Is bernie in the best interest of f1 anymore?
Discussion
Anymore?
Bernie's actions have been consistently good for Bernie since he left F1 racing team management. Many seem to suggest that Bernie is the father of modern F1 but there is little to suggest that. He might have made it into a nice little earner, but mainly for him.
The sport was becoming more professional from the 80s. The real change came from the managers, including him when he was in charge of Brabham. But it was Ron Dennis, Frank Williams and Patrick Head who lead the changes. F1 would have progressed steadily without Bernie. Whether the sport would have been in Dubai, China or any of the other countries where there is no interest in the sport is another matter. If it wasn't then this, I think, would have improved the sport.
I might even have been able to afford to go the British GP every year.
The sport was great to watch before he bought out the commercial rights. That's all I really care about. Has Bernie improved the racing. I think the jury was back on that some time ago.
Bernie's actions have been consistently good for Bernie since he left F1 racing team management. Many seem to suggest that Bernie is the father of modern F1 but there is little to suggest that. He might have made it into a nice little earner, but mainly for him.
The sport was becoming more professional from the 80s. The real change came from the managers, including him when he was in charge of Brabham. But it was Ron Dennis, Frank Williams and Patrick Head who lead the changes. F1 would have progressed steadily without Bernie. Whether the sport would have been in Dubai, China or any of the other countries where there is no interest in the sport is another matter. If it wasn't then this, I think, would have improved the sport.
I might even have been able to afford to go the British GP every year.
The sport was great to watch before he bought out the commercial rights. That's all I really care about. Has Bernie improved the racing. I think the jury was back on that some time ago.
Derek Smith said:
Anymore?
Bernie's actions have been consistently good for Bernie since he left F1 racing team management. Many seem to suggest that Bernie is the father of modern F1 but there is little to suggest that. He might have made it into a nice little earner, but mainly for him.
The sport was becoming more professional from the 80s. The real change came from the managers, including him when he was in charge of Brabham. But it was Ron Dennis, Frank Williams and Patrick Head who lead the changes. F1 would have progressed steadily without Bernie. Whether the sport would have been in Dubai, China or any of the other countries where there is no interest in the sport is another matter. If it wasn't then this, I think, would have improved the sport.
I might even have been able to afford to go the British GP every year.
The sport was great to watch before he bought out the commercial rights. That's all I really care about. Has Bernie improved the racing. I think the jury was back on that some time ago.
And weren't they at a knock down price? Anf who was the FiA President at the time?Bernie's actions have been consistently good for Bernie since he left F1 racing team management. Many seem to suggest that Bernie is the father of modern F1 but there is little to suggest that. He might have made it into a nice little earner, but mainly for him.
The sport was becoming more professional from the 80s. The real change came from the managers, including him when he was in charge of Brabham. But it was Ron Dennis, Frank Williams and Patrick Head who lead the changes. F1 would have progressed steadily without Bernie. Whether the sport would have been in Dubai, China or any of the other countries where there is no interest in the sport is another matter. If it wasn't then this, I think, would have improved the sport.
I might even have been able to afford to go the British GP every year.
The sport was great to watch before he bought out the commercial rights. That's all I really care about. Has Bernie improved the racing. I think the jury was back on that some time ago.
For just a Promoter, he does wield a lot of power - compared to the Promoters of the other FiA World Championships - were the FiA seem to keep them on a leash. It's up to Jean Todt to remind Bernie who is in charge.
ArnageWRC said:
And weren't they at a knock down price? Anf who was the FiA President at the time?
For just a Promoter, he does wield a lot of power - compared to the Promoters of the other FiA World Championships - were the FiA seem to keep them on a leash. It's up to Jean Todt to remind Bernie who is in charge.
Todt is in a very difficult situation. He has little power and even less money. The returns, such as they were, from the commercial rights ended last year I think. With the team managers forming a group then Todt will have lost control of the concord agreement, the only authority the FIA has.For just a Promoter, he does wield a lot of power - compared to the Promoters of the other FiA World Championships - were the FiA seem to keep them on a leash. It's up to Jean Todt to remind Bernie who is in charge.
The teams will negotiate with the commerical rights holder and Todt will be left to make the tea. It really is a case of which side Todt follows, a sort of Clegg to the ones with power. He is, at the moment, of little consequence.
The teams have lost one rouhd to CVC I think by being ignored on the free-to-air negotiations. They might have felt it was a battle of little consequence but it does provide CVC with a little extra authority. If, as was seen as likely a few short months ago, Murdoch buys the commercial rights then the teams will have their position weakened even further.
This is a difficult time for Murdoch as well. He's had a bit of fuss, you might have read about it in the papers. If he does try to buy out the commercial rights then there might well be some form of backlash. If he leaves it until the fuss dies down then he's lost control of the essential negotiating tool.
The really terrifying thought is that if Murdoch does take over we might look back on the Bernie years with nostalgia, saying how much better 'things' were then.
Now there's something to think about.
Sam the Mut said:
With F1 getting more expensive and more exclusive bernie bleeding any money out were he can, for the long time future of formula 1 is bernie in the best interest? If people start to turn off, no local intrest (china) ect. thus putting investors, sponsors off.
The price of everything is determined by just two things:1) The amount someone is willing and able to pay
2) The amount someone is willing and able to sell for
There has never been a shortage of people wanting to invest or sponsors looking to get involved - just the amount of money they have to spend.
Imagine a scenario where Bernie throws in the towel tomorrow and is replaced by someone who says to circuits, they will have their contract fees halved for the next 10 years so they can charge less for tickets. Do you think Silverstone or Spa or many others that can sell out a race day at £100 a ticket minimum would suddenly drop their ticket prices to £50?
Or says to the BBC they can have F1 for £20m - then has to offer similar reductions to the other 80 broadcasters who are happy and able to pay the going rate, thus slashing what the teams get putting greater pressure on them to find more sponsor money.
How long do you think they'd last?
Whether we like it or not, F1 is a sport and a business - a business with a shed load of money swilling around. Business is of course about money and risk and if for one moment, those that control this risk and flow of money felt Bernie was not in the best interests of the sport, he'd be gone like a shot.
So little is known of how the sport operates at a business level, it's difficult to cast anything other than personal opinion but you have to say, the fact that despite him having very little direct control these days, the fact that he remains suggests that he is doing something right.
StevieBee said:
The price of everything is determined by just two things:
1) The amount someone is willing and able to pay
2) The amount someone is willing and able to sell for
There has never been a shortage of people wanting to invest or sponsors looking to get involved - just the amount of money they have to spend.
Imagine a scenario where Bernie throws in the towel tomorrow and is replaced by someone who says to circuits, they will have their contract fees halved for the next 10 years so they can charge less for tickets. Do you think Silverstone or Spa or many others that can sell out a race day at £100 a ticket minimum would suddenly drop their ticket prices to £50?
Or says to the BBC they can have F1 for £20m - then has to offer similar reductions to the other 80 broadcasters who are happy and able to pay the going rate, thus slashing what the teams get putting greater pressure on them to find more sponsor money.
How long do you think they'd last?
Whether we like it or not, F1 is a sport and a business - a business with a shed load of money swilling around. Business is of course about money and risk and if for one moment, those that control this risk and flow of money felt Bernie was not in the best interests of the sport, he'd be gone like a shot.
So little is known of how the sport operates at a business level, it's difficult to cast anything other than personal opinion but you have to say, the fact that despite him having very little direct control these days, the fact that he remains suggests that he is doing something right.
'Best interests of the sport' is not the reason he's kept in place. CVC has no interests in the sport, it is all down to returns. If Bernie gets the money then CVC are happy. If the needs of the sport and the desire of CVC coincide then the sport benefits. When they don't . . .1) The amount someone is willing and able to pay
2) The amount someone is willing and able to sell for
There has never been a shortage of people wanting to invest or sponsors looking to get involved - just the amount of money they have to spend.
Imagine a scenario where Bernie throws in the towel tomorrow and is replaced by someone who says to circuits, they will have their contract fees halved for the next 10 years so they can charge less for tickets. Do you think Silverstone or Spa or many others that can sell out a race day at £100 a ticket minimum would suddenly drop their ticket prices to £50?
Or says to the BBC they can have F1 for £20m - then has to offer similar reductions to the other 80 broadcasters who are happy and able to pay the going rate, thus slashing what the teams get putting greater pressure on them to find more sponsor money.
How long do you think they'd last?
Whether we like it or not, F1 is a sport and a business - a business with a shed load of money swilling around. Business is of course about money and risk and if for one moment, those that control this risk and flow of money felt Bernie was not in the best interests of the sport, he'd be gone like a shot.
So little is known of how the sport operates at a business level, it's difficult to cast anything other than personal opinion but you have to say, the fact that despite him having very little direct control these days, the fact that he remains suggests that he is doing something right.
Bernie is in possition because of his ability to generate returns. There are rumours he has fingers in one or two pies. If so then that might be a reason to keep him on. I would assume he hasn't a deputy so succession planning is not high on his 'to-do' list.
Whether he is doing anything 'right' or not cannot be judged on the fact that he still holds his position. Even if he was the best possibly candidate for the post from CVC's perspective does not mean he's the best for the sport: e.g. the spectators.
The reason the ticket prices are so high is not as simple as you suggest. There are many factors which contribute, one of which is lack of choice.
Having F1 as a mass market sport does not make the spectators' experience better in any way. Just the reverse. Bernie has been instrumental in making it the premier motor formula, aided and abetted by theat bloke who used to do the work experience in the FIA. All other formulas suffered by this concentration on just the one series. That is Bernie and his little me's legacy to motor racing.
In the 80s I went to F1, WSC and WRC regularly, and often saw other races as well. I got stuck in a traffic jam around Donington in 89 or so for a WSC race and this on the Friday. Just a few years ago I went to Silverstone for a 6-hour sports car race and there were more mechanics in the pits than spectators.
Todt appears to be trying to change this emphasis on F1, whether through general interest in motor sport - which is likely as the first one he worked on was WRC, his old stomping ground, and now sports cars - or just to try and generate some income for the FIA now its supply from F1 has dried (another Bernie/FIA bloke triumph of good sense).
Balestre was largely thought to be useless as head of the FIA, at least as far as F1 was concerned. There seemed little doubt to me that he was partial, favouring anything French. But from the time Bernie virtually replaced him the sport has got very much richer but its management has gone from crisis to crisis. Indeed, partiality again seemed to be the problem and many feel resulted in some of the most boring years in the sport in living memory.
For all his faults, and there were many, Balestre was an enthusiast for motor sport in general and F1 in particular, not accusation you could place at the feet of Bernie and his gofor.
I'm not sure what Bernie has supposedly brought to the sport, apart from his time at Brabham when they were the best prepared and some of the most attractive cars on the grid. The professionalism of the teams changed in the 80s and that was nothing to do with Bernie's management of the commercial rights. In fact I would suggest the problems with the sport's management increased with the increase in his control.
The renegotiation of the concord agreement is the critical time for our sport. The outcome will define what we will see for years to come. It is likely that Bernie will have a large input to this. I doubt that concerns for the spectator and fan will be to the forefront of his mind. History I would suggest is rather definitive on that point.
There is no doubt that professionalism of the teams began to improve immensely during the 1980s. However, I would suggest that it was Bernie's input into the whole structure of negotiating rights that allowed the other teams to concentrate on making their teams more professional.
In the late 70s and early 80s, Bernie increasingly took on the task of negotiating commercial contracts and TV rights on behalf of other teams - even though he was till running Brabham. The other team managers were happy for Bernie to do this as it freed them up to concentrate on the racing and the engineering.
Because of Bernie's superior business skills, people like Frank Williams, Patrick Head and Ron Denis became much wealthier than they would have if left to their own devices.
In the late 70s and early 80s, Bernie increasingly took on the task of negotiating commercial contracts and TV rights on behalf of other teams - even though he was till running Brabham. The other team managers were happy for Bernie to do this as it freed them up to concentrate on the racing and the engineering.
Because of Bernie's superior business skills, people like Frank Williams, Patrick Head and Ron Denis became much wealthier than they would have if left to their own devices.
Derek Smith said:
'Best interests of the sport' is not the reason he's kept in place. CVC has no interests in the sport, it is all down to returns. If Bernie gets the money then CVC are happy. If the needs of the sport and the desire of CVC coincide then the sport benefits. When they don't . . .
Bernie is in possition because of his ability to generate returns. There are rumours he has fingers in one or two pies. If so then that might be a reason to keep him on. I would assume he hasn't a deputy so succession planning is not high on his 'to-do' list.
Whether he is doing anything 'right' or not cannot be judged on the fact that he still holds his position. Even if he was the best possibly candidate for the post from CVC's perspective does not mean he's the best for the sport: e.g. the spectators.
The reason the ticket prices are so high is not as simple as you suggest. There are many factors which contribute, one of which is lack of choice.
Having F1 as a mass market sport does not make the spectators' experience better in any way. Just the reverse. Bernie has been instrumental in making it the premier motor formula, aided and abetted by theat bloke who used to do the work experience in the FIA. All other formulas suffered by this concentration on just the one series. That is Bernie and his little me's legacy to motor racing.
In the 80s I went to F1, WSC and WRC regularly, and often saw other races as well. I got stuck in a traffic jam around Donington in 89 or so for a WSC race and this on the Friday. Just a few years ago I went to Silverstone for a 6-hour sports car race and there were more mechanics in the pits than spectators.
Todt appears to be trying to change this emphasis on F1, whether through general interest in motor sport - which is likely as the first one he worked on was WRC, his old stomping ground, and now sports cars - or just to try and generate some income for the FIA now its supply from F1 has dried (another Bernie/FIA bloke triumph of good sense).
Balestre was largely thought to be useless as head of the FIA, at least as far as F1 was concerned. There seemed little doubt to me that he was partial, favouring anything French. But from the time Bernie virtually replaced him the sport has got very much richer but its management has gone from crisis to crisis. Indeed, partiality again seemed to be the problem and many feel resulted in some of the most boring years in the sport in living memory.
For all his faults, and there were many, Balestre was an enthusiast for motor sport in general and F1 in particular, not accusation you could place at the feet of Bernie and his gofor.
I'm not sure what Bernie has supposedly brought to the sport, apart from his time at Brabham when they were the best prepared and some of the most attractive cars on the grid. The professionalism of the teams changed in the 80s and that was nothing to do with Bernie's management of the commercial rights. In fact I would suggest the problems with the sport's management increased with the increase in his control.
The renegotiation of the concord agreement is the critical time for our sport. The outcome will define what we will see for years to come. It is likely that Bernie will have a large input to this. I doubt that concerns for the spectator and fan will be to the forefront of his mind. History I would suggest is rather definitive on that point.
Excellent post - unfortunately all true. The Bernie & Max double act saw the marginalisation of all non-F1 Motorsport....Bernie is in possition because of his ability to generate returns. There are rumours he has fingers in one or two pies. If so then that might be a reason to keep him on. I would assume he hasn't a deputy so succession planning is not high on his 'to-do' list.
Whether he is doing anything 'right' or not cannot be judged on the fact that he still holds his position. Even if he was the best possibly candidate for the post from CVC's perspective does not mean he's the best for the sport: e.g. the spectators.
The reason the ticket prices are so high is not as simple as you suggest. There are many factors which contribute, one of which is lack of choice.
Having F1 as a mass market sport does not make the spectators' experience better in any way. Just the reverse. Bernie has been instrumental in making it the premier motor formula, aided and abetted by theat bloke who used to do the work experience in the FIA. All other formulas suffered by this concentration on just the one series. That is Bernie and his little me's legacy to motor racing.
In the 80s I went to F1, WSC and WRC regularly, and often saw other races as well. I got stuck in a traffic jam around Donington in 89 or so for a WSC race and this on the Friday. Just a few years ago I went to Silverstone for a 6-hour sports car race and there were more mechanics in the pits than spectators.
Todt appears to be trying to change this emphasis on F1, whether through general interest in motor sport - which is likely as the first one he worked on was WRC, his old stomping ground, and now sports cars - or just to try and generate some income for the FIA now its supply from F1 has dried (another Bernie/FIA bloke triumph of good sense).
Balestre was largely thought to be useless as head of the FIA, at least as far as F1 was concerned. There seemed little doubt to me that he was partial, favouring anything French. But from the time Bernie virtually replaced him the sport has got very much richer but its management has gone from crisis to crisis. Indeed, partiality again seemed to be the problem and many feel resulted in some of the most boring years in the sport in living memory.
For all his faults, and there were many, Balestre was an enthusiast for motor sport in general and F1 in particular, not accusation you could place at the feet of Bernie and his gofor.
I'm not sure what Bernie has supposedly brought to the sport, apart from his time at Brabham when they were the best prepared and some of the most attractive cars on the grid. The professionalism of the teams changed in the 80s and that was nothing to do with Bernie's management of the commercial rights. In fact I would suggest the problems with the sport's management increased with the increase in his control.
The renegotiation of the concord agreement is the critical time for our sport. The outcome will define what we will see for years to come. It is likely that Bernie will have a large input to this. I doubt that concerns for the spectator and fan will be to the forefront of his mind. History I would suggest is rather definitive on that point.
Derek Smith said:
'Best interests of the sport' is not the reason he's kept in place. CVC has no interests in the sport, it is all down to returns. If Bernie gets the money then CVC are happy. If the needs of the sport and the desire of CVC coincide then the sport benefits. When they don't . . .
But are the two not related?If the sport thrives then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport suffers, then the returns fall.
It's the well being of F1 that gives CVC a return and it strikes me that Bernie - on the whole - is pretty good at managing this.
What Bernie has done is keep F1 as the formula people talk about.
Every time things are quiet there's an argument - teams breaking away, engine manufacturers aghast, will we/won't we go to Bahrain, who's got the TV rights, it goes on
Having public spats - however obviously fake they are - keeps it in the news, and keeps the attention away from other race series.
Every time things are quiet there's an argument - teams breaking away, engine manufacturers aghast, will we/won't we go to Bahrain, who's got the TV rights, it goes on
Having public spats - however obviously fake they are - keeps it in the news, and keeps the attention away from other race series.
StevieBee said:
But are the two not related?
If the sport thrives then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport suffers, then the returns fall.
It's the well being of F1 that gives CVC a return and it strikes me that Bernie - on the whole - is pretty good at managing this.
Depends what you mean by thriving Steve.If the sport thrives then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport suffers, then the returns fall.
It's the well being of F1 that gives CVC a return and it strikes me that Bernie - on the whole - is pretty good at managing this.
If the sport thrives financially then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport (from a good racing/spectator pleasing p.o.v) suffers, returns still remain strong.
Speaking as someone who neither works in motorsport nor has a financial interest in it, I feel Bernie has on the whole had a negative effect on F1 probably since the death of SLE.
thanetspeedshop said:
Depends what you mean by thriving Steve.
If the sport thrives financially then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport (from a good racing/spectator pleasing p.o.v) suffers, returns still remain strong.
It can only really mean one thing; a sport that provides entertainment and intrigue that many, many people want to watch and spectate. The more entertaining and intriguing, the more who watch and spectate, the more money is made.If the sport thrives financially then the returns on investment are good.
If the sport (from a good racing/spectator pleasing p.o.v) suffers, returns still remain strong.
If you plotted global interest and viewing from 1952 to the present day on graph, even taking into account media availability, you'd see a long line on a marginal incline up to around the mid 80s where it takes a rapid turn upwards and is the trajectory it remains on today.
This mirrors the time and influence Bernie has had on the sport.
The line may still have risen though but not as much and others may have achieved the same but as Bernie has said himself, "there was the opportunity for many others to have done the same but he was the only one who got off his arse and did anything".
Bernie's brought us Valencia and Tilke.
I've been a keen follower of F1 since the 60s, in fact after seeing my first GP in 66 at Brands.
The sport has gone through peaks and troughs and there have been dull periods. However, I have never been able to see any correlation between how much money the sport is making and the enjoyment I got from watching it. Television would have arrived with our without Bernie.
Bernie has made the sport into a global business, in the process stopping racing in France. He is now taking it from Europe, its base, and pushing it as a global business. I can see the point of Brazil but not those countries with sand or rice. Japan excepted.
I was happy when there were races in lots of European states with the occasional foray into the wild blue. But not having a French GP is not my idea of F1. I know you used to get spointers from the grandstand at Spa but is that any reason to remove it from the calandar? It will probably be run alternately with another European country soon. Thanks, Bernie.
There are some very pretty hotels in some of the new circuits. And isn't it exciting when the cars run at night. Thanks for those thrills, Bernie.
Bernie took vast quantities of money from the sport. He might have done it cleverly, been a bit shrewd and have seen opportunities others didn't. But that doesn't make him good for F1.
The purchase of the rights has virtually crippled the FIA. It now has lost a lot of its income. This is not all bad and it means, I think, Todt is looking to other formulas to bring in some much needed Euros, but it has rendered it powerless to fight off those who want influence over the sport.
CVC, and whomever it sells the rights to, will control the sport to a great extent. The most likely contender is Sky. This is not good for F1.
I've been a keen follower of F1 since the 60s, in fact after seeing my first GP in 66 at Brands.
The sport has gone through peaks and troughs and there have been dull periods. However, I have never been able to see any correlation between how much money the sport is making and the enjoyment I got from watching it. Television would have arrived with our without Bernie.
Bernie has made the sport into a global business, in the process stopping racing in France. He is now taking it from Europe, its base, and pushing it as a global business. I can see the point of Brazil but not those countries with sand or rice. Japan excepted.
I was happy when there were races in lots of European states with the occasional foray into the wild blue. But not having a French GP is not my idea of F1. I know you used to get spointers from the grandstand at Spa but is that any reason to remove it from the calandar? It will probably be run alternately with another European country soon. Thanks, Bernie.
There are some very pretty hotels in some of the new circuits. And isn't it exciting when the cars run at night. Thanks for those thrills, Bernie.
Bernie took vast quantities of money from the sport. He might have done it cleverly, been a bit shrewd and have seen opportunities others didn't. But that doesn't make him good for F1.
The purchase of the rights has virtually crippled the FIA. It now has lost a lot of its income. This is not all bad and it means, I think, Todt is looking to other formulas to bring in some much needed Euros, but it has rendered it powerless to fight off those who want influence over the sport.
CVC, and whomever it sells the rights to, will control the sport to a great extent. The most likely contender is Sky. This is not good for F1.
thanetspeedshop said:
Sorry if I've misunderstood, but whilst you are probably spot on with the global viewing figures are you genuinely suggesting that the sport has improved since the mid-eighties?
That's a subjective debate.I became "F1-aware" in the 80s and is the period in the sport I hold most dear. I miss the turbos, the tantrums, the fact that you could easily blag your way into the pits and if I was forced to spend eternity watching F1 from any era then the 80s is what I'd choose. Other's would choose the 70s, 60s, etc.
Since then, the sport has become more professional, more slick, more technical (which may or may not float your boat), more global and it does appear at least, to be moving into becoming more competitive.
Whether these things define "improvement' depends very much on what you want from the sport.
I'm an old basterd, and a miserable one at that, but I genuinely feel F1 has tailed off from at least the mid-eighties and despite the fact that we have far superior coverage these days I'd far rather watch the racing from back then in the pre-Tilke days.
I find myself agreeing with a lot of this recent post on FAT Racing
"It is, of course, a truth universally acknowledged that nothing in this life is as good as it was when I was young...
Nowhere is his theory proved more clearly than in motorsport and in particular, car formulae. 1986; twenty five years ago. This can be seen as something of a landmark year in the general denigration of car racing. Whist almost any point in the ’50′s, ’60′s or ’70′s could be pointed to as a high water mark in Formula 1 it is pretty obvious now that the early to mid-eighties marked the end of a long great era and the beginning of a far inferior one..."
"Let us look for a moment at the ’86 season: On the face of it quite an exciting season. Who can forget, after all, watching the final race from Australia in the middle of the night? Prost, Piquet and our Nige’ all in with a shout of the championship, Keke nearly winning his final race, Mansell’s blow out, Nelson’s pitstop and the Professor through to win his second title. However, if one looks more closely the warning signs are all there…"
"... As with a lot of Jean Marie Ballestre’s ideas it was as cynical as it was misguided."
"... It is interesting to remember how universally derided JMB was at this time and how Max Mosely was seen as the great white hope; here was a real racing guy with the best interests of the sport at heart and anyway, he was Ecclestone’s mate, he’d see us right. Of course hindsight is a strange, but wonderful, thing and just as we can now see that he was always going to be his Father’s Son and Bernie’s man, there was a time, as Max homogenised the sport into TV friendly packages of nothingness and F1 was seemingly being rent assunder in front of us, that some of us, me certainly, looked back nostalgically at the days of JMB – okay the guy was a blithering buffoon, but he was mainly harmless enough and certainly didn’t have Max’s dark side. Personally it took scenes from the recent Senna film to remind me just how idiotic, inept and, well, French he was… Anyway, I digress."
I find myself agreeing with a lot of this recent post on FAT Racing
"It is, of course, a truth universally acknowledged that nothing in this life is as good as it was when I was young...
Nowhere is his theory proved more clearly than in motorsport and in particular, car formulae. 1986; twenty five years ago. This can be seen as something of a landmark year in the general denigration of car racing. Whist almost any point in the ’50′s, ’60′s or ’70′s could be pointed to as a high water mark in Formula 1 it is pretty obvious now that the early to mid-eighties marked the end of a long great era and the beginning of a far inferior one..."
"Let us look for a moment at the ’86 season: On the face of it quite an exciting season. Who can forget, after all, watching the final race from Australia in the middle of the night? Prost, Piquet and our Nige’ all in with a shout of the championship, Keke nearly winning his final race, Mansell’s blow out, Nelson’s pitstop and the Professor through to win his second title. However, if one looks more closely the warning signs are all there…"
"... As with a lot of Jean Marie Ballestre’s ideas it was as cynical as it was misguided."
"... It is interesting to remember how universally derided JMB was at this time and how Max Mosely was seen as the great white hope; here was a real racing guy with the best interests of the sport at heart and anyway, he was Ecclestone’s mate, he’d see us right. Of course hindsight is a strange, but wonderful, thing and just as we can now see that he was always going to be his Father’s Son and Bernie’s man, there was a time, as Max homogenised the sport into TV friendly packages of nothingness and F1 was seemingly being rent assunder in front of us, that some of us, me certainly, looked back nostalgically at the days of JMB – okay the guy was a blithering buffoon, but he was mainly harmless enough and certainly didn’t have Max’s dark side. Personally it took scenes from the recent Senna film to remind me just how idiotic, inept and, well, French he was… Anyway, I digress."
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff