Bernie - the end?
Discussion
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
Now that is interesting. There is another relevant article, the link is on the page. You will need a calculator.
After reading the support Sylt, by way of Pitpass, gives unstintingly to Ecclestone you'd think the two were great palls.
Now that is interesting. There is another relevant article, the link is on the page. You will need a calculator.
After reading the support Sylt, by way of Pitpass, gives unstintingly to Ecclestone you'd think the two were great palls.
Derek Smith said:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
Now that is interesting. There is another relevant article, the link is on the page. You will need a calculator.
After reading the support Sylt, by way of Pitpass, gives unstintingly to Ecclestone you'd think the two were great palls.
Pitpass, and Sylt, have over time done us all a service by digging out and revealing a lot of Bernie-related financial detail that might otherwise have never seen the light of day. They were also one of the few members of the UK motor sport media that from the first took a strong stand against Mosley after his personal indiscretions were exposed. In general, I think of them as perhaps the most independent specialist commentators, and give them a lot of credit for that.Now that is interesting. There is another relevant article, the link is on the page. You will need a calculator.
After reading the support Sylt, by way of Pitpass, gives unstintingly to Ecclestone you'd think the two were great palls.
We know that Bernie is willing to do pretty much anything in business that he can get away with. We also know that he's never been caught doing anything that was illegal, which means that maybe he's never done anything illegal. At the time that CVC acquired their stake, he would have had as good legal advice as money could buy. It's very unlikely that he would have done something dumb; he didn't need to do anything at all.
At the same time, it is inconceivable that, if Gribkowsky was indeed paid $50m by CVC, Bernie, or a related shell company, it would have been for genuine consulting services. What sort of consulting would he have offered - tutoring Bernie on how to run Formula One better? Pretty obviously, Gribkowsky got rewarded for something rather special, and that something wasn't advice on how to apply for the job of risk-controller at a state-owned German bank.
There are some who argue that there could not have been a crime here, because CVC paid a fair price at the time. I think that any real-world analysis of the numbers suggests otherwise: CVC got a great deal.
It was not clear, at the time, how actively the banks were trying to move their collective stake. One presumed that it was quite actively. There are, however, two reasons to qualify that.
The first reason is that it was Gribkowsky's bank that held the key position of 48%. In practice, Bayern LB, represented by their employee Gribkowsky, were always going to make the running. Gribkowsky himself, however, was reveling in his luck: a dumpy bureaucrat who woke up one morning and found that - owing in large part to his own incompetence (unwitting or purposeful) in lending yet more money to Kirch's crumbling circus - he was a very big man in the glamourous, exotic stratosphere of Formula One. It is unlikely that he wanted that privilege to be taken away from him, which it would have been by most above-board, normal businesses or investors that might have bought the stake.
The second reason is that everyone, certainly including potential bidders for the stake, was well aware of how essential to the value of the stake would be Bernie's involvement and Max's approbation. Therefore the stake without those two things might well have been worth only half of what it would have been worth with those two things. CVC paid a discounted price, and yet it got those things in the bargain.
I wonder how that happened?
flemke said:
Pitpass, and Sylt - see above
I only know what I've read about this investigation.It is my experience that some people to get a feeling of being untouchable after a time. After all, when you are dealing in hundreds of millions, what's £25 million?
I know a PC who was caught stealing a Mars Bar by the security camera in a shop he was guarding awaiting for the keyholder. What's 25p?
The suggestions that there was little point in doing what they suggested Bernie did is not the point.
But I have to say, the technicalities are too technical for me. The more I read the articles the more confused I become.
As you say, well done Pitpass for their stand against Mosley. I've stuck with them since then as I feel they can be trusted.
Personally I don' trust Pitpass in any shape nor form, and I dont know anything about them other than what I read on their site and on this one.
My own view is they had to do no digging whatsoever into Bernies affairs as he gave them the information they published. I strongly suspect they were against Max Mosely because thats what Bernie wanted them to be.
Irrespective of any mistakes in Bowers book on Bernie the comments made on Pitpass about it give me the impressionm they were also written by Bernie, or at least at his instigation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bernis funds the Pitpass website, Pitpass ceretainly seem to have regular access to him. Bernie is the master of spin and mis-information and I supspect he uses Pitpass to spread more of it.
My own view is they had to do no digging whatsoever into Bernies affairs as he gave them the information they published. I strongly suspect they were against Max Mosely because thats what Bernie wanted them to be.
Irrespective of any mistakes in Bowers book on Bernie the comments made on Pitpass about it give me the impressionm they were also written by Bernie, or at least at his instigation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bernis funds the Pitpass website, Pitpass ceretainly seem to have regular access to him. Bernie is the master of spin and mis-information and I supspect he uses Pitpass to spread more of it.
Chrisgr31 said:
Personally I don' trust Pitpass in any shape nor form
I agree - I've always found their articles to exaggerate and blow the tiniest detail up into something huge, often putting 1 and 1 together and coming up with 37. They seem to take the faintest of theories and rumours far too seriously - the quality of the journalism is sorely lacking IMO.Chrisgr31 said:
Personally I don' trust Pitpass in any shape nor form, and I dont know anything about them other than what I read on their site and on this one.
My own view is they had to do no digging whatsoever into Bernies affairs as he gave them the information they published. I strongly suspect they were against Max Mosely because thats what Bernie wanted them to be.
Irrespective of any mistakes in Bowers book on Bernie the comments made on Pitpass about it give me the impressionm they were also written by Bernie, or at least at his instigation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bernis funds the Pitpass website, Pitpass ceretainly seem to have regular access to him. Bernie is the master of spin and mis-information and I supspect he uses Pitpass to spread more of it.
I've got no strong feelings about it, and know nothing more than what I've read on it myself.My own view is they had to do no digging whatsoever into Bernies affairs as he gave them the information they published. I strongly suspect they were against Max Mosely because thats what Bernie wanted them to be.
Irrespective of any mistakes in Bowers book on Bernie the comments made on Pitpass about it give me the impressionm they were also written by Bernie, or at least at his instigation.
I wouldn't be surprised if Bernis funds the Pitpass website, Pitpass ceretainly seem to have regular access to him. Bernie is the master of spin and mis-information and I supspect he uses Pitpass to spread more of it.
What I would say is this: Apart from Sylt and the woman with whom he apparently co-writes Formula Money, I am aware of no journalists who have spent 5 seconds trying to unravel Formula One's tangled financial web. The rest, to the extent that they write anything at all, appear simply to read Sylt's stuff and take bits and pieces from it.
This is not a trivial matter. The FIA is a public organisation. Millions-upon-millions in public funds have been spent to support Grands Prix in many countries, including the UK. Bernie and CVC appear to employ some of the most complex and arcane schemes known to man in order to minimise their UK tax obligations. The Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA were investigated and sanctioned by the EU Commissioner for Competition for market abuses and conflicts of interest. The key 48% interest in the Commercial Rights was sold to CVC by (a bank owned by) the state of Bavaria. Even Mr Right-to-privacy Max Mosley could not claim that the financial affairs of these enterprises are not the public's business.
Not usually, but sometimes, I think that Sylt gets conclusions wrong. If you know of a better source for this information, please share it with the rest of us.
Do you?
flemke said:
This is not a trivial matter . . .
Yet, as you say, no other outlet seems bothered by it. This is going to be an important year for F1, and us spectators of course, and Bernie, CVC, FOM or whatever will play a vital part, yet his/their actual influence on the sport has not been explained and it appears covered in secrecy. And yet the fundamentals of F1 will change fundamentally in 2013 and much of the decision making process will have Bernie there.I'm happy for commentators to get things wrong on occasion as long as they admit and correct it.
flemke said:
Speak for yourself, Bubba.
You think that the taxpayers of Bavaria wouldn't mind being ripped off for several hundred million, do you?
France loses its GP because it can't afford to pay Bernie's fees - no problemo?
I would imagaine the tax payers of Bavaria couldnt give that much of an almighty crap about it. Certainly none of the ones I work with have even mentioned the ills of it, whereas they cannot stop mentioning what else they regard as their money being drained away by politicians various.You think that the taxpayers of Bavaria wouldn't mind being ripped off for several hundred million, do you?
France loses its GP because it can't afford to pay Bernie's fees - no problemo?
None of the French I know have uttered a word about the loss of their GP either and that includes the mob where I live and the mob I work with.
And on a purely selfish note of how the matter relates to me...its completely and utterly trivial in my life. Has it cost me anything? No. Has it had any impact on me being able to watch the sport? No.
Strangely enough I rather think that is absolutely the same for everybody else on this forum.
DJC said:
And on a purely selfish note of how the matter relates to me...its completely and utterly trivial in my life. Has it cost me anything? No. Has it had any impact on me being able to watch the sport? No.
Strangely enough I rather think that is absolutely the same for everybody else on this forum.
I don't pretend that I understand the financial workings of F1 in any way, and reading the pitpass article Derek linked to just confused me (I will read it again later and try to make some sense of it) as I couldn't tell if they were supporting or opposing Bernie. But what I do know is that the overall situation regarding this and wider financial concerns in F1 it does relate to me, and everyone on PH as it has implications for what happens in F1. At present we get reasonably free access via terrestrial TV but the races are taking place further away and more often from traditional support areas. What if one day soon the BBC and ITV say they won't pay Bernie's fees yet Sky do and then put TV on a pay per view scheme to cover their costs. What if even more traditional circuits go the way the French one has? These things will affect all of us, and the financial deals (legal or otherwise) are behind these changes so they are important.Strangely enough I rather think that is absolutely the same for everybody else on this forum.
andyps said:
I will read it again later and try to make some sense of it.
Why should you be so different from the rest of us?It is worrying though, isn't it. The future of F1 is in the hands of someone who seems to use his to grab at anything that looks like money.
There is the possibility that Todt might stand up to him but he's fighting from a position of weakness. Mosley reduced the FIA's authority down and Todt has no real way of becoming strong enough to mount a battle against Bernie. The FIA has got to choose sides, the Liberal Party of F1. At the moment he looks like favouring the teams but that could change in an instant.
DJC said:
flemke said:
Speak for yourself, Bubba.
You think that the taxpayers of Bavaria wouldn't mind being ripped off for several hundred million, do you?
France loses its GP because it can't afford to pay Bernie's fees - no problemo?
I would imagaine the tax payers of Bavaria couldnt give that much of an almighty crap about it. Certainly none of the ones I work with have even mentioned the ills of it, whereas they cannot stop mentioning what else they regard as their money being drained away by politicians various.You think that the taxpayers of Bavaria wouldn't mind being ripped off for several hundred million, do you?
France loses its GP because it can't afford to pay Bernie's fees - no problemo?
Has it occurred to you that the reason that, according to you, Bavarians are indifferent to the financial activities of the Commercial Rights Holder would be precisely because they are unaware of what went on, and how it may have affected them?
You say that none of your French acquaintances care whether there's a French GP. I wouldn't hazard a guess about your circle of acquaintances, but if you are suggesting that French motor sport fans have no interest in Formula One, I think that will be news to a lot of people. In fact, it's not really credible, is it?
Would you say the same about Germany, which because of the CRH's fees has gone from 2 races to 1, and may halve it again? The financial chicanery surrounding Nurburgring GmbH (which is by way of contemporaneous example; it does not relate to the F1 CRH) has received a great deal of attention over there.
You're entitled to have 0.00 interest in this subject, just as, one suspects, many of the rest of us would have 0.00 interest in things that animate you. Fair enough. From there to make the leap that your personal uninterest would necessarily translate to universal uninterest in the financial activities of and resulting impact on a multi-billion dollar, high-profile global activity that claims to be the world's "most watched sport" is, however, rather fanciful.
flemke said:
I've got no strong feelings about it, and know nothing more than what I've read on it myself.
What I would say is this: Apart from Sylt and the woman with whom he apparently co-writes Formula Money, I am aware of no journalists who have spent 5 seconds trying to unravel Formula One's tangled financial web. The rest, to the extent that they write anything at all, appear simply to read Sylt's stuff and take bits and pieces from it.
This is not a trivial matter. The FIA is a public organisation. Millions-upon-millions in public funds have been spent to support Grands Prix in many countries, including the UK. Bernie and CVC appear to employ some of the most complex and arcane schemes known to man in order to minimise their UK tax obligations. The Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA were investigated and sanctioned by the EU Commissioner for Competition for market abuses and conflicts of interest. The key 48% interest in the Commercial Rights was sold to CVC by (a bank owned by) the state of Bavaria. Even Mr Right-to-privacy Max Mosley could not claim that the financial affairs of these enterprises are not the public's business.
Not usually, but sometimes, I think that Sylt gets conclusions wrong. If you know of a better source for this information, please share it with the rest of us.
Do you?
I don't know any better source for it, however I have my doubts that Sylt has spent more than 5 minutes investigating it either! It is also not a trivial matter.What I would say is this: Apart from Sylt and the woman with whom he apparently co-writes Formula Money, I am aware of no journalists who have spent 5 seconds trying to unravel Formula One's tangled financial web. The rest, to the extent that they write anything at all, appear simply to read Sylt's stuff and take bits and pieces from it.
This is not a trivial matter. The FIA is a public organisation. Millions-upon-millions in public funds have been spent to support Grands Prix in many countries, including the UK. Bernie and CVC appear to employ some of the most complex and arcane schemes known to man in order to minimise their UK tax obligations. The Commercial Rights Holder and the FIA were investigated and sanctioned by the EU Commissioner for Competition for market abuses and conflicts of interest. The key 48% interest in the Commercial Rights was sold to CVC by (a bank owned by) the state of Bavaria. Even Mr Right-to-privacy Max Mosley could not claim that the financial affairs of these enterprises are not the public's business.
Not usually, but sometimes, I think that Sylt gets conclusions wrong. If you know of a better source for this information, please share it with the rest of us.
Do you?
I suspect that most journalists won't investigate F1 because they suspect if they did they might lose their rights to access the F1 media centre. I wonder whether Tom Rubython (sp) was a more accurate source of information even if he was successfully sued by several people. Just because they won doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or partly right, not that I can remember who sued him or why!
When I read the articles on Bernie and money on Pitpass I just get the impression that the information has come from Bernie himself and it always seems remarkably complicated (and of course F1 money is remarkably complicated delibrately).
For example this article http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... states that Mercedes have not given up hope of a FOTA organised race series and denigrates their last efforts. Now thedocument concerned just states a definition of "Constructors Championship" and anyone from FOTA writing a definition would obviously make it as wide as possible. The Pitpass article doesn't tell us what article this definition was in, nor when it was written. If it is in company accounts or similar then I'd guess the document could already be several years old. I just wonder whether the article is written at the behest of Bernie to rattle a few cages.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... This article rfers directly to Bernies exclusive to Pitpass, why would Bernie vhoose Pitpass as his exclusive venue to release it? And then most of the articles linked at the bottom of that one give me the hint that they are more things that Bernie wants said than genuinue independent editorial.
I might of course have the wrong end of the stick and could be accussed of seeing reds under the bed etc, however I just get the impression from reading articles on Pitpass that maybe its not as independent as it might want us to believe.
On a seperate note as regards TV coverage I thought Bernie had always said that he wanted F1 on free-to-air TV, or was it the teams that wanted it on free-to-air as it increases the audience and hence the sponsorship?
Chrisgr31 said:
I don't know any better source for it, however I have my doubts that Sylt has spent more than 5 minutes investigating it either! It is also not a trivial matter.
I suspect that most journalists won't investigate F1 because they suspect if they did they might lose their rights to access the F1 media centre. I wonder whether Tom Rubython (sp) was a more accurate source of information even if he was successfully sued by several people. Just because they won doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or partly right, not that I can remember who sued him or why!
When I read the articles on Bernie and money on Pitpass I just get the impression that the information has come from Bernie himself and it always seems remarkably complicated (and of course F1 money is remarkably complicated delibrately).
For example this article http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... states that Mercedes have not given up hope of a FOTA organised race series and denigrates their last efforts. Now thedocument concerned just states a definition of "Constructors Championship" and anyone from FOTA writing a definition would obviously make it as wide as possible. The Pitpass article doesn't tell us what article this definition was in, nor when it was written. If it is in company accounts or similar then I'd guess the document could already be several years old. I just wonder whether the article is written at the behest of Bernie to rattle a few cages.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... This article rfers directly to Bernies exclusive to Pitpass, why would Bernie vhoose Pitpass as his exclusive venue to release it? And then most of the articles linked at the bottom of that one give me the hint that they are more things that Bernie wants said than genuinue independent editorial.
I might of course have the wrong end of the stick and could be accussed of seeing reds under the bed etc, however I just get the impression from reading articles on Pitpass that maybe its not as independent as it might want us to believe.
On a seperate note as regards TV coverage I thought Bernie had always said that he wanted F1 on free-to-air TV, or was it the teams that wanted it on free-to-air as it increases the audience and hence the sponsorship?
Perhaps you are right. One has to ask oneself what Bernie asked as payment for his 'exclusive'. Money, it would appear, is not.I suspect that most journalists won't investigate F1 because they suspect if they did they might lose their rights to access the F1 media centre. I wonder whether Tom Rubython (sp) was a more accurate source of information even if he was successfully sued by several people. Just because they won doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or partly right, not that I can remember who sued him or why!
When I read the articles on Bernie and money on Pitpass I just get the impression that the information has come from Bernie himself and it always seems remarkably complicated (and of course F1 money is remarkably complicated delibrately).
For example this article http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... states that Mercedes have not given up hope of a FOTA organised race series and denigrates their last efforts. Now thedocument concerned just states a definition of "Constructors Championship" and anyone from FOTA writing a definition would obviously make it as wide as possible. The Pitpass article doesn't tell us what article this definition was in, nor when it was written. If it is in company accounts or similar then I'd guess the document could already be several years old. I just wonder whether the article is written at the behest of Bernie to rattle a few cages.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... This article rfers directly to Bernies exclusive to Pitpass, why would Bernie vhoose Pitpass as his exclusive venue to release it? And then most of the articles linked at the bottom of that one give me the hint that they are more things that Bernie wants said than genuinue independent editorial.
I might of course have the wrong end of the stick and could be accussed of seeing reds under the bed etc, however I just get the impression from reading articles on Pitpass that maybe its not as independent as it might want us to believe.
On a seperate note as regards TV coverage I thought Bernie had always said that he wanted F1 on free-to-air TV, or was it the teams that wanted it on free-to-air as it increases the audience and hence the sponsorship?
I heard a rumour or read an article where Pitpass' pitpasses were under threat after their attack on Mosley after the non-nazi-themed prostitute spanking thingy. I can't believe it of course.
The article on Merc's suggestion of a constructors' series set the same sort of thoughts off in my mind as yours. It seemed to me to be a hatchet job. The previous threat of a contructors' series was instrumental in dumping Mosley out of the FIA. Job done, one might say. Bernie is made of sterner stuff and is quite likely to say: get on with it. However, those whose purse strings he holds might not see things the same way.
No knocking Pitpass but their opinions are, in the big picture, not really all that influential. I would assume Merc has many more outlets it could use to put its side of the machinations.
Ferrari, of course, have said that they would always be in F1 as long as it provides some sort of return for them. Four cylinder turbocharged engines would appear to fall outside that remit.
The sides are drawing lines in the sand. At the moment it is all sabre rattling and posturing. The Concord Agreement will not be decided on Pitpass or even in the FIA boardroom. It will be in little rooms, with two or three people present, where the decisions will be made. If the FIA and FOTA join up then Bernie has little on his side apart from the name. I can't see the EU not raising considerable objections to restrictive contracts with circuits and television stations. In fact they already have.
The decisions will have a great deal of influence on F1 and maybe other senior formulae as well. Todt has already helped WRC. If there is a break-away series then television will be the main driver. It might become Americanised to get their interest.
There are all sorts of options. The most likely is a continuation of the same old with modifications as to who gets what. But it is far from a forgone conclusion. Certainly the European circuits will want a look in if possible. The stands in China were virtually empty, although the cameras tried to keep this from us.
Chrisgr31 said:
I don't know any better source for it, however I have my doubts that Sylt has spent more than 5 minutes investigating it either! It is also not a trivial matter.
I suspect that most journalists won't investigate F1 because they suspect if they did they might lose their rights to access the F1 media centre. I wonder whether Tom Rubython (sp) was a more accurate source of information even if he was successfully sued by several people. Just because they won doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or partly right, not that I can remember who sued him or why!
When I read the articles on Bernie and money on Pitpass I just get the impression that the information has come from Bernie himself and it always seems remarkably complicated (and of course F1 money is remarkably complicated delibrately).
For example this article http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... states that Mercedes have not given up hope of a FOTA organised race series and denigrates their last efforts. Now thedocument concerned just states a definition of "Constructors Championship" and anyone from FOTA writing a definition would obviously make it as wide as possible. The Pitpass article doesn't tell us what article this definition was in, nor when it was written. If it is in company accounts or similar then I'd guess the document could already be several years old. I just wonder whether the article is written at the behest of Bernie to rattle a few cages.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... This article rfers directly to Bernies exclusive to Pitpass, why would Bernie vhoose Pitpass as his exclusive venue to release it? And then most of the articles linked at the bottom of that one give me the hint that they are more things that Bernie wants said than genuinue independent editorial.
I might of course have the wrong end of the stick and could be accussed of seeing reds under the bed etc, however I just get the impression from reading articles on Pitpass that maybe its not as independent as it might want us to believe.
On a seperate note as regards TV coverage I thought Bernie had always said that he wanted F1 on free-to-air TV, or was it the teams that wanted it on free-to-air as it increases the audience and hence the sponsorship?
I couldn't speculate intelligently on anyone's motives, nor would I know if there is anyone "behind" Pitpass's articles. I suspect that most journalists won't investigate F1 because they suspect if they did they might lose their rights to access the F1 media centre. I wonder whether Tom Rubython (sp) was a more accurate source of information even if he was successfully sued by several people. Just because they won doesn't mean that he wasn't right, or partly right, not that I can remember who sued him or why!
When I read the articles on Bernie and money on Pitpass I just get the impression that the information has come from Bernie himself and it always seems remarkably complicated (and of course F1 money is remarkably complicated delibrately).
For example this article http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... states that Mercedes have not given up hope of a FOTA organised race series and denigrates their last efforts. Now thedocument concerned just states a definition of "Constructors Championship" and anyone from FOTA writing a definition would obviously make it as wide as possible. The Pitpass article doesn't tell us what article this definition was in, nor when it was written. If it is in company accounts or similar then I'd guess the document could already be several years old. I just wonder whether the article is written at the behest of Bernie to rattle a few cages.
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p... This article rfers directly to Bernies exclusive to Pitpass, why would Bernie vhoose Pitpass as his exclusive venue to release it? And then most of the articles linked at the bottom of that one give me the hint that they are more things that Bernie wants said than genuinue independent editorial.
I might of course have the wrong end of the stick and could be accussed of seeing reds under the bed etc, however I just get the impression from reading articles on Pitpass that maybe its not as independent as it might want us to believe.
On a seperate note as regards TV coverage I thought Bernie had always said that he wanted F1 on free-to-air TV, or was it the teams that wanted it on free-to-air as it increases the audience and hence the sponsorship?
Bernie is known for getting close to those who he thinks could undermine his position. That makes it plausible that, once Sylt and the other author (Reid, IIRC) popped up on his radar screen as having begun to dig into his companies' financial affairs, he made the strategic decision to le them inside (a part of) the tent.
If Pp were a pure propaganda organ for Bernie, then it would be unlikely that he would want it to obliterate the credibility of Bower's recent, generous and uncritical book about him, but it (Mike Lawrence) did do so.
As I wrote above, sometimes the website's (authors') conclusions don't make a lot of sense, although that is not necessarily evidence of hypocrisy or a hidden agenda.
This is part of one of the recent articles that you have linked:
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item.p...
As I read these words, the author seems to have concluded that any potential allegation that "Bernie" (not necessarily he himself; could be companies associated with him) has a case to answer would be untenable because, in effect, "Gribkowsky (not Ecclestone) paid [£30m] to himself." I think that's what the author means to say.
If so, that's just plain wrong. In almost all civilised jurisdictions, if one consciously abets a fraud perpetrated by someone else, even if oneself does not directly benefit, one commits a crime. That is not to mention that it would appear more than arguable that the buyers of Bayern LB's stake did indeed benefit.
I'm not saying that any of that happened. I wouldn't know. I am, rather, saying that it is a pretty obvious possible explanation, and an explanation that is facilitated by what Pitpass has published over the years about the CRH's financial dealings. Therefore I don't see Pp as being Bernie's propagandist. Naivete and/or co-optation seem less unlikely explanations for their ongoing revelations of facts, and sometimes weird conclusions from them.
Wrt the television rights, it was the sponsors (and especially the big car-makers that used to control more of and still control some of the teams) that were adamantly opposed to pay-TV's replacing free-to-air. Pay-TV would radically shrink the F1 TV-viewing audience, which audience was the whole reason they were sponsoring in the first place.
I don't recall what the CRH's position on that has been, and the position may have changed on more than one occasion. One doubts that, in principle, they care one way or the other, so long as their profitability is maximised.
Rubython lost several libel actions (by Tony Purnell, Alan Donnelly, Charlie Whiting and Richard Woods - all Mosley appointees), but also won a libel action against Woods.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff