PDA

View Full Version : Stewart takes on Bernie



ioan
8th January 2009, 11:24
Didn't see a thread about this, so I decided to start one. If it was discussed in another thread than I'm sorry but I didn't see it discussed.

So here we go:


"The era of big change is now essential because the sport has grown larger than either the governors or the commercial-rights holders. And that's just a fact," said Stewart.

"It has taken too long to achieve the things it should have achieved years ago and that other sports have long ago matured to, and other sports have prepared themselves more fully for the opportunities that have come their way."

He added: "I don't think Bernie can bring people in to help him in a transition phase. He has been so used to total control that if you look at his structure you have to ask yourself 'is there a successor?' and you would say 'no'.

"That is wrong. The commercial reality has to be recognised ... and there has (to) be continuity that the ageing process makes necessary."

Speaking about the way the sport's finances are shaped, Stewart also felt it wrong that 50 percent of the sport's revenues were pocketed by the commercial chiefs.

"Nothing is coming back into the sport," said Stewart. "The financial distribution of Formula One appears to have been sorted out by two people who have directed it in whichever way they have seen fit.

"Although this has been a significant benefit in some ways, it has also hurt the sport because the balance of contribution within Formula One is absolutely untenable.

"The teams have got all the capital investment, yet they get no more than 50 per cent of the revenues. The next largest capital investment is by the racetracks who currently receive little or nothing from the revenues apart from what they get for bums on seats.

"Hardly any of them receive anything from TV revenues or the circuit advertising or the title sponsorship or the commercial hospitality. How can they reinvest when they have little or no income outside of spectator attendance fees?"


http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/72618

PS: Sorry for the typo in the title, can't change it though.

ArrowsFA1
8th January 2009, 13:27
This is the entire interview with The Times on which Autosport's story is based:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/formula_1/article5447254.ece

Garry Walker
8th January 2009, 14:33
Jackie is right.

BDunnell
8th January 2009, 14:35
He is.

8th January 2009, 15:13
He is.

Is that a fact?

Garry Walker
8th January 2009, 15:15
Is that a fact?

Yes.

8th January 2009, 15:20
Yes.

Ok.

Give him the job then. After all, a consultant for Royal Bank of Scotland couldn't possibly be wrong.

ArrowsFA1
8th January 2009, 16:01
...a consultant for Royal Bank of Scotland couldn't possibly be wrong.
JYS is a brand ambassador to RBS; an entirely different role to that implied by being a "consultant" for a bank given the current climate.

8th January 2009, 16:09
JYS is a brand ambassador to RBS; an entirely different role to that implied by being a "consultant" for a bank given the current climate.

Ah, well, that makes all the difference.

He's a brand ambassador for a badly-run, ill-judged financial disaster.

Well, glad that's sorted. Sounds like ideal qualifications.

Although - "Stewart is also the head sports consultant/ patron for RBS"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Stewart

&

"Sir Jackie was instrumental in consulting on behalf of RBS, both for their entry into Formula One, and subsequently their negotiations for the sponsorship of the Williams F1 Team as well as other business opportunities"
http://www.brdc.co.uk/brdcarchive.cfm/flag/2/member_id/127

Do suggest that he is a consultant for RBS.

Wikipedia may not be reliable, but the BRDC official website surely is?

ArrowsFA1
8th January 2009, 16:25
The RBS website was my source of information:

As someone who has been involved in the commercial growth of F1 right from the outset, Stewart is the ultimate brand ambassador for RBS.
http://www.rbssport.com/f1-JSSponsorship.html

8th January 2009, 16:29
The RBS website was my source of information:

http://www.rbssport.com/f1-JSSponsorship.html

You trust a bank? Blimey, I didn't think there were any like you left!

as for Mr Stewart....Consultant or Ambassador, it's nothing to be proud of. Mud sticks is, I believe, a very apt saying.

ArrowsFA1
8th January 2009, 17:22
You trust a bank? Blimey, I didn't think there were any like you left!
I provided a link. Full stop. Please stop trying to de-rail yet another thread.

ioan, given that you originally posted the story what's your view of Stewart's comments, particularly as you've been critical of Bernie's role in the past?

Knock-on
8th January 2009, 17:31
I provided a link. Full stop. Please stop trying to de-rail yet another thread.

ioan, given that you originally posted the story what's your view of Stewart's comments, particularly as you've been critical of Bernie's role in the past?

Tamburello only ever trusts links that serve his own purpose and rubishes everything else.

Basically, the childish and sometimes threatening attitude of some members has lead to me all but ignoring this forum I'm afraid :(

BDunnell
8th January 2009, 18:15
Tamburello only ever trusts links that serve his own purpose and rubishes everything else.

Basically, the childish and sometimes threatening attitude of some members has lead to me all but ignoring this forum I'm afraid :(

I do think there is a lack of tolerance of other opinions from some quarters, certainly. This is not the same, before anyone chimes in with words to this effect, as thinking that we should all meekly agree with everyone else.

Mark in Oshawa
8th January 2009, 18:33
Well I will just Tam's childish accusation besmiching Jackie Stewart's reputation. If Jackie was the guy signing the loans that were bad with RBS, he would deserve it but not for being basically a pitchman. Why don't you blame him for Ford having economic problems too? He test drives cars for them on occasion....

Back to the reality. Jackie hits it on the head. Bernie takes all the money for basically being the middle man between the teams and the promotors. He sucks money from both, sets up all deals to funnel money into his bank account and in the end, gives nothing of value to the sport.

He negotiates TV rights and decides who gets races. That's it......and yet he sucks back more than a third of the money. F1 isn't that exciting or healthy that it needs more of this. At some point...people may wake up to the fact there are other forms of racing to watch on this planet and maybe f1 wont be so healthy.

Mark in Oshawa
8th January 2009, 18:59
My post starts off awkward on post 15. It should read "I will just IGNORE Tam's accusation"

Bagwan
8th January 2009, 19:35
"Witch hunt" or "half-wit" , depending on which camp you are wit(h) , has Sir J. speaking up , or out of turn .

I thought the shot at Arrows trusting banks was a great laugh , but alas , you guys love to fight .

BDunnell
8th January 2009, 20:50
Well I will just Tam's childish accusation besmiching Jackie Stewart's reputation. If Jackie was the guy signing the loans that were bad with RBS, he would deserve it but not for being basically a pitchman. Why don't you blame him for Ford having economic problems too? He test drives cars for them on occasion....

:up:

SGWilko
8th January 2009, 22:06
You trust a bank?

Never - they are second in line on the scum list to Estate Agents in my book, but I do trust JYS.

Why associate him with the bank he is an ambassador for, and that banks' losses in a credit crunch (when even the highly regulated Santander bank is suffering)?

Bear in mind please old chap that JYS ran an F1 team and kept it in the black up until it was sold to the Blue Oval. Despite a certain Max M witholding said teams entry to the championship one year for no good reason.......

I think you might just find he is one highly intelligent and shrewd individual.

Just what is your gripe with Jackie?

8th January 2009, 22:19
Well I will just Tam's childish accusation besmiching Jackie Stewart's reputation. If Jackie was the guy signing the loans that were bad with RBS, he would deserve it but not for being basically a pitchman. Why don't you blame him for Ford having economic problems too? He test drives cars for them on occasion....

Simply pointing out that Saint Jackie might not be exactly the right person to lecture about people making a lot of money for nothing.

8th January 2009, 22:25
I provided a link. Full stop. Please stop trying to de-rail yet another thread.


It's not my fault when you have a sense of humour bypass.

8th January 2009, 22:49
Just what is your gripe with Jackie?

He couldn't run the BRDC, yet seems to think he's qualified to spout forth about how the FIA are always wrong.

For somebody who couldn't get an agreement within what is, to all intents and purposes, a Gentlemans club, I find it ridiculous that he should be given so much air-time with his criticisms of people who run much bigger associations.

ioan
8th January 2009, 23:02
Oh well, I see this thread is heading in the wrong direction.

For once I agree with JS, Bernie is a little greedy man that should go.

THE_LIBERATOR
8th January 2009, 23:09
Oh thank god, from the thread title I thought it was another sex scandal.

SGWilko
9th January 2009, 10:16
He couldn't run the BRDC, yet seems to think he's qualified to spout forth about how the FIA are always wrong.

For somebody who couldn't get an agreement within what is, to all intents and purposes, a Gentlemans club, I find it ridiculous that he should be given so much air-time with his criticisms of people who run much bigger associations.

The BRDC is, essencially a lot of old giffers with a sprinkling of slightly younger ex motor racing drivers. The old giffers appear to have their own agendas and it makes running such a club a near impossibility.

He certainly was able to run a (start up) F1 team successfully, where a certain A Prost failed by taking over an existing team.

What does that make Prost in your book? An amoeba?

Look Tamb, your opinion is yours and I respect that, but I do think you are suffereing from tunnel vision on this one.

Just read JYS book, see his section about his input into the road cars (at Ford), it gives you an insight into the madness of the big corporations, but how he dealt with them very efficiently.

I think you are giving him a raw deal.

9th January 2009, 14:53
The BRDC is, essencially a lot of old giffers with a sprinkling of slightly younger ex motor racing drivers. The old giffers appear to have their own agendas and it makes running such a club a near impossibility.

He certainly was able to run a (start up) F1 team successfully, where a certain A Prost failed by taking over an existing team.

What does that make Prost in your book? An amoeba?



It's my belief that Stewart had an awful lot of behind-the-scenes help from Ford to create and run his F1 team. It was always a works Ford effort without the Blue Oval being prominent, so if it went tits-up then they were not directly associated. Only when StewartGP looked like it might produce something did it suddenly become a 'brand' works team. That it failed is largely down to the corporate management structure, although it is somewhat rich for Jackie Stewart to claim that Bernie has left no successor when the same could be said for his GP team.

Alain failed as a team boss because his manufacturer partner wasn't fully committed...and certainly wasn't giving him the same background support as was Stewart.

Whilst Alain's team failed with him at the helm, Stewart's team wasn't sufficiently well-estabilished to produce anything. The R1 Jaguar was essentially a Stewart with a green paint job, and it would have been, in my opinion, highly unlikely that Stewart GP would have survived another season with the results it bore.

It's an urban myth that Stewart set-up a succesful race team. the team in question has only survived due to huge amounts of cash from Ford and then from Red Bull. Had it faced the lack of sponsorship that Prost had, it would be extinct by now had it remained as it was left by its founder.

Stewart keeps saying he wants more transparency, which I don't disagree with, but he also states he wants F1 to be run more like a corporation. Well, there are many good reasons why it shouldn't be, and given what happened with the failure of the Jaguar team under corporate leadership, it's surprising that such a shrewd man doesn't seem to acknowledge that.

That makes me think he is criticising with an agenda.

Jackie made a fair amount of money from F1 under Bernie & Max's rule. He never mentions that. He took quite happily from the pot when the going was good. If he was truly against the way F1 is run, the question has to be asked
what was he doing being part of the system and why didn't he speak out then.

SGWilko
9th January 2009, 15:02
It's my belief that Stewart had an awful lot of behind-the-scenes help from Ford to create and run his F1 team. It was always a works Ford effort without the Blue Oval being prominent, so if it went tits-up then they were not directly associated. Only when StewartGP looked like it might produce something did it suddenly become a 'brand' works team. That it failed is largely down to the corporate management structure, although it is somewhat rich for Jackie Stewart to claim that Bernie has left no successor when the same could be said for his GP team.

Alain failed as a team boss because his manufacturer partner wasn't fully committed...and certainly wasn't giving him the same background support as was Stewart.

Whilst Alain's team failed with him at the helm, Stewart's team wasn't sufficiently well-estabilished to produce anything. The R1 Jaguar was essentially a Stewart with a green paint job, and it would have been, in my opinion, highly unlikely that Stewart GP would have survived another season with the results it bore.

It's an urban myth that Stewart set-up a succesful race team. the team in question has only survived due to huge amounts of cash from Ford and then from Red Bull. Had it faced the lack of sponsorship that Prost had, it would be extinct by now had it remained as it was left by its founder.

Stewart keeps saying he wants more transparency, which I don't disagree with, but he also states he wants F1 to be run more like a corporation. Well, there are many good reasons why it shouldn't be, and given what happened with the failure of the Jaguar team under corporate leadership, it's surprising that such a shrewd man doesn't seem to acknowledge that.

That makes me think he is criticising with an agenda.

Jackie made a fair amount of money from F1 under Bernie & Max's rule. He never mentions that. He took quite happily from the pot when the going was good. If he was truly against the way F1 is run, the question has to be asked
what was he doing being part of the system and why didn't he speak out then.

Thanks for the in depth reply Tamb.

There is a line of text that I will quote (when I get hold of it) in respect of the failure of Jaguar under Fords management. I will post it up in due course.

I think the lack of sponsorship Vis a Vis Prost was more to do with his inability to delegate to others. He tried to have his fingers in all the areas of his team, but in the end he got his fingers burnt! I think Peugeot lost faith with Prost, and the dicision to withdraw was made easy for them.

Rollo
9th January 2009, 22:55
Ah, well, that makes all the difference.

He's a brand ambassador for a badly-run, ill-judged financial disaster.

Well, glad that's sorted. Sounds like ideal qualifications.

Surely you can not blame someone who is dyslexic and not even remotely connected to the financial side of the bank (indeed the very cut and thrust of their business) for the bank's financial woes.

BDunnell
9th January 2009, 23:26
It's my belief that Stewart had an awful lot of behind-the-scenes help from Ford to create and run his F1 team. It was always a works Ford effort without the Blue Oval being prominent, so if it went tits-up then they were not directly associated. Only when StewartGP looked like it might produce something did it suddenly become a 'brand' works team. That it failed is largely down to the corporate management structure, although it is somewhat rich for Jackie Stewart to claim that Bernie has left no successor when the same could be said for his GP team.

Alain failed as a team boss because his manufacturer partner wasn't fully committed...and certainly wasn't giving him the same background support as was Stewart.

Whilst Alain's team failed with him at the helm, Stewart's team wasn't sufficiently well-estabilished to produce anything. The R1 Jaguar was essentially a Stewart with a green paint job, and it would have been, in my opinion, highly unlikely that Stewart GP would have survived another season with the results it bore.

It's an urban myth that Stewart set-up a succesful race team. the team in question has only survived due to huge amounts of cash from Ford and then from Red Bull. Had it faced the lack of sponsorship that Prost had, it would be extinct by now had it remained as it was left by its founder.

Stewart keeps saying he wants more transparency, which I don't disagree with, but he also states he wants F1 to be run more like a corporation. Well, there are many good reasons why it shouldn't be, and given what happened with the failure of the Jaguar team under corporate leadership, it's surprising that such a shrewd man doesn't seem to acknowledge that.

That makes me think he is criticising with an agenda.

Jackie made a fair amount of money from F1 under Bernie & Max's rule. He never mentions that. He took quite happily from the pot when the going was good. If he was truly against the way F1 is run, the question has to be asked
what was he doing being part of the system and why didn't he speak out then.

I think that is a very fair post, although it is worth saying that we all know it is hard to speak out against 'the system' when you are part of it, so Stewart deserves some leeway for that. Being on the outside can often make one realise that things deserve criticism.

This is probably one for another thread, but it was said at the time that only Stewart had the ability to bring Ford into F1 to that extent, so there is surely no doubt about the level of Ford's involvement in that team. Would it have survived had it not been turned into Jaguar? Who can say, really. I feel the Stewart team was a damn good first effort at F1 as a constructor, no matter how much Ford was involved, but that its achievements are possibly overstated as a result of a slightly lucky if still skillful, and highly pleasing win and other sporadic surprising performances at the sharp end. And, of course, JYS' handling of Jan Magnussen was almost laughably bad. I still enjoyed Stewart's brief time in F1, though.

Mark in Oshawa
9th January 2009, 23:27
Whatever anyone may think of Stewart's thoughts on running his teams, I am sure he is dead on the money about Bernie. Just remember...what does Bernie ACTUALLY DO? Then see how much money he pulls out of the sport. If that doesn't make you question his legitmacy..nothing will.

ArrowsFA1
10th January 2009, 10:04
I feel the Stewart team was a damn good first effort at F1 as a constructor, no matter how much Ford was involved, but that its achievements are possibly overstated as a result of a slightly lucky if still skillful, and highly pleasing win and other sporadic surprising performances at the sharp end.
I think that's fair, and it's worth remembering that Stewart GP's success was built not only on Ford money but on the success of Paul Stewart Racing in F.Vauxhall, F3 and F3000.

10th January 2009, 10:32
I think that's fair, and it's worth remembering that Stewart GP's success was built not only on Ford money but on the success of Paul Stewart Racing in F.Vauxhall, F3 and F3000.

Yes, Paul Stewart Racing was succesful in the lower formulas.

As was Pacific Racing, but Keith Wiggin's didn't have Ford cash to bank-roll his F1 start-up. Success in lower formulas may give a base to build on, but without Ford cash StewartGP would not have been as 'successful' as it was.

Indeed, without Ford, I very much doubt that StewartGP would have ever existed.

That said, it's interesting that one fortuitous win, in a season where some of the traditional big-hitters were in a transitional, treading water state (Williams & Benetton were both using customer old-spec engines) and the Constructors Champions were without the services of their Number One driver for four months is considered a great success and proof that StewartGP was a success.

Jordan, without works support, finished higher in both WDC & WCC and won more GP's that year, but I doubt that Eddie Jordan's opinion on Bernie would be sucked up so unquestionably as has Mr Stewarts.

Mark in Oshawa
10th January 2009, 10:40
Jordan, without works support, finished higher in both WDC & WCC and won more GP's that year, but I doubt that Eddie Jordan's opinion on Bernie would be sucked up so unquestionably as has Mr Stewarts.


Actually...yes it would. A lot of people around the world have a lot of time for Eddie Jordan. He would have as much credibility with me.

Jackie Stewart may not be the genius some may want him to be...but he has Bernie nailed down. A leech on the body of F1.

BDunnell
10th January 2009, 11:21
Indeed, without Ford, I very much doubt that StewartGP would have ever existed.

I am sure that is the case.

driveace
10th January 2009, 11:25
I totally agree with Mark ,Jackie is concerned about the way that Bernie and Max are running F1,the money they take out is ridiculous,and gready .If the tracks dont come up with mega bucks he threatens them with NO GP .The Belgians let bernie use Spa with very little reward to themselves
Hopefully the ex wife will take him to the cleaners and wipe the smile off his face.Jackie was trying to keep the GP at Silverstone ,but undoutably the owners of Donnington were giving Bernie more dosh BUT that might fall before the last fence

ioan
11th January 2009, 12:52
I totally agree with Mark ,Jackie is concerned about the way that Bernie and Max are running F1,the money they take out is ridiculous,and gready

Leave Max out of it.

wmcot
12th January 2009, 08:28
I agree with most of what JYS has said, but I also realize that he is hardly an unbiased opinion on the management of F1.