planetf1.com

It is currently Sun Sep 23, 2018 3:48 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules





Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:27 am
Posts: 670
I can't help but thinking many companies that are funding F1 have shady background. I ave not noticed before I started to watch a video regarding the 'Seven Sisters'. Does anyone know any controversial F1 sponsor in the past?? This is what I got so far

_________________
Even the best of drivers crash, stay safe and be responsible!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 6:56 pm
Posts: 131
The truth of the matter is the bad media contracts which lock down the sport threaten to sue if promoters use live circuit internet radio or data feeds..you are beginning to understand the mess these ametuers have got themselves into.

I put proposals in six months ago for a professional management board but the lock in made it impossible for change to the sport this year.

You are now aware Ferrari is about to be cast adrift from FIAT so the Ferrari board need big cost caps to continue in F1 next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4198
Most people or companies that have enough money, have enough power that they can afford to be a little shady.

I think if you were able to look deep enough into any of the major world wide companies, I'd guess nearly all of them are doing something that they don't want people to know about. Sure, this is baseless in the real world as I have no real evidence but it is my expectation. Money and power are vastly related.


F1 itself went to South Africa in 1985. I believe this was at the time when SA was generally being boycotted and the like due to apartheid. I know Queen played Sun City in SA in 1985 and they got absolutely lambasted in the media for doing such a thing. (No idea if F1 got dogs abuse too - I only know of the Queen stuff from documentaries). I assume in both situations the basis for going ahead with it was money. They were willing to swap ethics (or perhaps had no qualms for whatever reason) for money.

It also wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the people at the top are there because they are ruthless bastards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:38 pm
Posts: 2541
Well.... :?


Image

Image

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 1:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4198
Bin Laden (not sure if it is the Bin Laden family or not - I'm assuming it is) wasn't always widely considered a bad guy.
Wasn't it the Americans who armed him when it suited them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? At that point, if people had known the name a lot of Westerners would probably have thought he was a good guy. Then things obviously changed.

So I guess my point there would be that when the advertising was done he wasn't shady in such a way as he would be considered now. If in 30 years Hugo Boss decide to go into arms manufacturing we can't say that the current McLaren is sponsored by an arms company.

(Note - never f*ck with the Afghans. Seems like no empire has ever been able to take and hold that land in all of history).
(Note 2 - I'm not implying Hugo Boss are going to go into the arms trade, I just wanted an example and they were the first company that came to mind. Please don't sue me).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5180
mac_d wrote:
Bin Laden (not sure if it is the Bin Laden family or not - I'm assuming it is) wasn't always widely considered a bad guy.
Wasn't it the Americans who armed him when it suited them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? At that point, if people had known the name a lot of Westerners would probably have thought he was a good guy. Then things obviously changed.

So I guess my point there would be that when the advertising was done he wasn't shady in such a way as he would be considered now. If in 30 years Hugo Boss decide to go into arms manufacturing we can't say that the current McLaren is sponsored by an arms company.

(Note - never f*ck with the Afghans. Seems like no empire has ever been able to take and hold that land in all of history).
(Note 2 - I'm not implying Hugo Boss are going to go into the arms trade, I just wanted an example and they were the first company that came to mind. Please don't sue me).

It was America who armed the Afghans to help them fight the soviets (and also Rocky III which credited the movie to 'the brave and noble people of Afghanistan' about the same time). If memory serves, George Bush Snr also had business dealings with Bin Laden in the late 80's/early 90's.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 5:03 pm
Posts: 354
Don't know about a shady past but controversial? Durex were certainly controversial at the time; today they may be seen as socially responsible!
Any tobacco company you care to name could probably be implicated in covering up the danger their products posed. The Tasman series guys were very resistant to Lotus' being painted like a Gold Leaf fag packet but not because of health issues.
Penthouse magazine sponsorship maybe thought a bit controversial too
Didn't Oerlikon sponsor someone?? (I'm having brain fade and can't remember who)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2877
Location: UK
minchy wrote:
mac_d wrote:
Bin Laden (not sure if it is the Bin Laden family or not - I'm assuming it is) wasn't always widely considered a bad guy.
Wasn't it the Americans who armed him when it suited them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? At that point, if people had known the name a lot of Westerners would probably have thought he was a good guy. Then things obviously changed.

So I guess my point there would be that when the advertising was done he wasn't shady in such a way as he would be considered now. If in 30 years Hugo Boss decide to go into arms manufacturing we can't say that the current McLaren is sponsored by an arms company.

(Note - never f*ck with the Afghans. Seems like no empire has ever been able to take and hold that land in all of history).
(Note 2 - I'm not implying Hugo Boss are going to go into the arms trade, I just wanted an example and they were the first company that came to mind. Please don't sue me).

It was America who armed the Afghans to help them fight the soviets (and also Rocky III which credited the movie to 'the brave and noble people of Afghanistan' about the same time). If memory serves, George Bush Snr also had business dealings with Bin Laden in the late 80's/early 90's.

I haven't seen the Rocky films myself but I do think you meant Rambo...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:56 am
Posts: 8767
Location: London
DrJones wrote:
The truth of the matter is the bad media contracts which lock down the sport threaten to sue if promoters use live circuit internet radio or data feeds..you are beginning to understand the mess these ametuers have got themselves into.

I put proposals in six months ago for a professional management board but the lock in made it impossible for change to the sport this year.

You are now aware Ferrari is about to be cast adrift from FIAT so the Ferrari board need big cost caps to continue in F1 next year.

FIAT are only selling a small percentage of their Ferrari stake.

_________________
1994 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Get well soon Schumi.

No one call anyone a moo-pickle...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 5180
j man wrote:
minchy wrote:
mac_d wrote:
Bin Laden (not sure if it is the Bin Laden family or not - I'm assuming it is) wasn't always widely considered a bad guy.
Wasn't it the Americans who armed him when it suited them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? At that point, if people had known the name a lot of Westerners would probably have thought he was a good guy. Then things obviously changed.

So I guess my point there would be that when the advertising was done he wasn't shady in such a way as he would be considered now. If in 30 years Hugo Boss decide to go into arms manufacturing we can't say that the current McLaren is sponsored by an arms company.

(Note - never f*ck with the Afghans. Seems like no empire has ever been able to take and hold that land in all of history).
(Note 2 - I'm not implying Hugo Boss are going to go into the arms trade, I just wanted an example and they were the first company that came to mind. Please don't sue me).

It was America who armed the Afghans to help them fight the soviets (and also Rocky III which credited the movie to 'the brave and noble people of Afghanistan' about the same time). If memory serves, George Bush Snr also had business dealings with Bin Laden in the late 80's/early 90's.

I haven't seen the Rocky films myself but I do think you meant Rambo...

Can I put that down to a corrective text error? :blush:

The point being, people and organisations are always good then bad then good etc etc and it is just the current perspective of them that makes them look either good or bad in the past regardless of what they were perceived of then.

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 9:57 pm 
Many, many large multinational corporations have skeletons in their closets. Heck, Ford used slave labor in Nazi Germany. Benetton used to run controversial ads. Dupont was the largest supplier of gunpowder during the US civil war and was one of the major players in building the atomic bomb. Vijay Mallya makes most of his money selling booze.

It is a very long and dirty list.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 04, 2014 10:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:41 pm
Posts: 4198
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Many, many large multinational corporations have skeletons in their closets. Heck, Ford used slave labor in Nazi Germany. Benetton used to run controversial ads. Dupont was the largest supplier of gunpowder during the US civil war and was one of the major players in building the atomic bomb. Vijay Mallya makes most of his money selling booze.

It is a very long and dirty list.


I'd take issue with some things on the list if they are all supposed to be about having skeletons in their closets as a euphemism for some kind of dirty or unethical dealings.
Slave labour is bad, I grant you that.
Benetton's ads seems awfully small fry by comparison but I have not seen them.
Dupont... I don't know enough about the Civil War and especially about who Dupont was supplying (I'd guess both is probably the answer), but involvement in the creation of nuclear weaponry isn't necessarily a bad thing. Without it, a lot more Japanese and Allied soldiers would have died, along with many more Japanese civilians. Likely scenarios would have basically had the Japanese end up fighting a guerilla style war and many more cities would have been flattened. I think the US expected losses so high that they manufactured Purple Heart medals to cover their losses. When Little Boy and Fat Man were used, though they claimed a lot of lives, they had the net effect of saving huge numbers of lives. And, I believe, they were both deployed from a Boeing Superfortress - but I'd not claim Boeing to have done anything dodgy in that respect either. Beyond that, nukes have probably prevented a lot of war since them. They are truly horrific devices and I feel that nukes are an example of what is wrong with human nature, but on a scale of lives saved to lives lost, I think nukes ended up in the positive by a huge margin. Of course, if you disagree with that point due to either the fact that its a huge f*cking bomb and a bastardisation of a potentially very useful means of providing power to the masses that killed many and that they finally gave us the tools to quickly wipe out the bulk of life on the planet at a few minutes notice, then I wouldn't disagree. It depends who you balance those three aspects I guess.
Stuff like the Tsar Bomba, even from a pro-nuke stand point just seems stupid.

As for Mallaya selling booze, why is that a bad thing? Alcohol damages lives and can kill people, but "responsible" use can allow people to have a lot of fun. Help them unwind. many people enjoy a drink without doing anything stupid or causing some havoc. And moreso, it's not forced onto people. People know the risks (generally at least). I don't consider Phillip Morris or the like to be evil either. I used to smoke, but I was aware of the health implications before hand. I chose to ignore them. If I end up with cancer it is my own fault. They didn't come round and give me a pack of smokes and a lighter. Sure, there are secondary casualties to both. Second hand smoke and drunk drivers both potentially can kill someone who has sworn off them both.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
mac_d wrote:
Bin Laden (not sure if it is the Bin Laden family or not - I'm assuming it is) wasn't always widely considered a bad guy.
Wasn't it the Americans who armed him when it suited them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan? At that point, if people had known the name a lot of Westerners would probably have thought he was a good guy. Then things obviously changed.

So I guess my point there would be that when the advertising was done he wasn't shady in such a way as he would be considered now. If in 30 years Hugo Boss decide to go into arms manufacturing we can't say that the current McLaren is sponsored by an arms company.

(Note - never f*ck with the Afghans. Seems like no empire has ever been able to take and hold that land in all of history).
(Note 2 - I'm not implying Hugo Boss are going to go into the arms trade, I just wanted an example and they were the first company that came to mind. Please don't sue me).


The Bin Laden group is a huge construction company and investors in the region. It has nothing to do with Osama. It was his dad company and wanted to sponsor an F1 team in the 70's. Nothing dodgy with that story or with Osama's darker future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6298
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Many, many large multinational corporations have skeletons in their closets. Heck, Ford used slave labor in Nazi Germany. Benetton used to run controversial ads. Dupont was the largest supplier of gunpowder during the US civil war and was one of the major players in building the atomic bomb. Vijay Mallya makes most of his money selling booze.

It is a very long and dirty list.


Toyota was making army trucks in WW2. Yeap, the list is huge


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group