Future Grands Prix?

[bjohnsonsmith]

It looks like the writing's on the wall for Monza,

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/118616

and there are a couple things that stand out with regards to Bernie's response when being interviewed. When asked about Monza, "We will have to wait and see," said Ecclestone. "They don't have an agreement - a bit like Germany really." This smacks of pure intransigence on his part but what he does is he spins it, in an attempt to make it look like Monza, or which ever track it is, are the ones being difficult and this is what he does everytime; it's a warped self-justification for taking the race away.

To quote straight from the interview, sixth paragraph down:

'When it was suggested that losing the race would be unthinkable Ecclestone said: "I tell you something, I was told that when we didn't have a race in France. "And Germany now. We've got some good replacements, haven't we?" '

They may be good replacements for Bernie, as he gets his sanctioning fee but I certainly don't think we've got good replacements with regards to F1, the actual racing and the fans and I know I'm not alone in thinking this.

Finally, to quote the last paragraph:

'When asked if the country's human rights record will be checked, he replied: "We have. "I think everybody is seems to be happy, there doesn't seem to be any big problems there." '

There clearly is a problem, otherwise it would not be an issue. Either he's in denial, so he can get his fee, or he's delusional.

[wolfhound]

At the rate Bernie is going at removing European GP's he'll save the teams a fortune. As the motorhomes are only used in Europe and at the rate things are going only the Monaco GP will be left in Europe then how many millions could be saved by not having them?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

At the rate Bernie is going at removing European GP's he'll save the teams a fortune. As the motorhomes are only used in Europe and at the rate things are going only the Monaco GP will be left in Europe then how many millions could be saved by not having them?

The British GPs safe, as Damon Hill negotiated a 17 year deal back in 2009, that should oulast Bernie.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The British GPs safe, as Damon Hill negotiated a 17 year deal back in 2009, that should oulast Bernie.

It's only safe as long as Silverstone is able to afford the sanctioning fee, which I believe has an automatic escalation clause in the contract. Silverstone already loses money just holding the GP, and one has to wonder how long that financial model can continue.

As for Azebaijan, one really has to question the morals of CVC and BCE. The country has an appalling human rights CV even in it's relatively short history as an independent country. Mind you money does help one to overlook such matters, and no doubt the country's paid adviser (he gets paid a 7 figure sum to advise the President) Tony Blair has put in a good word on their behalf. Fitting that the updated news of the event was announced in another country which has an appalling human rights record, Bahrain. And funnily enough, who do you think is an adviser to the Sheiks in Bahrain? Yup, the same man who was happy to accept a £1 million donation from BCE in 1997 on condition that the UK government would delay/ignore the ban on tobacco advertising for F1. When the media uncovered this bribe, Blair had to hand the money back.

[chillibowl]

in fairness Canada also has a pretty terrible human rights record when it comes down to it as well.

is any country really immune from this charge?

maybe thats naive of me or hypocritical even, but the threshold for me is the number of attendees a race can attract and the human rights and political aspect, while important, should be left to the side when F1 chooses where to go. sadly CVC and BE dont really even care about how many people show up, which as a promoter is really really bizarre.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

It's only safe as long as Silverstone is able to afford the sanctioning fee, which I believe has an automatic escalation clause in the contract. Silverstone already loses money just holding the GP, and one has to wonder how long that financial model can continue.

You're correct about the fee escalation. According to this BBC article,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/8397777.stm,

''The contract on the table was believed to demand a £12m fee for 2010, with an increase of 7% per year after that.

''However, it is now understood the increase has been pegged at 5% .

''There is also a clause in the contract that allows either side to end the contract after 10 years.''

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

As for Azebaijan, one really has to question the morals of CVC and BCE. The country has an appalling human rights CV even in it's relatively short history as an independent country. Mind you money does help one to overlook such matters, and no doubt the country's paid adviser (he gets paid a 7 figure sum to advise the President) Tony Blair has put in a good word on their behalf. Fitting that the updated news of the event was announced in another country which has an appalling human rights record, Bahrain. And funnily enough, who do you think is an adviser to the Sheiks in Bahrain? Yup, the same man who was happy to accept a £1 million donation from BCE in 1997 on condition that the UK government would delay/ignore the ban on tobacco advertising for F1. When the media uncovered this bribe, Blair had to hand the money back.

I don't like to mix sport with politics but I agree with you, one really has to question the morals of CVC and BCE.

Was Blair their payed adviser and who discovered the bribe?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness Canada also has a pretty terrible human rights record when it comes down to it as well.

is any country really immune from this charge?

maybe thats naive of me or hypocritical even, but the threshold for me is the number of attendees a race can attract and the human rights and political aspect, while important, should be left to the side when F1 chooses where to go. sadly CVC and BE dont really even care about how many people show up, which as a promoter is really really bizarre.

There's human rights, and then there is Human Rights.

You may consider that Canada has a poor record, but it allows freedom of speech, free elections and allows those that oppose matters to speak out about those matters.

What it doesn't do, which happens in both Bahrain and Azerbaijan, is stifle free speech and allow free elections. Neither of these countries allow the public to organise political opposition parties, and in fact it is almost impossible to have public meetings unless they are organised by their respective governments. And both countries have a habit of imprisoning dissenters, usually without the benefit of a public trial where the accused could mount a proper defence.

So not quite like Canada, really.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Was Blair their payed adviser and who discovered the bribe?

Can't actually remember who discovered the "donation", but I know that I read about it very early on in Private Eye. It wouldn't surprise me if it was them, working on a tip-off from either someone in the Labour Party, or a leak from a member of the Civil Service.

To whom do you refer when you ask about Blair being their paid adviser?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

So not quite like Canada, really.

i dont have a good answer for that other than to say over our history a lot of good Canadians fought to give us the freedoms we take for granted today so i think when violations of those rights happens here it is actually far worse. certainly it hits home more anyways.

back on topic though, when it comes to sport i think these kinds of issues should be left aside because it is so hard to decide where the line gets drawn?

if we are going to look at Human Rights violators then China should be at the top of the list followed by the USA due to the ramifications of its foreign policy...both of which in the aggregate cause so many more problems then the internal operations of Bahrain. sadly there is no right answer here.

so because i cant draw the line, what matters to me is simply track attendance. are people (fans) willing to go followed by can they afford to go? not every track can be expected to hit Silverstone or Monaco type numbers but if all you can muster is 40k after a decade of trying then you should not be allowed to host a race again.

full disclosure Mike, i used to think the same way about human rights and sport but something i read here years ago changed my opinion to what it is now. so who knows maybe it will get changed back.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

If you want human rights violations, the UK has invaded all but 22 countries in the world, and I have no idea what and what isn't a country now but there are about 198 depending on where you are!!!

Bernie's losing his mind with his age. It's fairly obvious

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

At the rate Bernie is going at removing European GP's he'll save the teams a fortune. As the motorhomes are only used in Europe and at the rate things are going only the Monaco GP will be left in Europe then how many millions could be saved by not having them?

An interesting thought ;-)

My guess is that Monza will pause for a year and then return, in a similar fashion to what happened with Montreal a few years back. There may or may not be a one-year replacement event at Imola on behalf of Ferrari for that year.

[Rob29]

Not sure how much would be saved by not having motorhomes? Surely more would be saved by not having to airfreight cars around the world? They seemed to have some impressive facilities in Bahrain? Bernie is certaonly due for retirement-I remember he was an F1 team owner in 1958

[S griffin]

Hopefully the WEC will pick up some good tracks that have been left off as Bernie has definitely lost all hope for a good F1 future

[JacobP]

An F1 season without an Italian GP is scandalous. I am simply going to stop watching any new GPs if this injustice happens.

[ECW Dan Selby]

Originally Posted by JacobP

An F1 season without an Italian GP is scandalous. I am simply going to stop watching any new GPs if this injustice happens.

Meh, we all say it...

Selby

[bella]

Originally Posted by Yannick

An interesting thought ;-)

My guess is that Monza will pause for a year and then return, in a similar fashion to what happened with Montreal a few years back. There may or may not be a one-year replacement event at Imola on behalf of Ferrari for that year.

nice idea but they'd not touch imola with a ten foot bargepole. it's so old school it's old school even for the likes of elms and f3 (bit like estoril). great place though

[Akrapovic]

F1 dropped the German GP, at a time when the most successful driver on the grid is German, and when a German team are the champions and are looking to reclaim the title (or lose it to the closest challenger, who at the moment is...German). The most popular and most recognisable brand is Ferrari, who are now looking at losing their GP as well. But don't worry. We have Bahrain.

I find it interesting that WEC picked up Nurburgring for 2015, and dropped Bahrain. Meanwhile WEC has dropped Germany completely. Hopefully we'll just see WEC pick up Monza too.

[Pontlieue]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

F1 dropped the German GP, at a time when the most successful driver on the grid is German, and when a German team are the champions and are looking to reclaim the title (or lose it to the closest challenger, who at the moment is...German). The most popular and most recognisable brand is Ferrari, who are now looking at losing their GP as well. But don't worry. We have Bahrain.

I find it interesting that WEC picked up Nurburgring for 2015, and dropped Bahrain. Meanwhile WEC has dropped Germany completely. Hopefully we'll just see WEC pick up Monza too.

WEC dropped Sao Paulo, not Bahrain.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Can't actually remember who discovered the "donation", but I know that I read about it very early on in Private Eye. It wouldn't surprise me if it was them, working on a tip-off from either someone in the Labour Party, or a leak from a member of the Civil Service.

To whom do you refer when you ask about Blair being their paid adviser?

Tony Blair, as in ex UK PM and the man who accepted £1m donation from Bernie over of the ban on tobacco advertising.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Tony Blair, as in ex UK PM and the man who accepted £1m donation from Bernie over of the ban on tobacco advertising.

I don't think that he was advising anybody at the immediate time that he became PM as that is not allowed, as all members of the cabinet have to divest themselves of all outside interest. If any own or have shareholdings in any companies whilst they are cabinet members, those interests must be placed in blind trusts, and the cabinet members may not, nor be seen to, control those trusts. The rules at the time were not as stringent as they are now, and it is a possibility that Blair had advised FOM, the FIA or BCE in the run up to the general election in 1997, but if he did, it was never recorded.

However, BCE did donate another million pounds to Blair/Labour Party in the, I believe, 12 months in the run up to that election, and as far as I know it has never been divulged whether that money was also returned to BCE. I would also add that such was the distrust over this matter, and Blair's part in it, that the Labour Party made a public announcement that if BCE didn't cash the cheque within a certain time-frame, that the Labour Party would donate the money to charity instead. BCE cashed the cheque immediately.

[wolfhound]

We all know of BCE's love of money he was not going to take a chance on a cheque now was he.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I don't think that he was advising anybody at the immediate time that he became PM as that is not allowed, as all members of the cabinet have to divest themselves of all outside interest. If any own or have shareholdings in any companies whilst they are cabinet members, those interests must be placed in blind trusts, and the cabinet members may not, nor be seen to, control those trusts. The rules at the time were not as stringent as they are now, and it is a possibility that Blair had advised FOM, the FIA or BCE in the run up to the general election in 1997, but if he did, it was never recorded.

Well no, he wouldn't have been able to do so or would have done so while he was PM.

My question about Blair was in response to your post #904, in which you said:

"Mind you money does help one to overlook such matters, and no doubt the country's paid adviser (he gets paid a 7 figure sum to advise the President) Tony Blair has put in a good word on their behalf."

I was surprised by this, which is why I asked at the end of my post #904:

"Was Blair their payed adviser and who discovered the bribe?"

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

However, BCE did donate another million pounds to Blair/Labour Party in the, I believe, 12 months in the run up to that election, and as far as I know it has never been divulged whether that money was also returned to BCE. I would also add that such was the distrust over this matter, and Blair's part in it, that the Labour Party made a public announcement that if BCE didn't cash the cheque within a certain time-frame, that the Labour Party would donate the money to charity instead. BCE cashed the cheque immediately.

I know about Bernie's "donation", which came on the back of a proposed European Union Directive banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

[Mike Harte]

BJ, I didn't understand your initial question, which is why are asked to clarify it. I then misunderstood your reply.

Blair has been advising the President of Azerbaijan for at least the last few years after Blair set up his Office of Tony Blair, and his annual fee is a seven figure sum. That is just one of his "clients" who overall pay The Office of Tony Blair in excess of £12 million per year. And Blair makes no secret of most of his clients, and many of them are not considered to be very savoury.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

BJ, I didn't understand your initial question, which is why are asked to clarify it. I then misunderstood your reply.

Blair has been advising the President of Azerbaijan for at least the last few years after Blair set up his Office of Tony Blair, and his annual fee is a seven figure sum. That is just one of his "clients" who overall pay The Office of Tony Blair in excess of £12 million per year. And Blair makes no secret of most of his clients, and many of them are not considered to be very savoury.

Maybe my initial question was unclear, anyway no probs Mike and thanks for that.

[Mike Harte]

According to a piece on the GrandPrix website, BCE seems to have cooled to the idea of holding another race venue in the sand, and that Qatar's hopes to bathe in the F1 glow have been dashed.

Either that or he is attempting to ramp up the cost of the sanctioning fee!