Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ecclestone & F1
#1
There was a thread somewhere on Bernie Ecclestone's pending loss of control of F1 to Silvio Berlusconi et al and the background manoeuvring of these forces to oust him in order to pick the rich fruit of F1 for themselves -- but I'll be damned if I can find it now.

Anyway, the latest as follows from F1 Fanatic:

Quote:

Judge: Ecclestone did pay bribe and was not "reliable or truthful"

2014 F1 season

February 20, 2014 at 1:32 pm by Keith Collantine

[Image: eccl-2013-4-470x312.jpg]Bernie Ecclestone may draw only limited satisfaction from his court victory today against Constantin Medien.
Justice Newey may have ruled in Ecclestone's favour but his 114-page verdict (PDF) makes it clear he believes the Formula One boss bribed the now-jailed banker Gerhard Gribkowsky in 2006.
The judge also called into question Ecclestone's reliability and truthfulness as a witness.
With the Formula One boss set to go on trial in Germany on charges of bribery in April, this was not the complete victory he was hoping for.

Why Constantin Medien lost

Constantin Medien, a German media rights company, alleged that Formula One's sale to current owners CVC Capital Partners was arranged for less than its true value because of a bribe paid by Ecclestone to Gribkowsky. It claimed it was owed compensation for commission lost on a potentially more valuable sale.
In dismissing the case the judge did not find that the bribe did not take place quite the opposite but rather that its intention was not to influence the sale price.
Justice Newey ruled that Ecclestone and his former lawyer Stephen Mullens did not intend for shares in Formula One held by Bayerische Landesbank to be sold at less than their true value:
"It was no part of Mr Ecclestone's purpose (or Mr Mullens') for BLB's shares to be sold at an undervalue, and neither Mr Ecclestone nor Mr Mullens had any desire for the shares to be sold at an undervalue or believed the price at which they were in fact sold to be below market value."
"No loss to Constantin has been shown to have been caused by the corrupt arrangement with Dr Gribkowsky," he added. "That fact is fatal to the claim as against all the defendants."
The judge also rejected Constantin's case on other legal grounds.

What the case revealed about the Gribkowsky deal

However the judge was in no doubt a bribe was arranged between Ecclestone and Gribkowsky, stating as much in a stark five-word sentence in his conclusion: "The payments were a bribe."
But rather than being a bribe to influence the price of the sale, the judge rule Ecclestone paid it to maintain his position in control of Formula One.
That power is something Ecclestone has always jealously guarded, but Gribkowsky emerged as a potential threat to it before 2005. The testimony given in court and statements from in ongoing legal proceedings in Germany revealed new details of how the deal came to pass.
In March 2005 Gribkowsky presented his employer BayernLB's management board with three options for the strategic future of Formula One. These included a "strategic alliance with Bambino [Ecclestone's family trust] / [Mr Ecclestone]" and a "strategic alliance with contractors / teams".
He also proposed a third option which he described as the "end of the BE era", meaning Ecclestone, including his "removal as CEO at FOA, FOM and removal from the boards of the future main companies FOAM and FOWC".
Gribkowsky described Ecclestone's control of F1 and the labyrinthine companies governing it as follows:
"[Ecclestone] headed up and continues to head up the predominantly non-transparent and unnecessarily complex [Formula One group] like a lord of the manor'. His business methods are not transparent and on occasion in a very grey area.
"[Ecclestone] makes it quite clear with his actions and active press work that this should also remain the case. An honest willingness to design the future with the teams with the participation of the banks cannot be identified."
On April 7th, BayernLB's supervisory board "unanimously agreed to the suggested course of action that after regaining control of the operative businesses of Formula One the basic strategy that will be followed is that of entering into a strategic alliance with the manufacturers/teams and implementing the associated measures accordingly."
Shortly after this Ecclestone made his move to bring Gribkowsky on-side in a meeting. "[Mr Ecclestone] made it clear to me that given the situation, there were two possibilities: either he presented me with a buyer and I helped him get the sale through, or he would kick us out," said Gribkowsky.
The judge also noted: "Dr Gribkowsky is also reported as having said this: Basically, what Mr Ecclestone said at this meeting was that if I helped him then literally I will take care of you!' I took the phrase I will take care of you' to be an offer to change sides and to join him."
"At the time I understood that Mr Ecclestone was offering me a job, namely to transfer to Formula One as an advisor, in conjunction with a fee of course. And that would be in return for me not obstructing a sale…"
[Image: liuz_toro_bahr_2006-470x264.jpg]The fee was agreed the following year at the season-opening Bahrain Grand Prix, which Gribkowsky described: "At lunch on the Saturday, a conversation took place between Mr Ecclestone and myself in the motorhome belonging to FOA/FOM."
"During this conversation, Mr Ecclestone enquired first of all whether I had received a bonus from the bank for the sale to CVC. I said that I had not, which Mr Ecclestone commented with the words fucking bank'.
"Mr Ecclestone then asked me about my further plans for the future. I took this to be a hint and reference to our agreement back in April/May 2005, and I told him that I could imagine working as a consultant in Formula One and that I had already spoke to Mr Mullens about it.
"Mr Ecclestone commented this latter phrase with the words, Forget Stephen' and challenged me to tell me a number', whereupon I told him 50. To me it was clear that that meant $50 million. The conversation ended with Mr Ecclestone saying that he would think about it.
"On the Sunday before leaving for the airport, I handed over to Mr Ecclestone in an envelope the draft contract which I had drawn up and taken with me. Even if I denied it and turned a blind eye to it at the time, it was clear to me that this was the reward for my supportive involvement along the lines Mr Ecclestone had wanted in the sale to CVC of [BLB's] stake in Formula One."
The details were agreed in a subsequent meeting at the Rib Room restaurant on 10th May 2006. "Part of this meeting was spent discussing the issue of Formula One and part the prospective payments to be made to me by Mr Ecclestone," said Gribkowsky.
"Mr Ecclestone said that I would receive 45 million. He meant US dollars, as was usual with Formula One. Mr Mullens was apparently going to take care of everything else, i.e. the contractual agreements and the processing of these. In this discussion, we also established that the Advisory Agreement between myself and Mr Ecclestone would begin on 1st June 2006."

Why Ecclestone's bribe defence was rejected

The judge noted: "In cross-examination, Mr Ecclestone said that it was agreed at the Rib Room dinner that Dr Gribkowsky would be paid a total of $45 million and that Mr Mullens would deal with the contractual arrangements."
Howerver Ecclestone rejected Gribkowsky's claim the payment was made to secure his support: "I made a payment to Dr Gribkowsky because he was shaking me down concerning some allegations that he could say to the [Inland] Revenue that I controlled our family trust, which would have been extremely expensive."
"There was never a bribe," he added. "I made a payment to Gribkowsky for completely different reasons. I had no reason to bribe him. I paid him money not to do what he said that he could and was capable of doing, which was informing the English Revenue that I was running the trust."
Significantly, as far as Ecclestone's forthcoming case in Germany is concerned, the judge doubted this version of events:
"Neither Mr Ecclestone nor Mr Mullens identified any specific threat from Dr Gribkowsky. Each instead referred to insinuations'.
"When giving evidence in Germany, Mr Ecclestone said that Dr Gribkowsky never specifically stated or threatened that any given event would take place' and that there was no threat along the lines of Either you pay or I go the tax office'.
"In the present proceedings, Mr Ecclestone explained in cross-examination that Dr Gribkowsky never said what he would tell HMRC and accepted that Dr Gribkowsky did not give any details of how he would substantiate any claim that Mr Ecclestone was to be identified with the Bambino Trust;"
"The evidence indicates that Dr Gribkowsky is unlikely to have been in a position to give HMRC information that could cause Mr Ecclestone or Bambino any serious difficulties."

Ecclestone's reliability questioned

The judge also questioned the reliability of Ecclestone's evidence: "Mr Robert Miles QC, who appeared with Mr Richard Hill QC for Mr Ecclestone, did not maintain that Mr Ecclestone's evidence had invariably been accurate."
"He blamed some of Mr Ecclestone's answers on a tendency to answer questions too fast: he suggested that Mr Ecclestone was inclined to say things quickly that might, on reflection, not be right. He also stressed that many of the relevant events happened a long time ago and that Mr Ecclestone is 83 years old; it is thus, Mr Miles said, not surprising that Mr Ecclestone's
recollection of some things should be poor.
"I recognise that there is force in these points. Even, however, making allowances for the lapse of time and Mr Ecclestone's age, I am afraid that I find it impossible to regard him as a reliable or truthful witness."
He noted that in parts of his judgement he "cannot accept Mr Ecclestone's evidence".
The judge did not accept Ecclestone's explanation for why he paid the bribe to Gribkowsky. Justice Newey deemed the payment was paid as a reward "for facilitating the sale of BayernLB's shares in the Formula One group to a buyer acceptable to Mr Ecclestone" which would allow him to retain his power over the sport.
"Mr Ecclestone's aim was to be rid of the banks," he concluded. "He was strongly averse to their involvement in the Formula One group and was keen that their shares should be transferred to some one more congenial to him."
The threat of further legal action in Germany has already loosened Ecclestone's grasp on the sport. He has already professed himself confident about the potential outcome, and while today's victory goes some way towards vindicating that the detail of the verdict will surely give cause for concern.
The article below includes more background to this lengthy case and a timeline of events so far:

And

Quote:

Why Ecclestone faces a trial which could end his control of Formula One

2014 F1 season

January 20, 2014 at 11:00 am by Keith Collantine

[Image: eccl_sing_2010-470x264.jpg]Thursday's news that Bernie Ecclestone's power over Formula One had been diminished amid allegations of him bribing a German banker was a watershed moment in a story which has developed over the past three years.
Ecclestone's decades-long spell at the helm of the world's most famous motor sport is not yet at an end but this could be the beginning of the end.
The idea of Ecclestone relinquishing control of the sport he revolutionised would have been unthinkable not long ago. How has it become a realistic possibility?
Ecclestone first crossed swords with Gerhard Gribkowsky, an employee of Bayerische Landesbank, in 2003. BayernLB was one of three banks which shared a 75% stake in Formula One at the time.
Among the most effective of Ecclestone's tactics, which have helped him amass a personal fortune estimated to be over £2.3bn, has been the art of selling ownership of F1 without yielding control over it.
But Gribkowsky thwarted Ecclestone's attempt to recoup the 75% stake for the bargain price of $600 million. According to a 2011 biography Gribkowsky challenged Ecclestone's control of the sport, telling him "you are just the CEO working on the shareholders' behalf". This began a struggle between their pair for control over the sport.
Gribkowsky scored another victory in December 2004 when Justice Andrew Park gave a ruling which handed to the banks control of Formula One Holdings, one of the myriad companies set up by Ecclestone to run the sport.
Now Gribkowsky's attention turned to another of these companies, Formula One Administration, in which even more power was vested. Another case was due to be heard in May 2005 but two months before that Ecclestone and the banks reached a deal out of court.
The details were not disclosed but in a statement Gribkowsky declared the banks had "regained the influence that corresponds to the shareholding structure with this deal".
Later that year a new potential buyer of Formula One emerged: CVC Capital Partners. It was in the course of F1′s sale to CVC that Ecclestone is alleged to have made a deal with Gribkowsky which now threatens his power over the sport. Here is how events have unfolded since then.

Timeline: The Bernie Ecclestone-Gerhard Gribkowsky affair

[TABLE="class: thin"]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TH]Date[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: transparent"]Event[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: transparent"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]April/May 2005[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Around this time Ecclestone is alleged to have reached an agreement with Gribkowsky, which prosecutors claim constituted a bribe, details of which emerged later.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]25th November 2005[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]CVC announces purchase of F1 from BayernLB and Ecclestone. It subsequently buys shares in F1 from other banks, and also purchases Allsport Management which sells F1 track signage and runs the lucrative Paddock Club.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]5th January 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky is arrested and held in Stadelheim prison in Munich.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]April 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone meets with prosecutors in Germany.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]20th July 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky is charged with breach of trust, tax evasion and being in receipt of corrupt payments. Prosecutors claim Ecclestone paid £27m ($44m) in bribes to him.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]21st July 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone admits making the payment to Gribkowsky and says he did so because Gribkowsky "threatened" to make false allegations regarding Ecclestone's link to Bambino Holdings, his Swiss-run family trust, which would attract the attention of the UK tax authorities. "He was shaking me down and I didn't want to take a risk," said Ecclestone. The allegations are later revealed to involve whether Ecclestone controlled the offshore trust, through which the alleged bribe was paid.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]3rd August 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone says former Benetton and Renault boss Flavio Briatore "did make a payment for me" because Gribkowsky "did not want the money paid direct from the UK". "In no shape or form is Briatore involved in this," Ecclestone adds.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]24th October 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky's trial begins.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]5th November 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]HM Revenue and Customs declare an interest in investigating whether Ecclestone was involved in tax evasion.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]8th November 2011[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]The court is told Ecclestone lied about his reason for paying the bribe. Documents shown to the court claim he initiated payments to Gribkowsky to ensure he retained control of F1 after its sale to CVC.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]16th January 2012[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone's aide Andre Favre says at Gribkowsky's trial in Munich: "Ecclestone told me to transfer $5 million of his money to Mr. Gribkowsky by using a special company so his name wouldn't appear".[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]20th June 2012[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky tells the court the bribery charge against him is "essentially true".[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]21st June 2012[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone says he "was a little bit stupid" to pay Gribkowsky. "Normally I would have told him to get lost."[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]27th June 2012[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky is sentenced to eight-and-a-half-years in prison after the court finds he acted to protect Ecclestone's interest in the sale of the stake and helped Ecclestone receive commission worth £25.4m ($41m) from the bank. State prosecutor Christoph Rodler says Ecclestone was "not the victim of an extortion but the accomplice in an act of bribery". Gribkowsky later appeals against the verdict.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]29th December 2012[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone says CVC "will probably be forced to get rid of me" if he is charged over the Gribkowsky affair.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]10th May 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Gribkowsky withdraws his appeal against his conviction.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]15th May 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]German media reports claim Ecclestone has been charged with bribing Gribkowsky.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]19th May 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone describes the charges against him as "a complete load of rubbish".[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]2nd July 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone adds he is "not worried in the least because I have told the truth".[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]17th July 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone confirms he has received an indictment from the German prosecutors over bribery charges.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]18th August 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]The 256-page indictment of Ecclestone claims "Gribkowsky endeavoured to create pressure against Bambino and the accused [Ecclestone] by repeatedly insinuating that the accused was effectively in charge of the trust [...] this did not, however, present a real threat for separate tax treatment of the accused and the Bambino Trust on the part of the British tax authorities, since Dr Gribkowsky and BayernLB had no specific proof of any such connection".[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]29th October 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]German media group Constantin Medien brings a case against Ecclestone and others in the London High Court. It claims that Ecclestone's payment to Gribkowsky resulted in F1 being sold to CVC at less than its true value. It seeks over $100m in damages.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]19th November 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]CVC co-founder Donald Mackenzie says Ecclestone would be fired "if it is proven that Mr Ecclestone has done anything that is criminally wrong". Mackenzie adds Ecclestone told him he had forgotten about making the payment to Gribkowsky. "I had trouble believing you could forget payment of $40 million," added Mackenzie.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]5th December 2013[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ferrari are revealed to have the power to veto Ecclestone's choice of successor if they have had prior involvement in an F1 team.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]16th January 2014[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]The German authorities announce Ecclestone will go on trial in April on charges of bribery. The case will be heard by judge Peter Noll, who sentenced Gribkowsky in 2012. In the meantime Ecclestone steps down from the F1 board but retains day-to-day control, albeit with supervision.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]17th January 2014[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]Ecclestone says "Everybody on the board is more than a million per cent supportive. They just want me to get on with doing what I always do. The minute the court case is over then I'll be back on the board again."[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
The outcomes of Ecclestone's various ongoing legal challenges could have profound implications for the future of the sport. If he manages to regain the control he once had over the sport it will be his greatest feat so far.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#2
This one?
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post78908
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#3
Magda Hassan Wrote:This one?
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post78908

Yup, that's the one. Impressive searching!! ::coolrock::

I used the forum's search function and the Google search function suggested by Jan and neither hit gold.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply
#4
Sky news today has Ron Dennis, executive chairman of McClaren, answering Sky's question about who will take over F1 after Bernie (feel my back pocket) Ecclestone resigns his current position.

The vultures are circling.

That Sky should pose the question is, in my opinion, a reflection of Murdoch's pariah business practises.

After all, Murdoch's News Corp and the Agnelli family's Exor Spa (who own Ferrari) are jointly scheming to acquire a majority holding in F1. But to achieve this ambition it seems evident that Ecclestone had to leave? Since he wasn't budging, ruining his already dubious reputation was the next logical step.

This is covered at the following DPF thread HERE:

Quote:Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. and the Agnelli family's Exor SpA (EXO) want to buy the 63.4 percent of Formula One owned by London- based buyout firm CVC Capital Partners Ltd. through its Jersey, Channel Islands-based holding company Delta Topco Ltd.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)