Printable View
So you have a problem with gloating? That is VERY FUNNY coming from a person who openly said that he would rejoice at the deaths of Margaret Thatcher and George Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
So which is worse, being happy that an incompetent team did not make it to F1, or being happy that someone died?
Because you insist, I will even include your quote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Garry, you compare an ex-president - many believe responsible for an illegal war that has seen many killed for the selfish greed of oil reserves - with a failing F1 team for your purposes of demonstrating gloating...Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Are you sure????
Yes, gloating over a persons death is far worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
What is his excuse for gloating over Thatchers death?
You don't follow British politics then, do you......?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
It's all about proportion, but don't let that stop you posting your very amusing (I genuinely mean that) remarks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Proportion indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
One is satisfied that F1 wont have a loser team that was obviously filled with people who are not competent enough for F1, the other rejoices over someones death. Proportion indeed.
Er... yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Look, with apologies for continuing to take this OT....Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
Were you sad when you learned of Adolfs demise.......?
While that is an extreme example, folk that bring misery, death, poverty etc on others should not be sympathised with.
As it was, there was no mention of gloating in the original post.
Shall we put this OT discussion to bed and continue with F1?
Not yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
She will have a visit from the taxidermist when the time comes.Quote:
Originally Posted by henners88
Thatcher did that how?Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
Now my problem with Windsor is that was it not him him who pretty much accused Villeneuve of being a murderer? I dont even like JV at all, but comments such as that were uncalled for.
Thatcher did what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Garry Walker
I can tell you that dubya sealed the fate of many civilians and soldiers, and Maggs saw to it that entire industries, along with many hard working men and women lost everything they worked for.
Sorry, I alluded to the fact I wouldn't continue, but being the last word freak I am....... ;)
that was not speed TV's view nut just a report on what other news outlets have reported so far. Everything Varsha said, we knew alreadyQuote:
Originally Posted by DazzlaF1
Sorry bout that, looking back at it you are right about it being a repeat on other news sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Garry Walker
Can I ask you a serous question?
How old are you and what exactly do you know about Bush2 and M.Thatcher for you to ever feel sorry or empathize with these two people. If you have no idea about politics and their real life decisions that affected millions, caused pain and anguish to many and death to many more with useless wars apathy, greed, politics and misguided conservatism then please do not use these as examples in this forum. F1 is a sport and should be kept in that context when discussing things. Don't bring into the discussions things that only make you seem ignorant about real life.
I implore you to read up on them in wiki or do a simple google search and immerse yourself in their history as to be better educated.
Now lets get back to discussing the utter failure of USF1.
and for the record I somewhat agree with your sentiment as to USF1. I am not full of glee at the prospect of folks failing, but neither would I shed a tear about their shambolic existence of USF1 to date. I don't; like others, consider them an F1 team that failed thus requiring my reverence, since you actually have to have a car, 2 drivers and races under your belt before being considered and F1 team. So in that respect both BDunnell and the Saint are at opposite ends of my thinking.
I just don't have to insult them in getting my point across.
Erm, so yes, Peter Windsor... :p :
It's a big debacle, all we have seen for this gargantuan effort is... well, a lone receptionist. ;)
Seems genuinely difficult to kick USF1 out until they have gone 4 races missing. So what will happen to the Stefan effort in the meantime? Will they be allowed to start racing from the get go? I reckon they should to be honest. Let them be rewarded for at least having something ready, even if it isn't ideal.
no biggie, just got excited at the prospect of having the 3 guys discuss the whole USF1 thing, but I suspect that they will temper their analysis of the whole thing or put it in a bit more favorable light since, they are catering to a US audience, and windsor was one of their crew for a few years.Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzlaF1
At least they were talking about it :|
:laugh: I WAS trying to be nice. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko
But you still got your political dig in. Priceless!Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Your attitude exemplifies why so much seems to be polarized these days.
You did very well - wheras I am just plain crass, and proud of it. ;) :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by N. Jones
Sunglasses? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blancvino
I'm disappointed - I was hoping to cheer for them to someday not be last on the grid & even score a point or two. (I also would have liked to visit the shop if it was open for visitors.) The operation seemed like a good idea that just wasn't managed worth anything.
This just illustrates a larger problem with the administration of Formula One - the hyper-expensive dictatorial top-down management. They use a flawed & political awarding of a "franchise" type permission to race. Teams got accepted that aren't going to ever make the grid, while others have their funding, equipment, & management in place, yet can't proceed because they don't have official approval. USF1 quite possible already spent more money getting FIA approval then they will ever spend getting a car racing.
How much better if any team in the world could show up with a car built to spec? If they could submit to & pass a crash test, pass race-week scrutineering, and qualify, they should race. Once they score a point, then they get F1 travel money, a guaranteed grid spot, and a place at the award & bargaining tables.
It kinda the same way with racing venues. Formula 1 demands an astronomically exorbitant fee for the privilege of being hosted, so much so that most of the races are now government (re: taxpayer/people's treasury) supported and not commercially viable. What ever happened to getting a cut of the gate, especially as they get TV money too. We end up without races at great tracks and near true fans.
I will be rooting for Virgin (who seem to be doing everything that USF1 was supposed to do, but actually doing it) and Lotus (because they are Lotus, duh) because new teams are exciting.
Although I could never understand why someone will support a team or driver just because they are from the same country :confused: I do understand your disappointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by e2mtt
F1 used to be a sport where people could buy cars, form a team and just turn up - thats how, for example, Williams began. Cars could also be constructed, enter and try to qualify - there was no such thing as a "crash test". The FIA as constituted today did not exist - thank God!
F1 was different than today in culture, attitude and approach.
But you know that things change and especially in a world where government intrusion is rife and moving worldwide for decades now further and further away from liberty.
Nothing in isolation - as capitalism is destroyed you cannot expect the most capitalistic of all world sports, formula one, not to be affected.
Hence you have the FIA. Welcome to hell.
I don't understand all the politics and money stuff, but if a place wants to host a Grand Prix, they pay to have the race there and provide a place for the race, yet they don't get money in return?
So it's like if the star quarterback and the captain of the cheerleaders want to have a graduation party at my place, I pay them to have the party at my place. They charger partygoers an admission fee, and I get nothing in return?
Not quite, you get to keep the money from sales at the gates - no less, no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Civic
Pretty close. Formula One (as owned by Bernie Ecclestone) gets a flat fee of about $20 million PLUS all of the advertising money on signs PLUS all the TV revenue. Reportedly the venue pays Bernie an average of $45 MILLION to host the race. (Singapore paid $90 million last year?) The only way any track can raise that money is by getting the local governments or large corporate advertisers to pitch in. The races are huge money losers, that get written off as advertising & publicity for the cities & companies involved. Meanwhile Bernie & CVC & the Formula One Group (which is not FIA) show more then a $1 BILLION in profits a year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Civic
This is from memory, some of my numbers may be a little off. Sorry about the thread-hijack.
FOM (Bernie) gets a sanction fee to have the race at the venue (Silverstone pays just under $20m for 2010 race, and an annual escalation at 7% per year, for 17 years.....).Quote:
Originally Posted by e2mtt
FOM sells all trackside signage and keeps 100% revenue.
FOM sells premium rate Paddock Club VIP hospitality and keeps 100% revenue - the venue can sell second-level hospitality.
Merchandise - venues can rent sites to retailers; FOM licenses some retailers for official F1 merchandise.
On-site food and beverage - circuit keeps revenue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by milly
Also, sanction fees vary across events:
Malaysia and Abu Dhabi pay approx $45m in 2009.
Monaco pays nothing.
Monza pays about $5m.
Average price is $20m across the season.
Assuming WTF1 isn't going to race (and it's a fairly safe bet), what happens now? Just handing the entry to Stefan GP would be a bit of a risk as they haven't really come out with anything more than a repainted Toyota chassis, and no mention of where their funding is going to come from. If USF1 fail with the backing of Youtube, I'm sceptical as to how an unheard of Serbian entry can find the cash any better.
Edit: just noticed the other thread on this :s
Really? That's the most logical thing in the world. You support a driver who has something in common with you, language, habits etc. There is nothing strange about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Devote
Youtube are not involved with USF1.
The former owner and founder of Youtube personally is or was. Right now nobody knows what the h--- is going on.
Anderson says he has asked for a 4 race exemption.
Nick Craw, acting for the FIA say only a clarification of the confusing situation on missing the first 3 races has been requested.
Nobody, including Anderson, seems to know what if anything Windbag is doing or where he is.
Rumours say there is not even one viable tub let alone anything else.
This cannot be verified or disproven.
Of course this is from the most open and fan friendly team ever.
Years ago as an F Atlantic mechanic I was through the March and Ensign F1 factories with no hassle. Shot the breeze with Mo Nunn.
Was also through Chevron and had lunch with Derek Bennett and Paul Owen. Man were they ever secretive and hostile people. :D
A USF1 "insider" has given his/her insights.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81664
Quote:
"At the moment there are still 60 people working in Charlotte, but 10 have already left."
"Having failed to put out a car, sponsorship money didn't materialise," continued the staff member. "That wasn't for Windsor's lack of trying.
"I do know that Windsor was told of our progress on a number of occasions off the record in informal settings, but it took a very contentious shop meeting in late January/early February for him to twig [that] indeed we had an issue.
"In a meeting between the employees, Windsor and Anderson, Windsor put the question up to the employees: 'Who here doesn't think we'll make Bahrain?' I think Windsor might have meant it somewhat rhetorically, but he was answered nonetheless, and 100 per cent of the staff raised their hands. He was visibly shocked."
Hardly inspiring stuff is it?? :mad: Wise up man - you've f*%ked it upQuote:
"The story that the employee tells is certainly twisted and one-sided," said Anderson.
This unamed employee, who must be legit, confirms what has been posted in forums by other people who claim to be employees. Autosport, I expect, would be sure they were getting info from a trusted source.
The 'other' posters said basically the same thing but there is no proof that they are not the same person as the Autosport informant. Highly unlikely though.
All indications point to Anderson as the main problem.
Again what he claimed to the NY Times is contradicted by what Nick Craw says.
If there really is anything resembling a complete car or even a proper tub it would be easy for USF1 to post pictures on the web site.
Reading on in that article, this little quote from Anderson
Thats nice of you Anderson, criticise what is left of your already under pressure workforce http://www.footballbanter247.co.uk/f...efault/doh.gifQuote:
"Given the late start due to the FIA/FOTA situation of 2009, I asked everybody to keep the car simple, strong and reliable. The comment that the chassis moulds sat for a month while waiting for a lay-up schedule is exactly the sort of thing that hurt us. Way too complex and time consuming. I did question why it was so complex if it was not necessary.
Windsor asked "Who doesn't think we will make Bahrain?" and was SHOCKED at the hands shown? THAT is a man who is swimming in the wrong water.
I can see this all ending very badly with lots of lawsuits and lawyers....
In this multinational forum I have to say I am ashamed to see a U.S. flag next to comments that excuse and condone wishful thinking about the death of public figures. Check the thread again because it was not Gary Walker who first used politics as an example to talk about an F1 team. It was a clearly liberal poster in favor of policies, people or sports teams that they don't agree with failing or dieing. An enlightened view in favor of the failure of others.
:rolleyes:
How about instead, as some have suggested, letting anyone show up and the winner will be determined on merits. It seems such a straightforward policy is opposed by those who wish to have the power to force others to fail through politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by truefan72
Anderson says the tub was too complex and that was the reason the lay up schedule took a month to be approved. Not his exact words but the only way to take them. That does not make sense. The complexity should not affect the scheduling of the work. The time to do the lay up, yes but not the scheduling unless he told them to redesign the tub.
Again for a good part of the period he was the main designer and according to leaked info had to approve everything. So how did we get a supposedly overly complex tub?
Again leaked reports have said his thinking is 20 years out of date and he will not listen to staff with current F1 experience.
We know what he said to the NY Times about allowing the team to miss 4 races has been contradicted by Nick Craw on behalf of the FIA.
We know his resume on the USF1 web site is more than a little overblown.
I am doubting anything he says.
You should read the article recently posted in Autosport. I hope you're still not sticking your head in the sand, Gary. Make fun of me all you want, but face the facts, Windsor is clueless and along with Anderson, liars.Quote:
Originally Posted by garyshell
I guess people don't have mortgages to pay. :confused:Quote:
Our January 15 pay cheque was late. It was paid by the 20th or so, but it certainly caused commotion and people started asking questions.That's when all the company's issues came to a head, and the conclusion was... yes, we had been lied to about the long-term budget, and indeed the company had a cash flow issue. But as mentioned, that really was a secondary issue.