Former Williams chairman Adam Parr is a man who believes in doing business properly. As such, he found it difficult to adapt and accept the ways of F1, where things have always been done in a much more complicated fashion, with a “total war” attitude often being the way in the dealings between the parties involved. This meant that anything was acceptable and that the end justified the means. Illustrating this point is not easy because it is always hard to prove – 100 percent – that something happened because X did this or that to Y. The culture of non-transparency makes it tough. However, one can say, for example, that there are many in the sport who believe that McLaren’s $100 million fine was a payback for the team having played a role in nudging the European Commission into an investigation into the relationship between the governing body and the commercial interests.
Can anyone prove such a claim? No, but it does make sense when compared to what happened to the Renault team a short time later when it was found to have its computers stuffed with McLaren data and escaped with nothing more than a smack on the wrist.
It should be added that one of the side-effects of non-transparency is that conspiracy theories tend to run riot.
Parr resigned from Williams earlier this year because he found himself in a position he felt was untenable, with the Williams board of directors not wanting to get into the fight that he wanted to engage in. The directors were probably right when it comes to “total war” techniques, but Parr may be right when it comes to playing by the accepted rules of business.
The problem for F1 now is that having removed himself from the equation, Parr has nothing to lose, and that means that he can say things that he would not have said as Williams chairman – such as suggesting that the European Commission should again look at the way the sport is doing its deals. He believes that the Concorde Agreement that is being negotiated at the moment should be examined by the Commission to see whether the terms promised to Ferrari and Red Bull are anti-competitive. Parr is a lawyer and he thinks the unequal divisions of power (board representation) and money may not acceptable under EU competition laws. He also says that teams are unwilling to complain because they do not want to get on the wrong side of those who run the sport. It is hard to argue with this logic.
The only way to find out who is right is to go down that path. There is an argument – and apparently legal precedents – for a team like Ferrari getting special treatment because of its historical importance and value to the championship, but giving similar terms to a Johnny-Come-Lately team like Red Bull, over a McLaren or a Williams, is a matter for more discussion.
Will anything happen? That probably depends on whether or not the European Commission is paying attention to the sport. Back in 2001 the Commission closed down various anti-trust investigations into regulations and commercial arrangements involving F1 after all parties agreed to make changes limiting the FIA to a purely regulatory role, in order to prevent any conflict of interests, and to remove commercial restrictions on circuit owners and TV broadcasters. The Commission said that it would keep an eye on the business to ensure that the changes work in practice. The investigations dated back to the mid-1990s when complaints had been made. The scrutiny ended in 2003.
It may take five years to sort out, but at the end of it, the way the game is played could have to be modified to fit in with the acceptable rules of competition. If that turns out to be the case then Parr will be deemed to have done the sport a great service, although some of those currently involved will probably not look at his remarks in such a favourable light. Be that as it may, what is said is said and we will have to see whether the seeds take root in Brussels.
joeblogsf1 
That will be the same Adam Parr that said nothing negative when Williams got a one time payment for its historic value to the series? Same Adam Parr that thought the sport worthy of bringing his mates in as sponsors, with brands that he was co-investor in? That will be the same Adam Parr that has a book to sell…I think you are much better than all this Joe. I realise there is a story to tell but everyone inside the sport – Parr included, while he lasted – has made a lot of money from the way Mr. Ecclestone does business. Even now (unless the profits from the book are 100% donated to charity) Parr evidently sees it as a route to cash he cannot make elsewhere
I don’t agree with you.
Joe, I also don’t agree with Paul, but I do find the timing with the book suspicious. Why not when he left? He would have received as much or more attention then. One could argue as a lawyer he knew not to shoot from the hip in the heat of the moment and this is the first opportunity since then.
One could also assume he has been collecting evidence to support his position so when the commission says what is this about he is ready to move. But the timing for that looks ill conceived as the Concorde agreement is mostly there but not inked, correct? Hard to complain about something not in force yet. This smells more like a warning shot! If you sign what is in hand, this will happen! So who does that benefit? Which team does not really like the deal? William’s also wants a place on the board maybe?
You have never written a book have you? It does not happen overnight.
I meant his allegations coming out now with the book rather than when he left are a little suspicious. I am well aware writing a book takes time. But he could have sat down with the media day one if it was that important or gone straight to the EU and forget the book. Instead it is playing out in the media now with the book. Why this way?
Perhaps because he feels that now is a better time. Other things are happening.
I would be surprised if Adam Parr’s book makes any real money bearing in mind the relatively small sector of the market it appeals to, and the margins involved. I don’t see your point at all regarding sponsors – if they are legit that’s normal business practice. As far as the ‘historic Williams’ payment is concerned it would be churlish to criticise Williams’ board for extracting the maximum from a potential deal when they now responsible to their shareholders. Adam Parr resigned, I believe, earlier this year from the board so how much influence he may have had on the discussions regarding the new Concorde Agreement I wouldn’t care to guess.
Surely the bigger point is one of an unfair system in which exactly this sort of ‘under the counter’ deal proliferates.
I don’t think you have a clear picture about Adam’s role and activities at all. You should read his book.
OK – it’s already on my list (hopefully someone will be buying it – hint, hint,) but my main points were in response to Paul and in general sense. I’ll wait and see what Mr Parr has to say….
I will probably buy his book but I don’t expect he will make very much from it – it’s a minority interest story. I have some sympathy for what you say given the Venezuelan connection but I hope the book has a few home truths in it about the Pihrana club aspects of the whole sport/industry.
And I salute you Joe for going into print on the subject. F1 seems to get away with a lot of things particularly given the austere times we currently live in
It is a limited edition book, ergo the aim is not to make money.
If the aim was to get the information out to the masses, it wouldn’t have been a limited edition book either. Probably nothing more than a kick to Ecclestone’s behind.
You don’t knoiw much about publishing, do you?
Probably not.. But the way I see it, he wanted his story known to those who cared enough about the sport. That is definitely his target audience.
Great article Joe. As someone who works for the European Commission **ducks for cover** although not the Competition Directorate-General, all it would need is for someone to send in a complaint, to get the ball rolling. Obviously, the reality is that it would help to have someone who is inside the sport (teams, promoters, such like) on board in order to give the complaint more clout. Contrary to popular belief, there are not armies of officials here in Brussels looking for problems to investigate (and certainly not in the Competition DG which is not over-staffed by any stretch of the imagination.
The Mole and the Penelopes may have to get involved.
You presumably don’t believe that they already are? 😉
ssh…
I’m assuming that Red Bull would get special treatment over McLaren and Williams because as an energy drinks company they could, if they chose, close the team and pull out of F1 at any time. McLaren and Williams, while they have additional business interests these days, primarily exist to compete in F1.
I think it was simply to win Red Bull over, on the basis that if you have Ferrari and Red Bull, it is good place to be when you negotiate with others
I wanted to slap Adam Parr’s face when I first saw it but in the end was sorry to see him go.
All this talk of the European Commission opens up a new front in the race schedule. With so much of the direct benefit of F1 going to the UK you have to wonder how hard the E.C. will fight to keep the sport in Europe, or what compromises it’d be willing to make.
For as long as the European viewing figures and sponsor requirements dictate F1 will stay in Europe.
Still, Paul…. A bit more substance than “rate the best drivers of 2012”, or “should Red Bull have won the Championships?” stories of post-season F1, perhaps?
Regardless of Adam Parr’s motives (or lack of them), isn’t this an intriguing thing to be asking? You don’t wonder why someone who only has a book to sell (to a limited audience – let’s be frank), would put something THIS big out there? Maybe because he cares about the sport? Or people in the sport? Or has a vendetta because of a potential career path ruined? Or because he’s right? Heaven forbid. Let’s be cynical instead….
I wouldn’t mind seeing if Parr is right.
Thanks Joe.
Parr looks like a lose who couldn’t cut it in F1, unless he can show that F1 is not run fairly and ethically and that he quit because he headed a board that was prepared to allow things to be done in an unfair way rather than back their chairman when he had ethics and the law on his side.
Maybe straightening up the operational rules of the sport could come into being at the time of succession from Bernie, assuming that he’s not going to live forever.
Whilst it is easy for an outsider to criticise, F1 gives the impression of using the law of the jungle to keep everyone in tow. Maybe Adam Parr is onto something, or maybe he isn’t.
What fans want to see is a consistency in approach with regards to dealing, discipline and (tv) distribution, to return the business back to a professional sport.
I think you may have missed the point here. F1 is the ultimate professional sport… this is what money does.
It is a professional sport in presentation and execution of the product. Perhaps, he is referring to the behind the scenes cuthroat activity.
A very interesting piece.. There is a growing link between F1 and soccer – and soccer’s governing body, in Europe at least, is trying very hard to introduce this same concept of transparency. It takes time but it has to be done – simple things really, like clubs must at least break even, and players can’t be registered to more than one club, and that owners must be fit-and-proper persons…
On an entirely unrelated matter, I read that Vijay Mallya’s Kingfisher Airlines has just had 5 or 6 (depending on the news source) of its airplanes snatched back to cover various unpaid debts. Which, if Wikipedia is correct, leaves it with no airplanes at all. An airline with no ‘planes – I wonder if they will continue to sponsor F1 India?.
I wish Parr all the luck to pay back the treatment he received. I despise the methods used to oust him from his job at Williams. He used to be one voice of reason in the sport. If Bernie indeed engineered his demise he deserves some form of pay back.
But what’s the motivation Joe?
Making the sport better? Making a comeback in a post-Ecclestone era? There are some people on this world with higher aspirations…
The real question is, would F1 be better off with the EU meddling in its businesses? I don’t believe Parr is doing F1, including the fans, a favor.
The EU “meddled” before and the outcome was very favourable for F1, but less so for Bernie and the FIA, who in those days acted together and lived in each other’s pockets.
There is a little irony here in that the EU itself is structured in such a way that the larger members get more say and more money than the smaller members . . .
Hmmm. Germany has a population of some 82 million, not far off 200 times larger than that of Malta. A good job that some of the members get more money than the others, don’t you think? Not quite sure what the parallels are to Formula 1.
The parallel is clear. Big team contribute more by engage more fans with the sport and that equals money into the pot.
That doesn’t mean they are the same but there are interesting parallels. The weak and unprepared take a kicking, the wealthy are willing to support the poorer just when it suits their overall agenda, a lot of superficial bluster but everyone knows that eventually they have to reach a deal based on compromise.
Apologies for the poor spelling in post above.
I see your point, but sport and government are not the same. I thought that sport was the pursuit of excellence, with reward based on merit. There aren’t many other sports which systematically discriminate so blatantly in favour of one or two teams. I couldn’t see the (football) premiership applying a prize money weighting in favour of the big four teams, for example. Of course the big premiership teams have a lot of say, especially in things like competition format and so on, but a line has to be drawn somewhere and I think F1 has stepped over that line.
Jerry – Brilliant
A union of sovereign states cannot be compared to the most elite team sport in the world.The irony lies in fact that F1 is good for the UK if not GREAT as per the latest UKTI campaign but regulated by a group of “auto clubs” whose rules have choked the spectacle into oblivion. Fortunately there are forward thinking individuals who realise the value of the variable I.e. Pirelli whilst fighting against an institution that also regulates truck racing and hill climbing.
Imagine Grand Slam tennis being concerned with beach paddle ball and the safety of nerf ball. Rightly so that sport is run by an association of tennis professionals as should F1 be run by an association of professional F1 teams that are interested in the transfer and application of their technology to wider realms.
I find it interesting that BCE retained his own attorney in the NY lawsuit, separate from CVC’s. One has to wonder if CVC determined the cause of action in the suit didn’t afford him indemnification.
If Parr was just about the money, he would have stayed at Williams and milked the cow from that angle. Much easier and more lucrative than picking a fight with Bernie.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we soon see a concentrated effort in the media to blacken Parr. Via his Rio Tinto past, Cheating on his wife, or Badly treating his cat.
If that happens, i’ll be 100% sure that Parr is a real deal. In the meantime i’ll just believe that he is.
I also believe that a person can get to a point where he values the truth more than his 1.001st buck.
1% is getting thinner.
I’m with you. He’s a clever biscuit with good ideas.
I love these “inside reports” on the machinations deep in the belly of the sport. I hope good things come of Parr’s whistleblowing, he always struck me as an inteligent man.
The sport would most definetly benefint from more transparency and from proper business practices .
People want to make a difference. I can understand this.
And on the subject of war … the fights are on below and above the waterline whether one likes this or not!
An interesting piece Joe. The first time I have seen anything more than the most superficial comment on the reasons behind Parr’s resignation and the McLaren fine.
As to professionalism there seem to be two common usages. One being that of making money full stop. The other being about doing a job well and the use of current best practices that include, but are not limited to, fairness, treating customers and suppliers well, transparency, simplification and clarity.
Would CVC be happier with someone like Parr in charge of F1, rather than Bernie?
I doubt that would be a good idea. What the sport probably needs after Bernie (if that ever happens!) is an outsider, without too much history.
Those are my thoughts as well. CVC (or more likely CVC’s successors once they divest their holding) will need a ‘Bernie MkII’ to run the business on their behalf, maybe Parr is playing the long game and indirectly staking his claim by showing that he knows how the business is truly being run, and that future growth is being threatened as the best interests of the fans, teams and sponsors are not always being well represented.
After the downhill performance on track at Williams and now this ‘tell all’ book I doubt we will see Parr in F1 again.
You don’t follow F1 closely do you? Look at the progress first and then make statements.
More power to Adam Parr, and I don’t care what his motives are if it leads to a bit of sunlight being applied to the murk of F1/FIA/Concorde etc.
You have to wonder though if the European Commission does not have bigger things to worry about with the various debt crises and other goings-on.
As an American politician once noted (I think it was Lyndon B. Johnson), sometimes it is better to have somebody inside your tent pissing out than outside your tent pissing in. Right now, Adam Parr, having walked out of the tent earlier this year, is pointing out some realities that may yet result in more uncomfortable scrutiny for Formula 1. The lack of transparency in the governance of the sport, which is a hangover from the early days when there were shady people involved from time to time, is still present. (or, as they say in Yorkshire, where there’s brass there’s muck, and vice versa). Reading Adam Parr’s book, it is clear that a number of senior figures in the sport have at best an elastic concept of straightforwardness and transparency in their dealings.
Somewhere along the line, somebody forgot the old Eastern saying “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”…
Adam, like us all has to adapt to the circumstances around him and the challenges ahead. Good for him using F1 and Bernie to grab some press and drum up some book sales and some profile – Using the press in this way is exactly what Bernie would do.
I am not at all sure that the new F1 strategy group would meet with the EU commission’s approval, since it gives back to Bernie a 33.33% say in making the rules, something which was to be the sole province of the FIA and the teams. Already Bernie has got the published rules changed for 2014 onwards.
A true master of both strategy and tactics, Bernie will always take advantage of any situation, if necessary he will create the situation himself or use his friends or his influence to do so. Sad that Adam was not allowed to fight his position or felt it incompatible with remaining in the team.
We must hope that Adam’s book reveals the full reasons for his departure. Though I do not like his choice of format, (not having either a Kindle or an “i” anything) or hefty price, my daughter tells me it is the up to date medium.
Joe, your information is incorrect. Renault did not have its computers ‘stuffed’ with McLaren data. McLaren inflated their claims as to the quantity of data by a factor of 40, an action for which they were later forced to apologise. This was proven and documented at the time.
Sorry. That is not true.
Immediately before the Renault FIA WMSC hearing in early December 2007, there was another WMSC hearing where McLaren were charged with bringing the sport into disrepute by massively exagerating the case against Renault in the press. McLaren apologised to the FIA and to Renault. I was there, so please don’t tell me it didn’t happen.
Just because you we’re there does not make it the truth. McLaren had little choice but to back down. If you want to get into this, let’s talk about bin bags of data in laybys…
yes let’s
That’s a lot of child’s drawings…
It’s called art
That’s what Renault said. 🙂
Sorry Joe, I realise I was being too tangential and obscure (as I am often).
The child’s drawings comment was in reference to the ex-McLaren Engineer whose excuse for a number of McLaren drawings accompanying him to Renault was that they were in a stack of scrap paper that he had taken home for his young daughter to draw pictures on.
…and what she drew became Tooned…
Not unless it was a Renault (sorry, I mean Lotus) copy of Mclaren’s cartoon.:-)
I was too dim to suss your link, RMM, before you explained, but so effing thank you, Pure fun ~ j
I think, Joe, Parr is a bit of an irrelevance due to his being in post during no real action of the past decade. If he is trying to hurt CVC, BE, F1, Williams he obviously feels that he wasn’t rewarded enough for the work he feels he delivered. He’s probably a legend in his own lunchtime.
As far as the ability for those at the top of F1 to obfuscate and never answer straightforward questions, that was never really in doubt. I know a few people in such positions and even in their social private life they cannot answer a question. They leave out important info because either they haven’t been asked properly or they just like playing games. It is infuriating and does them no good. As for your contention about the MacLaren fine of $100m you are bang on and I guess you, like me, know who was behind the Max Mosley sex tape scandal.
You know so much. I believe that the News of The World was behind the Mosley Scandal.
Thanks for that great article Joe. Am hoping now the seeds take root.
+1
Ahhhh, and I just thought it was because Max allegedly hated Ron Dennis. :-p That’s because I never knew that McLaren “played a role in nudging the European Commission”, I might have put 2+2 together if I had.
As for Mr. Parr, the first thing I thought of was LBJ’s tent-relieving thing as well. I believe John Major referred to it once in an unguarded moment.
Joe there’s no need for so much sarcasm. The News of the World did it but were not behind it.
I am not being sarcastic. If you know more you should contact Max Mosley. He’d like to know.
If one is so minded, one can join dots between Mosley->News of the world -> Newscorp-> Sky -> F1. Also add in Newscorp -> Leveson -> Mosley.
But then one gets a bit dizzy with all the wheels withiin wheels. So one needn’t invoke any F1 teams to construct a conspiracy.
Providing a shred of evidence is a bit trickier.
I thought Max had said a long time ago that, following his own private investigations, he knew exactly who was behind it but just couldn’t say so without further proof, however when he had it, he would go public?
If what you say is true, Joe, then I guess the above was just him attempting to (unsuccessfully) flush out the (actually unknown?) guilty party.
I wonder if I am in a small minority of F1 fans who agree with Mr Montezemolo’s implication that Bernie is well past his sell-by date? Bernie’s way of doing things is evidently at least very questionable, and surely it is about time a sport whose teams run so professionally is also governed in an appropriate way? Isn’t this the point of the Parr book? Also, given that most journalists (presumably including you, Joe) cannot afford to upset Bernie, is it not up to the fans, and people like Adam Parr, to make a fuss until we see changes?
You assume a lot.
Do I? If you say so, but perhaps you could be more specific?
It’s not a question if he can afford it. It’s a question to which degree.
All real F1 insiders have a weapon to hit back. If crossed insider happens to be experienced journalist or writer, well, it just makes it easier to use it.
And yes, i know that i’m assuming more than a lot. I’m not saying that i know absolutely anything.
The fans could make a fuss though couldn’t they? They can vote with their feet and/or cheque books or whatever – can’t see that happening unless you disbelieve the figures on TV audiences (best not to base it on what you see on tele).
I suppose the problem I have is that I cannot understand why everyone is so positive about Bernie – to the point in some cases of fawning obsequiousness. When I see him interviewed, he seems evasive, cryptic, and sometimes frankly confused, but I still hear him described in reverential tones, by people who otherwise seem intelligent and challenging.
I think you have to know him to appreciate his brilliance.
Whilst acknowledging his business acumen, don’t you think that the top man in F1, at least the figure head so to speak, should be more accessible the fans and cultivate a better image for himself to the outside world? You read so many negative comments from so many people outside the sport – Adam Parr now included it seems. I agree with ChrisTatt above in this respect – don’t you think it’s problem?
No. Bernie is not doing this for the fans.
You don’t have to reply to this Joe but it begs the question, who is then? The FIA, the teams, the circuits (possibly in certain cases)? What a sad state of affairs. By the way, hope you enjoyed your lunch with Merc wherever it was. Wanted to try the Le Manoir aux Quat’ Saisons recently for they do not allow dogs, unlike in many French restos (Michelin rated also) – shame on you Raymond!
I don’t think you have to know him to appreciate him, at all 🙂
What is it with people thinking the guy who runs the show ought to present it, as well?
There are plenty others with as much vested, who could pull up their socks.
Fantastic Article Joe. This is the kind of commentary that we cannot get anywhere else on the web. Please keep it going.
WRT Adam – IMO He tried to change the the sports status quo, but could not convince his employer. Tried hard though, as evidenced by his departure which has all the hallmarks of an “Or Else” negotiation tactic. The romantic in me would like to believe “he fought the fight that needed fighting Vs a fight that he could win”. The good thing is that this might embolden somebody else. I feel that the structure of the sport has to significantly change with the F1 infrastructure including teams and tracks getting a higher payout from the revenues, not to mention feeder formulae and investment into F1. I have heard this “Bernie/Max/FOA/FIA is the reason why….” for over 25 years. Not referring to Bernie specifically, but its like justifying the existence of the local mob by pointing out the couple good things they have done for the community or how life cannot go on without them. No one cannot leech off of a community and act as if they are above the law forever.
Im starting to like Adam a lot more since he left F1,I’ll be honest and say i wasnt his biggest fan whilst he was there. I would love to see him doing some punditary of some sort, Im looking forward to reading his book and would love to hear more about what he thinks is going on in the sport.
A great response to a great article if I may say so. I don’t like a lot of the aspects of the current world we live in (career politicians and career bureaucrats intruding more and more into our lives being an example – and don’t get me started on the Euro project imposed by the elite who know best on the sufferers (punters) who have to deal with the fallout) .
However although Bernie’s replacement (however that is achieved and the replacement regime is structured) may ultimately not be very pretty (or even work) , increasingly neither is the current situation a healthy one for the long-term future of the sport/business/fans
Do EU anti competition laws apply to sport or business ? Is F1 a sport that is also a business ? So if Ferrari and Red Bull have special terms because of their importance to the business, then the anti competitive laws must apply ? I’m confused.
How can the public believe the ‘sport’ of F1 is fair when Ferrari have special terms for this, that and the other and special votes and exemptions and god knows what else, secret handshakes, perhaps ?
There is pooh-poohing response to this business on another website. It seems that Adam Parr has got somebody’s attention.
The Muppet Show?
If that’s what you are calling your favourite F1 “journalist” ‘s platform today?
All these ‘suits’ that Sir Frank has brought in to the team have delivered nothing for Williams. For years now the intake of people like Parr have been busy in the paddock convincing certain people of their worth, while the team itself spirals still further from competitiveness.
Adam Parr came to Formula 1 under the delusion that he knew better than anyone else. The fact that he was wrong must have come as a bitter blow and now both the book and the legal challenge are just examples of peevishness.
This is simply not true. If you look at the Williams financial results, you can see that Adam did a very good job for Williams. He is a very intelligent man and his only mistake was to try to do too much too soon, thus rattling cages that need not have been rattled.
I’ve read the book and I can confirm that it is not the work of an intelligent man. You don’t really need me to tell you that though because there are plenty of people here who have made the same point.
If you don’t think Adam Parr is intelligent, you do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.
You can say that if you want but that’s not what I said.
Could you explain to me what kind of intelligence you are expecting? There are so many kinds, but I never like to think of them as coffee blends. It all has caffeine. Seriously, am interested.
Your right joe, Bernie must have felt threatned, Adam parr has more savvie then people give him credit, he changed the structure of the williams team for the better and the results have shown, Frank will miss him at least for his intelligence and his excellent business acumen, he was a man on a mission…
I belong to that minority ChrisTatt is talking about. I don’t know BE personally but I can’t figure out why everyone says he so smart. I certainly believe he is a very shrewd dealmaker and that the credit he received for so long about making F1 so succesful is well earned. I also remember when Eddie Jordan asked him, a few years ago, live on BBC to sort out the mess in which Mosley had pulled the sport into and I couldn’t help but think Bernie did not seem to have the magic stick to pull out the bunny out of his hat.
I didn’t like Parr and his style very much but he is completely right when he says this: “There is an absence, it seems to me, in the sport of reasoned and deep debate about how things should go.”
As long as FOTA or any sort of similar venture are a complete joke I don’t see how the above statement can be proved wrong.
Thanks, and exactly. If Bernie is so clever (‘brilliant’ according to Joe), why does he not appear very clever when being interviewed? It really isn’t very difficult, and would not require much effort from someone THAT clever. It seems to me that Adam Parr is saying, in effect ‘isn’t it possible that Bernie does NOT always know best, and wouldn’t it be better if some other (clever) people were more involved, and some proper discussion happened?’
Makes a LOT of sense to me.
Take three years out of your life.
Some people think that’s enough for a “degree”.
Now, assuming you were at a university, cut out the getting drunk and chasing tail.
So, how much is that?
Less the holidays?
I reckon 1 year per degree, 2 per masters and close for defending a thesis, if you have one.
Now go do only one thing, all your waking life.
How does that accumulate?
. . .
I am sorry, I am angry with a system, not Chris, nor anyone here, I am angry at a system that says “I am done learning.” aged barely enough to buy a beer in the USA.
All I know, is that learning compounds.
“Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.” says someone famous.
Bit of trivia: apparently they thought they could build the F35 fighter jet with only simulation, no flight tests. Sound familiar? Not buying a Virgin F69 … (look back, I’ll brag a little, called that out then, and what do I know?)
I don’t much care for either Bernie’s thing, nor in fact for what Adam Parr gained his reputation for, in law. (and I have looked at the latter) but both have a quality I admire: perseverance.
If you find no grace in either, well, to me that’s just strange.
There has become a dangerous falsity, that you qualify once in life, you get your piece of paper, and Bingo!
If F1 was anything like that, there’d be none of it. Outlawed, banned, foreclosed, or just plain pathetic.
This is not Keep On Trucking, it’s get yourself a new brain. Every year, every race, every time you watch it.
I realise this is the obstacle to bringing viewers new even to the screen. But it is a fundamental thing. It is a good thing to watch, because you are forced to understand the ingenuity, as much as the personalities. Why on earth would many many thousands of people be so devoted to making this, unless they thought they were transmitting something good to the world? I bet any one of those guys could have whooped a 10 figure bonus in “banking”.
As a spectator, I want so many other things, the racing, the people, the atmosphere, and above all, yes, a show. But I could never truly enjoy it if I were unable to see past that, into the imaginary (only because I am not invited, haven’t in fact ever asked, either) paddock, and know I was freely given a present of other’s devotions.
I was writing to a friend, earlier, that we can not simply describe happiness, being a function of so many things. But I do imagine that there is a happiness to be found by putting just one part of a very small car on the track that races one weekend. Not the kind maybe a wife may enjoy, but the kind of happiness that transmits, so your wife can know you are doing good, and use that sunshine for something else in this world that matters. When one takes, really it is just given, not stolen, or prised, but when one loves, one transforms, adopts, accepts and never traps someone’s feeling.
Trucking reference is: Big Trouble in Little China
One of your best, JoJ.
Separately I would like to ask Joe, while we are on the subject, if it is known what the FIA did with the 100 Mio it received from McLaren. Has it been paid in full?
And last but not least, has anyone got a clue what Red Bull’s “special treatment” is all about? It is indeed quite unbelievable that a Johnny-Come-Lately forced Bernie’s greedy hand on that particular portion of Concorde.
I said people speculated about the fine, not that this was the case. There is an important difference. It was paid because there has recently been a case between McLaren and the Inland Revenue over whether it should be tax deductible.
I’m sure Vodafone could pass on some tips about how to come to an arrangement with the taxman in exchange for a nice lunch…
Just finished the Kindle edition. Loved it. Great story in a refreshing format. I’d always perceived Adam Parr as ‘out of place’ in F1, somehow, and now I understand why: he was a sensible man battling against a culture in which common sense doesn’t prevail.
As a absolute idiot, I slagged Parr for kind of the similar reason: fish out of water, not going to swim. I did admit my mistake, moment I caught it. He’s a most interesting character.
It’s no accolade, but I study company bosses as part of my living (to try to suss how to sell to their companies, and because many simply are very very hard to discover anything about) but Parr has now got himself a dot on my RADAR.
For personal reasons I rate anyone who publishes; it’s no walk in the park, and I know people whose names alone shift books, and I know how uphill it is even for them.
Thank you for noting the Kindle edition. It appears if I want to practise my languages – it’s in French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese == Seriously, that is a big publishing effort, even for a graphic novel! == I can borrow one to read for free. But I like books, particularly those illustrated, and shall try to snap up a copy or two to continue my cause of corrupting young minds!
Incidentally, you can borrow the English Kindle edition also, if you have Amazon Prime.
That rather negates anyone’s idea above, that this is really a “limited” edition.
I highly rate Parr’s publishing strategy.
I have just read the book, and I just want to recommend it to everyone who still hasn’t read it. There isn’t a lot of new info, but it recaps well many important episodes, with the occasional new pearl. I have to say that my impressions about Parr, knowing now how he sees things, has greatly increased.