted and becomes a priority. With that comes an increased need/ability for some sort of central command and control. Bernie is/was that. You can argue in fact that Senna's death was a primary driving force behind the creating the ultra modern corporate F1 brand. That brand is now wielded as a corporate business entity. Wielded by Bernie of course.
So, in Bernie's context it was very very good.
In the four years after Senna's death the viewing figures shot up dramatically on all measures. Bernie commented on it at the time. There were no other relevant factors, so Senna's death dramatically increased the exposure of F1.
So who's the prick - Ecclestone for calling a spade a spade, or the ghouls who started following the sport because someone was killed?
So who's the prick - Ecclestone for calling a spade a spade, or the ghouls who started following the sport because someone was killed?
HiRich said:
In the four years after Senna's death the viewing figures shot up dramatically on all measures. Bernie commented on it at the time. There were no other relevant factors, so Senna's death dramatically increased the exposure of F1.
that doesn't mean it was good for F1 tho - it was good for bernie. it was a tragedy for F1. i don't give a crap about F1's viewing figures, but i'd like to have seen more of senna / schumacher.Some people will, undoubtedly, comment on this thread about Bernie Ecclestone's great business brain and about how shrewd and clever he is. When I read comments from the Bernie supporters I just laugh. The bloke's a plain and simple tw*t! Hypothetically, I like to look at the self made multimillionaires and ask the following; "strip them of their wealth; put them back basics and ask them to do it all again". There are very few publicly known entrepreneurs who I really believe could start again and still make it from nothing. Here's a couple I think could: Alan Sugar, Richard Branson. Here's one I think couldn't: Bernie Ecclestone!
Sym7 said:
Some people will, undoubtedly, comment on this thread about Bernie Ecclestone's great business brain and about how shrewd and clever he is. When I read comments from the Bernie supporters I just laugh. The bloke's a plain and simple tw*t! Hypothetically, I like to look at the self made multimillionaires and ask the following; "strip them of their wealth; put them back basics and ask them to do it all again". There are very few publicly known entrepreneurs who I really believe could start again and still make it from nothing. Here's a couple I think could: Alan Sugar, Richard Branson. Here's one I think couldn't: Bernie Ecclestone!
Are you serious? Bernie has taken the F1 brand and made it one of the biggexst sporting events in the world. This hasn't been just a couple of oppertunistic moves as Sugar made with Amstrad, he's pulled billions and billions of pounds out of no where to make F1 what it is and you're suggesting that it was some kind of epic fluke, that he'd struggle to break even if he had his time again? Please tell me you've been drinking since Button crossed the line yesterday 
There's obviously no coincidence that Bernie has bought this up now. Nothing drives a South American audiance like a little bit of anger and they'll already be a little bit sore over Rubens. Nice parting shot to leave the whole placed seriously pissed off and out for revenge next year when Massa comes back. Viewing figures in March should be huge.
Was Senna's death good for the sport. Of course it was commercially. F1 audiances grew overnight and it got a bit of it's death or glory glamour back. As Commercial Director I'm not sure it matter too much to Bernie when it comes to the other side of it, especially as that would have been Senna's last season
CampDavid said:
Sym7 said:
Some people will, undoubtedly, comment on this thread about Bernie Ecclestone's great business brain and about how shrewd and clever he is. .......
Are you serious? Bernie has taken the F1 brand and made it one of the biggexst sporting events in the world. This hasn't been just a couple of oppertunistic moves as Sugar made with Amstrad, he's pulled billions and billions of pounds out of no where to make F1 what it is and you're suggesting that it was some kind of epic fluke, that he'd struggle to break even if he had his time again? Please tell me you've been drinking since Button crossed the line yesterday There's obviously no coincidence that Bernie has bought this up now. Nothing drives a South American audiance like a little bit of anger and they'll already be a little bit sore over Rubens. Nice parting shot to leave the whole placed seriously pissed off and out for revenge next year when Massa comes back. Viewing figures in March should be huge.
Mmm? It cant be coincidence that this annoying little man seems to be able to offend large groups of people with 'Misinterpretted' comments every so often.
1. He's either very smart and a couple of steps ahead.
Or
2. He's a senile idiot who's not far off licking the windows of his hideously overblown motorhome.
I vote 2!
1. He's either very smart and a couple of steps ahead.
Or
2. He's a senile idiot who's not far off licking the windows of his hideously overblown motorhome.
I vote 2!
Sym7 said:
CampDavid said:
Sym7 said:
Some people will, undoubtedly, comment on this thread about Bernie Ecclestone's great business brain and about how shrewd and clever he is. .......
Are you serious? Bernie has taken the F1 brand and made it one of the biggexst sporting events in the world. This hasn't been just a couple of oppertunistic moves as Sugar made with Amstrad, he's pulled billions and billions of pounds out of no where to make F1 what it is and you're suggesting that it was some kind of epic fluke, that he'd struggle to break even if he had his time again? Please tell me you've been drinking since Button crossed the line yesterday There's obviously no coincidence that Bernie has bought this up now. Nothing drives a South American audiance like a little bit of anger and they'll already be a little bit sore over Rubens. Nice parting shot to leave the whole placed seriously pissed off and out for revenge next year when Massa comes back. Viewing figures in March should be huge.
skinny said:
that doesn't mean it was good for F1 tho - it was good for bernie. it was a tragedy for F1. i don't give a crap about F1's viewing figures, but i'd like to have seen more of senna / schumacher.
You do give a crap about the viewing figures.Better figures mean more appeal to sponsors - about $5bn a year, a significant portion coming into the UK. It means teams surviving and remaining competitive.
It means more interest from broadcasters, with fuller coverage (BBC showing 5 hours per event on primary channels plus another three on red button, compared to 2 hours max 15 years ago). It means a team live in the Paddock and pit lane for live interviews and punditry, rather than Murray and James in a cupboard over the stands (or even back in Shepherd's Bush). It means you can still watch it when you are on holiday in Bongobongoland. It means they don't cut to the football (or indeed Brucie) when things overrun. It means more coverage in the press - general and specialist - for you to read.
In the context BCE meant it, he is correct. Interest in Grand Prix racing soared in the late '90s. And you have gained from that as well.
deevlash said:
That weekend snapped F1 out of its complacency around safety. If Kubica had been driving a car like that when He had his accident he wouldnt be around now, possibly many others too.
I'm not so sure there was complacency around F1 with regards to safety. In fact, my understanding was at the time that there were a couple of reports on the desk of some bloke in charge of such matters - let's see, he was president of FISA, the name escapes - but he did not act despite the warnings.So complacency was there but it was at the top. Some other people were proactive, at least as much as they could be. I've got the details somewhere but it'd take ttime to dig out. Has anyone got them to hand?
And Eccs seems to be saying that the death of the biggest draw in GP racing after Ferrari was a good thing. I'd argue against that. A few years of racing against Schumacher would have been brilliant.
d imho. He's 70yrs now so it wont be long 
Derek Smith said:
And Eccs seems to be saying that the death of the biggest draw in GP racing after Ferrari was a good thing.
No Derek, he said "It is a pity that we had to lose to Ayrton, but it happened. The actual event interested so much people who did not know about this sport and gained interest in Formula One because of it." (my emphasis), which is something completely different. It's a sad situation, but the sport grew as a result. It's unpalatable, but the truth.BCE knows all to well about death in racing, having lost two close friends and clients (Stuart and Jochen). Yet again, a report has tried to misrepresent him, but you can't deny the truth of what he actually said.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff