planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:38 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:51 pm
Posts: 42
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/bsy/9154564/Sky-News-ordered-to-remove-Formula-One-story.html

Well, we can't go upsetting the teams can we ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:26 am
Posts: 46
More important than the teams and Bernie pressurising the media is this part of the article:

"The agreement came to light in confidential documents that appeared to show Mr Ecclestone and the firm that owns F1 commercial rights, CVC, had struck separate deals with Ferrari and Red Bull"

So Bernie's divide and conquer over the new concorde agreement has started in earnest then and this is obviously why Ferrari and Red Bull walked away from FOTA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:16 pm
Posts: 3479
Location: Belgium
Ysmalari wrote:
More important than the teams and Bernie pressurising the media is this part of the article:

"The agreement came to light in confidential documents that appeared to show Mr Ecclestone and the firm that owns F1 commercial rights, CVC, had struck separate deals with Ferrari and Red Bull"

So Bernie's divide and conquer over the new concorde agreement has started in earnest then and this is obviously why Ferrari and Red Bull walked away from FOTA.


Well I guess someting like this is pretty inevitable to happen one day.

_________________
F1 fan since 1989
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:17 am
Posts: 660
for me the linked article was confusing and I didn't really understand it. So Bernie (or CVC) have agreed separate deals with RBR and Ferrari regarding the distribution of profit from F1, rather than making the agreement through a new Concorde Agreement, which would be backed by FOTA teams?

Well, no point in FOTA for RBR then. It had always surprised me that Ferrari was involved in FOTA since they had very specific aims.

So I just don't understand what the future will be like then. What would be the point of a system where F1 teams had individual contracts with CVC? This would mean that Bernie could build up or kill a team whenever he felt like it and noone else would have a right to know the terms of the contracts.

Or am I mis-understanding how all this works?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:51 pm 
What intrigues me is that Sky initially ran the story, then pulled it. I wonder why, their reasons. Oh yea, Sky is owned by Murdoch, who owned News of the World (reference Milly Dowler). These guys don't report the news, they manipulate the news.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:42 am
Posts: 124
*Cough* Shocking *Cough*

_________________
Science is about the natural world, things we can observe, test and gather data for. Why, then, do we teach that life on earth arose spontaneously from non-living matter in school science classes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
What intrigues me is that Sky initially ran the story, then pulled it. I wonder why, their reasons. Oh yea, Sky is owned by Murdoch, who owned News of the World (reference Milly Dowler). These guys don't report the news, they manipulate the news.



Nah it was pulled because thats how the other teams found out. Who quickly started organising meetings. As it was supposed to be confidential Bernie put the screws on I believe.

At least now we know the real reasons why RBR and Ferrari pulled out of FOTA. It also helps RBR if Dietrich pulls the plug they will look very attractive to any potential buyers regardless of how well they are doing.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:41 pm
Posts: 76
Location: London
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
What intrigues me is that Sky initially ran the story, then pulled it. I wonder why, their reasons. Oh yea, Sky is owned by Murdoch, who owned News of the World (reference Milly Dowler). These guys don't report the news, they manipulate the news.


This whole anti sky thing is just getteing way out of hand. Especially when its incorrect. You dor ealise that the guardian was wrong with most of their 'stories'. It was proved the MET deleted voicemails from the poor girls phone, not NoW.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mikeyg123, Siao7 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group