You can say the same about the FOM and Bernie, on the economical side! Still you lot chose to idolize bernie while you hate Max.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Printable View
You can say the same about the FOM and Bernie, on the economical side! Still you lot chose to idolize bernie while you hate Max.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
So it has been said, countries get the kind of government they deserve...
bottom line is that the Fia has max because it deserves max
F1 has bernei for the same reason
i deserve something better, but deserving got nothing to do with it
There are big differences between the organisation run by Max, and the one run by Bernie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Who on this forum idolizes Bernie? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I think Max is jealous of BCE - Max used to be an F1 or F2 driver, but failed, he also (like BCE) was a team owner, but failed where Bernie succeeded.
Bernie has been known to dig deep and bail out failing teams, what does Max do? Oh yes, he is forever meddling with the rules that costs the teams fortunes.
Then, he has the audacity to say he wants to cut costs, while introducing KERS, but to his set of criteria, that makes it rather inneficient!?!?!?!?
All we need now, is a shot at an F1 track where we see Max casually strolling across in front of a rapidly approaching car....
...then the FIA president will have truly come full circle! ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
When you say "you could" I assume you are talking about yourself and not me?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
If not, please back up your post with some facts where "us lot" (which implies you are referring to me) idolize Bernie. If not, a simple apology and admit you were talking rubbish again will suffice ;)
Lastly, if you want to keep claiming Bernie is such a bad person, why not start a thread about him and let this one get back on track :p :
So Does Mosley knows identity of his enemies?
Is not the trial on NTOW going to start on July 7th?
I am curious why there has not been depositions already taken in the case that would have uncovered all the rest to be uncovered, but I am unfamiliar with how the pretrial process works in Britiain as to what you can get from the other side before a trial, so what gives? Will there be some big breaks in news that will make others very unhappy or what, will it be more mud dumped on F1 and racing? Seems to me we would all be better off without this but there is where we are headed so it seems
OTOH, maybe not, if this article has any basis:Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
The BBC TV Panorama programme had been very critical of the 15-year commercial rights deal Mosley had done with Ecclestone. When it interviewed Mosley for the programme, the FIA president was very surprised by the interviewer, Mark Killick’s knowledge of the secret agreements. In a famous exchange on television, Killick asked Mosley whether he was “trying to defend the indefensible”. Quick as a flash Mosley told him “quite the reverse, you’re attacking the unattackable”.
After the programme aired, Mosley told Terry Lovell: “I wanted to sue, but Bernie said it wasn’t worth it.” For whatever reasons Mosley didn’t sue. In reality he couldn’t take the chance of all these secret agreements being brought out into the open.
All in all the FIA lost US$1.7 billion from 1992 to 2007. One observer says: “Only a halfwit with no financial knowledge would have signed those three deals. They handed Ecclestone and McNally nearly US$2 billion of the FIA’s cash."
Mosley was never open and truthful about any of these deals and had it not been for the BBC journalists from Panorama they would never have become publicly known.
Despite all this largesse towards Ecclestone, Mosley was re-elected with ease in the FIA presidency elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005.
His re-election gave him confidence to push the boundaries of proprietary
http://www.sportspromedia.com/mosley.htm
Suppose that the NOTW starts digging into that stuff during the trial, as after all, max says his privacy is violated, damaging his image and good standing.....then why should this info not be admissible as well at a minnimu on the question of max's character and his image?
Also explains that while max and Benrie are not good friends right now, it is really meaningless when all things are considered, that they will "work things out for the good of their revenue" But the arrgoance of those deals may well explain the arrogance that lead to the "photos and videos" as well as his arrogant unwillingness to walk away.......
Odd that max 's job officially pays nothing.......but does it really?
One mans
"arrogant unwillingness" is another mans
ardent stick-to-it-tiveness!
As any good lawyer would be quick to point out! :p :
(not that it has anything to do with this civil case)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazio
For me it was something of a question as to exactly how the relationship between Bernie and max worked, and adament or "ardent stick to it" nature of Max, and how he could survive and just how he could roll through this much bad stuff like Bill Clinton rolled through the "I never had sex with that woman, I smoked but never inhaled" episodes with such impunity. The article is not that well written as it lacks structure and readability for my taste, but the premises provide some insight to the extent the underlying facts be true.
And just how much of this might leak out on this upcoming trial that max is so adament in his pursuit--if i were defending this case, my attack would be to aim where it would hurt the most, his true character of selling himself and buying others, and damages can not be had for damaging that which was already corrupted and damaged.
Hence he would have been better off with even people like me saying it was wrong to be invading his privacy, slipping through the noose with that vote, rather than to be filing suit and having his character to be factually shown to be unworthy in general public---all to keep a job that allegedly does not pay.
There may be an attempt to discredit Max. Like you, I don't know British Civil Law.Quote:
Originally Posted by markabilly
However, In the U.S.of A. that information would not be specific enough to this case.
You may be the biggest crook in the world, but that is irrelevant to damages for invasion of privacy.
It may affect the amount of the settlement, but thats not what Max is after!
In fact I believe The question that you and everyone else wants answered is:
Is there enough dirt to stop this corporally whacked Barrister from following through with this trial,
and specifcally what is it? If there is, than I guess we won't get the specifics
Nothing would surprise me at this point however!