It is odd that those who diligently scour Companies House looking for Formula 1 stories to sell to newspapers have failed to notice a rather significant development in the last few weeks. When it was announced that the Bavarian authorities would commence proceedings against Bernie Ecclestone, it was agreed that he would stand down from the board of Delta Topco Limited but would continue to run the business on a day-to-day basis, “but subject to increased monitoring and control by the board”.
That was on January 16. It was not announced that he would stand down from a string of other directors positions in the F1 empire as well. If one checks out Companies House one finds that there are “appointment terminated” notices for Ecclestone with Formula One World Championship Ltd, Formula One Hospitality and Events Services Ltd, Formula One Management Ltd and Formula One Administration Ltd, the major operating companies of the group. These are all dated January 21.
Thus far, no replacements have been appointed.
It is rather odd that this has not been reported given that it is a very significant change in Formula 1. I guess that I will have to start looking in Companies House on a daily basis…
joeblogsf1 
Interesting indeed,but for those of us who don’t know the intricacies of these things,could you please explain what impact those changes will have in F1.
(I am completely clueless here…)
They simply indicate that he has been removed for all significant board positions and thus, legally-speaking has no say at all if he is now removed from control. However, the fact that he remains in control suggests that he has a golden share somewhere that stops this happening – at least for the moment.
Joe, Do you think that Bernie has a strong say over his successor?
Yesterday, a certain British Newspaper* was running a story about how BCE was denying that Justin King was going to take over.
(*I know how fond you are of the the Guardian, beloved by us PC tyrranical Pinko Lefties) 🙂
I have nothing against The Guardian. However the key question is who wrote the article.
I though it was Paul Weaver, who wrote today’s “Bernie Ecclestone wins court case” story.
However, on checking, I now see that it was written by Mr Sylt.
Your point is well made and you’ve answered my question.
I agree and disagree Joe. I do think that F1 would be crazy not to look at someone with King’s credentials so surely it is possible that something is going on. I disagree that Guardian writers are not credible. It is one of the few newspapers I trust. Just look at its NSA work. Groundbreaking! Im sure that any articles in the paper will have gone through the highest levels of checks and balances. The same goes for any of their writers Im quite sure of that. We arent talking about the Murdock gutter here! I once had the fortune to visit an arts event that they support and was astounded by their professionalism even in that area. I trust literally trust their business writers with my money as I follow their stock picks religiously. Yes Im a leftie but its quality that counts and the Guardian articles have it in my books.
Hello Peter,
I too read the Guardian and rate most of its serious output. It’s not the Guardian that I think Joe is calling into question, it’s the nature of that particular writers work. Mr Sylt works for many publications, in particular for one F1 website.
Mr Sylt’s work is well known to many here, especially in connection with Mr ecclestone’s business affairs.
Access to leadership often makes the story. It’s not fair, but it’s the way reporters around the world measure one another.
Would Joe refuse a sit down with Mr E every fortnight? No, no F1 reporter would.
Read the bylines. Know the agendas of the story’s writer. Most have them. There is a absolutely sparsity of reporting that is actually relevant to the future of F1. Both our host and Mr Sylt are providers of that information, a very few others are.
That they don’t like each other doesn’t impact my reading, nor should it impact yours. If you want the truth, read everything, make your own judgements.
Not true. I would refuse that if I did not feel I could write the truth. Others have fewer morals
Who doesn’t write the truth? What examples are we talking about here? I am really lost! Are you saying that the Guardian don’t seem to care beyond the headline? I have every respect for your hard toils Joe but if that is your opinion, as it seems to be then I have to strongly disagree! The Guardian and its writers seem to be some of the few journalists in England who care about what they write.
They have uncovered some of the most unsettling truths about national security that I have ever heard. They affect you as much as they affect me and they have been reported the world over. That is surely testimony that they care much beyond the headline. I have stood by the name of the paper for a long long time and have never seen any indication that its writers are slipshod or disrespectful. That applies to any of them and trust me I spend a great deal of time reading that newspaper!
If this Silt fellow has been approved by the Guardian then I respect their faith. As I mentioned I even went to the trouble of checking his background on the Guardian website and it shows that he has been writing for the paper for several years. I do not believe for one minute that the Guardian editors would have retained someone for that long if they had received complaints about factual errors with his/her work. This newspaper has high standards and I have every confidence that it thoroughly vets its content and writers. You may disagree with this but that is no reason to make such a sweeping statement about it not caring beyond the headline. It just isn’t that kind of newspaper and I feel very strongly about that.
Believe what you want to believe.
I think you have forgotten news papers mantra – “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story” .
I am dismayed whenever I see others accepting the notion that it is acceptable for a journalist to place his relationship with his preferred sources higher than his duty to tell his audience the truth. Protecting one’s source is honorable, but steering the public to believe whatever serves his source is something else entirely. I realize it happens. What scares me is how readily so much of the public seems to find it acceptable.
IMO, this ranks as one of the two great tragedies of how attitudes have changed over the last 30 years. The other is the blind belief that a business is somehow acting properly when it establishes *maximizing* profit as its only responsibility. Taken together, I think these two trends are largely responsible for the public blindly accepting the needless deterioration of its own circumstances.
Hello rmm. I dont believe the Guardian would hire writers who arent trustworthy. Just imagine if they had done that with Snowden! A paper like that cant afford to make mistakes so Im sure it vets its writers thoroughly and check over what they write before they allow it to be printed. I don’t see why F1 would be different to film or political news.
You mention F1 websites but are they run by the Guardian? If not I dont see how they could compromise its integrity. Having met some of their editors at the arts event I couldnt have been more impressed. Really charming and professional. They know their stuff and it shows in the paper. Im sure you can trust what they say and to be honest I dont usually bother looking at the name of the writer.
Occasionally I click on the name to see if the writer has been with the paper for long because that is the best test of all. If they have written articles containing factual errors then I’m sure complaints will flood in and the paper will not use the writer again. To me the Guardian is like an old pair of shoes so I rarely feel any need to check up on its writers but doing so with the chap you mention shows he has been there for several years so I don’t fear a slip of standards there.
My litmus test is the quality of the publication. You can take the Guardian, Observer and the Telegraph to the bank and I have a soft spot for the Independent’s magazine. These aren’t gutter! To a lesser extent the Times due to the Murdoch effect. I swear by the first four and especially the first two. I trust the newspapers themselves and their standards of writing, taste, opinion, anything basically. I wouldn’t put so much of my money on their stock picks if I didn’t (still keep my fingers and legs crossed though!). Someone who writes for the red tops would not rate with me but I wouldn’t know as you won’t find them in my briefcase!
In F1 business terms, they don’t seem to care beyond the headline.
Joe I don’t mean to criticise and each to our own. I’m not asking you to be a Guardian reader as I and others here are. But there is a difference between not reading the paper and making such a sweeping statement as the Guardian don’t seem to care beyond the headline. I am sure it isn’t true. If you said this about the Times I could begin to agree but not the Guardian and I suspect not the Telegraph though I am not as avid a follower of it as I am of the Guardian. These are papers which have remained untarnished by the scandals of recent years. They are not sullied with a connection to Murdoch. In fact, they have been hot on their reporting of the scandals. I have seen no evidence that their reporting is not of the highest quality, especially in the case of the Guardian.
As I have said, I would not even bother to check the name of the writer in a paper I trust such as the Guardian. There is no point and I could understand if others said the same about the Telegraph, Independent or even at a push the Times. On the same lines, if other journalists contributed to your website I would put my faith in them even if I had seen questionable statements written by them elsewhere. You wouldn’t expect anything less and that is the kind of trust that the Guardian has built up with me admittedly over a longer period of time as I have been a reader since long before I had access to the internet.
It is a matter of trust in your standards and trust in those of credible broadsheets. Their contributors are of the highest standard and I think that is what keeps British journalism at the forefront of world reporting. Just look at the BBC’s reputation! What is their to rank internationally? The New York Times? The Wall Street Journal? Both seem credible from the limited amount of time I have spent reading them.
Joe this isn’t a slight on you it is an endorsement so please take it that way. But please don’t hit out at the Guardian with such a wide ranging atack. If I have misunderstood and there are specific errors in it then please do correct me. As I said, I put my own money on their stock picks and have done for many years so I have vested interest in knowing!
It has got nothing to do with The Guardian per se. It is to do with their voice of people and the absence of any due diligence. I try to help but you don’t want to listen. So be it.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Rupert, and I don’t know because I have never met the guy, so it’s difficult for me to believe is the Evil Incarnate as some seem to think, I also have no grudge against the Guardian, but I don’t think the Snowdon exposure was their finest hour, nor would many spooks agree, or so I would expect….and don’t get me started on Polly Toynbee!
You’ve totally lost me now. The very reason why people read the Guardian is its choice of high calibre voices whether they be writers, interviewees etc. Snowden is a classic example. It went viral worldwide! You won’t find many people who think its choice of voices is poor so I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this!
Snow den is a good example. Others may not live up to his moral standards
Mr Sylt is a freelancer, I believe, rather than on the Guardian staff, he also writes for a number of other publications, including a F1 website that is well known for spinning news to suit Mr E. He has also written for The Express and The Mail online. I think Paul Weaver is the Guardian’s F1 writer at the moment.
It pays to read even the Guardian with your BS detector switched on. Some of their correspondents and contributors I would trust highly (e.g. Ben Goldacre) and others I wouldn’t (e.g. Severin Carrell) so you have to filter all news sources. The fact is, F1 is not core business to the Guardian. It’s my favoured source for many news topics, but not F1.
I tend also to use that BS detector for Autosport, and I trust its output far less than I used to.
I even apply a BS detector to Mr Saward’s blog. It has bleeped a couple of times over the years (going back to Grandprix.com and before that to his days as Globetrotter in Autosport) but the alarm has never actually gone off. So that is why I read his blog. I don’t always agree with Joe, but I trust his integrity. I could say the same about a lot of other F1 writers.
Is this a wind up about the Guardian? Seriously?
I’ve never read such left wing, biased, morally superior drivel in all my days. In my opinion of course.
Their stance on man made global warming being the cause of the floods in Somerset is particularly hilarious.
Or I read that they think Ed Milibands’ idea of state regulation of energy prices was a wizard wheeze (until the announcement slashed millions off their tax liability, sorry nasty share price)….
And you think what happened with Snowdon, an IT guy that stole a database which, thanks to the guardian, makes our country MORE vulnerable is a good thing?!
Full of facts you say? Incredible.
That’s meant for the Peter chap, by the way
Joe I could not agree with you more. Thats why I trust the paper!! I have seen many a crook interviewed by Guardian reporters and they don’t do a whitewash. They seem to have the very highest of standards of newspaper journalism and when it comes to dealing with known crooks I would say the same of the Telegraph and Independent as I remember being most impressed with their writing about Asil Nadir. Surely you don’t think they all don’t care beyond the headline? If so then why are you so opposed to them? It really is not the case and I would be happy to post links here if you would like examples to see what I mean. I want to make you a convert!
Don’t even try. As long as they use stuff from the journalist they are using at the moment, I will never be converted. Simple.
Joe,
I think that the fact that the Guardian has blocked comments to Sylt’s article may be significant. I can understand that commenting on sub-judice items such as the on-going Brooks trial should be off-limits, but something about the succession planning for a CEO?
It’s not been long since that web-site that shouldn’t be mentioned was redesigned to allow comments – it didn’t take long for Sylt to get rather huffy about having his efforts criticized.
I really wish I hadn’t asked the orginal question now. This is so of F1 topic. The rights and wrongs of Snowden, Murdoch are worth discussing, but not really for here perhaps?
Joe has said a number of times that this is an F1 blog, so maybe we should take Leveson and Snowden issues elsewhere, no? I think it’s tiome to drop this aspect.
Though, as Mr Saward like to remind us “his blog, his rules”, it’s up to him.
Joe I implore you to give the paper a chance as I’m sure it would chime with your inquisitive mind. The work they have done on the NSA reminds me of some of your reports. I am sure that all of their writers and content is checked to the very highest of standards and you can safely say that any journalist would not have been writing for them for years if there had been complaints about errors in his or her work.
Your comments made me curious so I checked on Google for Silt/Sylt and found that he also writes for the Independent (+), Telegraph (++), CNN (neutral to me), BBC (++), Financial Times (neutral), Wall Street Journal (neutral), Express (-) and London Evening Standard (+). No idea why one would want to write for the Express with those other names under the belt. Very odd but the list still covers the majority of the most credible publications in England. Surely you don’t think they all don’t care beyond the headlines?? Anyway, why let a single journalist spoil your enjoyment of paper even if you have a gripe against them?
Because they don’t check their journalists in motor racing, they cannot be relied upon on any sphere.
I don’t pay a great deal of attention to the Guardian’s motor racing coverage. I tend to log on here for that. I do skim through its motor racing news every day but don’t pay as much attention to it as I do to the arts, business and national news pages. I must say that I don’t believe that all of those publications (Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, CNN, BBC etc) cannot be relied upon on in any sphere as you say. That’s just too much of a generalization and sounds irrational. I’m also not sure how one can find out whether comments have been blocked on an article on the Guardian website and I would like to think that I am a proficient user of it. What does this signify? Comment provoking or even controversial views are what I want to read. Errors and inaccuracies I do not. That is precisely why I read the Guardian and if it isn’t available for whatever reason I pick up the Telegraph. To spin this around, what paper is in your brief case?
I don’t read a newspaper. In any case I live in France. If you don’t hear the message that is being sent to you then so be it.
Joe: is there any background substance to the Justin King rumours, or is it just that he has the racing connection and has become available ?
I think something is going on…
I first heard the Justin King rumours about a year ago however, it just seemed bonkers then. Don’t think it does anymore..
There must be something to it, or Bernie wouldn’t be planting stories to undermine it. Bernie does nothing without a reason.
Ah,I see,thanks for explaining.
The Orwellian evils of the internet age are forgotten when you can follow the test in Bahrain and scour Companies House while sitting at a sunny cafe in Montparnasse.
Or even in a hotel in Los Angeles… in the middle of the night
Hi Joe,
You say ‘at least for the moment’.
Do you think that there is a feeling/move to completely oust him, and if so is that the break of the final link between the ‘management’ and the teams?
It seems bizarre that nobody but you noticed this and then mentioned it to the public…
Sometimes we don’t see what we don’t want to see…
RShack it was reported by all and sundry the point of JS’s comment is the continuing irrelevance of Sylt and the caution one should take in reading anything he writes.
Thank you once again monsieur Saward for demonstrating your thoroughness in the reportage of this individual and his grip on a racing formula which was once upon a time not what it has become recently.
in time…, I have full confidence that you will continue to uncover other bites of information which will enable me to focus on other serious series of the evolution of motor sport.
well done and endurance Sir.
Maybe there is someone in the shadows of the sideline oil paintings? Waiting to jump in and take the carbon-fibre throne of gaming races? Perhaps it’s just a play of shades of almost-dozen-teams? Hmmm…
I would love to see someone like Adam Parr running the sport. I still think it was a real shame that he and Williams had to part company. He did a great job for them and I think he would do likewise for the sport as a whole.
Wow, a non-sycophantic comment, and one that I actually agree with.
Will wonders never cease…
Doubt Parr wants anything to do w/ F1 in a professional capacity ever again unless ALL of Bernie’s evil associates were removed in a thorough house-cleaning…and that includes ppl on the sporting side, not just in operations/businessmgmt.
Did it ever cross your mind that most people like the product and are not rude people? No, probably not…
@Darren. Agree with this 100%. AP has the talent and ability to do a great job for F1. He seemed to be leading Williams to a better place and there’s little doubt that they suffered as a result of him leaving. His talents seem to have been put to good use since he left. Aside from the enjoyable and insightful Art of War, I believe that he’s now involved with the ‘legacy’ side of London 2012. All the best to him…a loss to F1.
The very reason they missed it is the very reason I read this blog and not the other myriad “insider” blogs and sites.
Keep doing what you are doing Joe
Does Luca still claim to hold power of veto over Bernie’s successor?
Joe, you dod not necessarily need to look at Companies House on a daily basis There is a service called (if I remember correctly) CH Monitor. You give them the company numbers which interest you, You are then emailed evry time that company makes any type of filing. i am pretty sure the service is free.
You may also notice that on the 22nd January, realistically the day that the announcement was likely to filter out there was all sorts of distracting articles about the Nurburgring …
Excuse my ignorance but what does “appointment terminated” exactly mean?
It means that he is no longer on the board.