Bernie Ecclestone

Bernie Ecclestone attempted to qualify for a single World Championship event. He was in a Connaught-Alta, one of a fleet of three entered by himself. He finished qualifying 265.2 seconds off the pace, and his two team-mates failed to qualify as well.

He is, however, the most important single person in Grand Prix history. He took charge of Motor Racing Developments in 1972, from Ron Tauranac. He was the team principal for Nelson Piquet's two drivers' titles, but he'd lost interest by the time Brabham missed the deadline to enter the 1988 World Championship.

Into the governance of the sport he went, and he modernised it, and quickly controlled Formula One. He is now the leader of a billion-dollar industry. He is a divisive figure, but he's not done badly for someone who was four minutes off the pace on a Saturday in Monaco.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Actually teabagyokel all the numbers on the list are positive in the sense that they are not negative but I get what you mean...

 

[Plutus]

How about the biggest 3 f*** ups then, I'm sure you can come up with something.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I could start by saying that he contrived to only allow the teams to collect a minuscule 1% of all the money generated by the commercial rights of FI keeping 49% for himself and giving 50% to the FIA which has lead to the demise of many a team and actually he now gives no money at all to the team that finishes 11th in the championship and arguably that team is in most need of the money and then I could go on and on for hours about him...

 

[Mephistopheles]

So I've named two and lets just call the third one double points at the last grand prix just so that him giving a certain country which has lots of money which they give to him happy and the fans pissed off..

 

[Mephistopheles]

Then I could go on about his brutal attack of Silverstone and the way he gave the race to Donnington even though they did not have the money to build new facilities let alone stage a race.

Do you wish me to carry on?

Hang on how about the time he gave all his shares to his wife just before his company was floated on the stock market, so that he could freely go out unrestricted to buy even more shares? I think you will find that is called insider trading and is totally illegal....

 

[F1Yorkshire]

I'm not sure I know who you are ranting about. I'm sure Bernie, who in his position as a CEO of a major corporation and his status as a key figurehead of one of the largest global brands, would never ever compromise the sport loved by millions just so he could earn a few extra dollars. I'm also very sure that he would never offer a bribe in order to avoid a large tax bill either.

 

[Bill Boddy]

Plutus how about the way all the tv rights, all the advertising at the circuits go to CVC. The circuits have only the gate receipts on which to try to keep their losses down to a minimum, many circuits have to have some type of government funding to continue. What about the fact that the circuits that F1 goes to are in many cases getting low attendance because the local population doesn't give a toss about motor sport and they won't even take the free tickets which are being virtually given away, why is F1 going to such places? How about CVC owning the sport, it is a private equity and investment advisory company which takes a large part of the money coming into F1 and distributes back as little as possible to the sport.

And how about all this being run by someone who is awaiting one court judgement before going on trial for fraud in respect of the sport with another in the offing.

 

[Fenderman]

... and then of course there is the issue of putting big bucks first to take F1 off of so called free to air TV [which of course it isn't because folks (most of us here in Blighty anyway) pay for TV license and the network provider] which thus far has resulted in a drop in viewer numbers ...

 

[Mephistopheles]

And how about the fact that he cannot even navigate a revolving door let alone run the commercial rights to F1 it's like putting a fox in charge of a chicken coup, total mindless self satisfying destruction with no long term benefit for the chickens or the fox..

 

[teabagyokel]

How about the fact that a race winning team hasn't got the money to field the very best drivers in the sport because the teams earn little revenue?

How about Red Bull running an illegal car at Hockenheim because Vettel could nor be disqualified from his home event?

What about killing Brabham by supposedly forgetting to enter in 1988?

What about the fact that the home of l'Auto has no race but a bunch of human rights abusers in a desert do?

How about getting the whole crowd trapped in a muddy car park when he held the British GP in April in 2000?

How about the scheduling of the Malaysian GP at monsoon o'clock?

How about Benetton cheating with impunity throughout 1994?

How about the ignorance of the US for long periods, costing the teams a crack at one of the most promising markets for sponsors?

I could go on.

 

[Bill Boddy]

During the course of my working career I attended many training classes ; some of these asked a whole load of questions, the answers to which sorted everyone out into one of four categories. One of these was the go-getters, the leaders and troubleshooters of companies.

I remember on one of these days the instructor explained that these were the people who were taken on to put right the problems within companies who were not performing up to scratch. He did, however, warn that once the problems were overcome these go-getters could be dangerous because they thrived so much on solving problems that if there were nine to solve they would create some. From my observations Mr Ecclestone appears to me to be one of these.

 

[Bill Boddy]

@The Artist.... wrote:

"Is anyone else becoming worried about the lack of sponsors backing Williams."

Gary Anderson forecast that there could be sponsorship problems last year. His reasoning was that the economic climate was forcing companies to reduce outgoings, sponsorship being a fairly easy target. He also said that most sponsorship deals were for several seasons so there are built in delays and these would be coming into play as they came up for (non) renewal.

It does seem to me that if a company wants to target UK consumers there is a problem ; the number of UK viewers has been reduced considerably so why should sponsors be expected to pay even the same money?

The whole financial model of F1 is flaky.

 

[Fenderman]

... and Bill Boddy excellently explains the ramifications of the switch to Sky faux pas. Lest we forget, this move away from free-to-air has not just been in the UK. Bernie seems to have forgotten that sponsors watch TV too.

 

[Plutus]

Bill Boddy

Where is the logic in your argument? If they carry on making losses but re-signing new contracts with Bernie they don't seem to mind do they?
There must be some gain for them as well don't you think?
No one is forcing them to host a Grand Prix. What would Bernie do if all European track owners unite and refuse to sign a contract with him? Isn't it strange that he is making money off using someone elses property anyway?

The issue is entirely down to the people he is negotiating with, and Bernie and CVC could not afford to lose the European market.

 

[Plutus]

How about the fact that a race winning team hasn't got the money to field the very best drivers in the sport because the teams earn little revenue?

How about Red Bull running an illegal car at Hockenheim because Vettel could nor be disqualified from his home event?

What about killing Brabham by supposedly forgetting to enter in 1988?

What about the fact that the home of l'Auto has no race but a bunch of human rights abusers in a desert do?

How about getting the whole crowd trapped in a muddy car park when he held the British GP in April in 2000?

How about the scheduling of the Malaysian GP at monsoon o'clock?

How about Benetton cheating with impunity throughout 1994?

How about the ignorance of the US for long periods, costing the teams a crack at one of the most promising markets for sponsors?

I could go on.

1. Which team are you talking about? Do you mean Lotus? Haven't they got two of the very best drivers in the sport?

2. What has Ecclestone got to do with the FIA, who ruled that the car was not illegal?

3. As far as I know he couldn't find a suitable engine supplier. And why do you care about his team, as long as it is his he can do anything he wants with it, don't you think? Anyway he sold it and it was re-entered.

4. Maybe because the French don't agree to the terms and conditions set by Ecclestone and therefore can't obtain a place on the calendar, unlike Bahrain. Keep in mind that Ecclestone is running a business.

5. Force majeure. Could have been dry that weekend. What about the wet race in June 2008 or last year? Please explain Ecclestones involment.

6. How many wet races have we had in Malaysia so far? Do you mind wet races? Weren't you the one saying it is all about entertainment?
Please tell me, how has Ecclestone managed to stage a dry Grand Prix for most of the events taken place there to date?

7. Benetton cheated? I must have missed something. So far nothing has be proven which to me means they didn't cheat.
Edit: Is Ecclestone working for the FIA? Why do you keep mentioning his name with issues his is not involved in, and doesn't not decide on.

8. He wasn't ignorant. Ecclestone has always stated that the U.S. are an important market. Didn't he prove his interest by initiating the construction of the CotA?

 

[Plutus]

teabagyokel

You also haven't been able to explain those numbers you posted. Is it because they mean nothing. Probably, well nothing more than that the people who voted on this site weren't entertained for whatever reason.
If I go onto a german site and find ratings of each race there, that are much higher than the low scoring ones on this page, what would that mean?

 

[Mephistopheles]

That's like saying why bother hosting the Olympics nobody ever makes money out of it but we are told there will a great benefit by the people putting it on I can tell you now I have seen zero benefit to this country from the us hosting the London Olympics and when asked the people in charge just say you won't until at least 2017 or some other date in the future...

Rest assured the people that run these events make a great deal of money at the expense of the lower rank and file...

 

[Bill Boddy]

Why do circuit owners still run GPs despite losing money? In some cases it is because their government thinks that it enhances their prestige to hold such an event so they subsidise it. Some circuits accept that they will lose money on the GP but use other events to subsidise it. I also suspect that there are circuits who manage to get sponsorship to help, both the German circuits have large Mercedes Benz grandstands, don't look to buy a ticket in one of these. Others pay up because if they don't a rival will get the race instead. There are those who refuse to pay and lose their GP ; if you look up the circuits who have lost their GPs you will find there are an awful lot of them. There have also been some who have refused and managed to get reduced terms.

If all the European circuits got together and refused to pay then Ecclestone would go off to other places, there are always some countries that would like to host a GP. The method to keep everyone on-side is the one that he is very adept at using, divide and rule. It worked for the British GP didn't it?

 

[Plutus]

If all the European circuits got together and refused to pay then Ecclestone would go off to other places, there are always some countries that would like to host a GP. The method to keep everyone on-side is the one that he is very adept at using, divide and rule. It worked for the British GP didn't it?

but he could not afford to lose the European circuits. TV ratings would plummet. The biggest part of the viewership is still based in Europe. TV companies would not be prepared to pay the same amount of money for the right to broadcast F1.
As you said some have been able to agree on reduced terms because Ecclestone cannot afford to lose them.

This isn't Ecclestones fault is it? It is simple market economy, if you like it or not. Blaming him in my mind is wrong.

And who knows, F1 might be off worse without him, we will find out soon enough.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Is he your dad?