Max Mosley autobiography

[andyps]

Is anyone intending to buy Max Mosley's autobiography, Formula One and Beyond? I am sort of interested in reading it but there is no way I am at all inclined to pay anything for doing so that may mean even a fraction of a penny going to Mosley. Reading this review - http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/book-review-max-... - it certainly sounds like it could be interesting but I may have to wait until there is a fourth hand copy available on Amazon marketplace before I read the book. No doubt it will be very censored anyway to make Mosley out to be a nice, generous person who only had the best interests of the sport in mind.

[rallycross]

All the interesting bits are NOT going to be in the book (which is just Max doing a PR job) will it mention Spanky?

Edited by rallycross on Thursday 18th June 10:57

[andyps]

rallycross said:

All the interesting bits are NOT going to be in the book (which is just Max doing a PR job) will it mention Spanky?

Edited by rallycross on Thursday 18th June 10:57

I doubt it - his whole life seems to be devoted to protecting his own privacy these days. Not sure he has spotted the irony of then producing an autobiography.

[Derek Smith]

"The book succeeds in not getting too dragged down in to the FIA politics . . ."

Such a shame he couldn't have done the same when in charge.

He apparently glosses over allowing Benetton to run illegal software, using the deaths of Senna and Ratzenburger as an excuse for his innaction, according to the review, and later, when discovered that they were cheating with rigging the refueling rigs in a dangerous manner, he allowed everyone involved to get off free of almost all penalty. Yet when a Ferrari employee approached one of the employees of another team with a joint venture, there was a massive fine, one might think planned to destroy McLaren, for something which did not burn people in the pits and which might have destroyed the pit complex had the pit crew not risked their health. Other almost identical events to the Ferrari bloke taking confidential information went unpunished. That is MM's legacy.

I like the bit out 'people' wanting the return of firm FIA control. It was MM who limited the FIA's influence by cutting its income and the 'people' is a person and I reckon the only reason he wants its return is to get more money for CVC.

I bet he claims that one of his successes was sorting out safety in F1, despite the deaths on his watch. He was forced into doing something and, as luck would have it, there were proposals already on the table to do so, and not from him.

It would have been a terrible period of time for F1 even without MM. But, let's face it, he brought the sport some unwelcome publicity one way or another.

Does he cover his time with the Union Movement? I wonder if he republishes some of the diatribes published by his mother, one of the Hitler-loving Mitfords.

A friend sent me an email a day or two ago saying that he claimed that he has carried a torch for his sexual preferences, that of buying women to humiliate, and that is has somehow become acceptable nowadays through his liberal outlook. She said she'd written off to the reporter/paper but it seems has not yet received a reply.

I understand why he wants to remind us that he likes having things stuck up his asre. Strange to keep repeating it when he suggested to the lovely Eady that the publication of his predilections humiliated his family. But I'm not bothered, unless it is a flaming torch - I'd watch that. But his use of women is not what one would expect of the person in charge of a multi-national concern.

I think I'll pass on this book.

[andyps]

I think you have summarised very well there Derek, my interest in reading it would be as much to see how he has spun the past and what is omitted more than for what is included.

[deadslow]

Derek Smith said:

"The book succeeds in not getting too dragged down in to the FIA politics . . ."

Such a shame he couldn't have done the same when in charge.

He apparently glosses over allowing Benetton to run illegal software, using the deaths of Senna and Ratzenburger as an excuse for his innaction, according to the review, and later, when discovered that they were cheating with rigging the refueling rigs in a dangerous manner, he allowed everyone involved to get off free of almost all penalty. Yet when a Ferrari employee approached one of the employees of another team with a joint venture, there was a massive fine, one might think planned to destroy McLaren, for something which did not burn people in the pits and which might have destroyed the pit complex had the pit crew not risked their health. Other almost identical events to the Ferrari bloke taking confidential information went unpunished. That is MM's legacy.

I like the bit out 'people' wanting the return of firm FIA control. It was MM who limited the FIA's influence by cutting its income and the 'people' is a person and I reckon the only reason he wants its return is to get more money for CVC.

I bet he claims that one of his successes was sorting out safety in F1, despite the deaths on his watch. He was forced into doing something and, as luck would have it, there were proposals already on the table to do so, and not from him.

It would have been a terrible period of time for F1 even without MM. But, let's face it, he brought the sport some unwelcome publicity one way or another.

Does he cover his time with the Union Movement? I wonder if he republishes some of the diatribes published by his mother, one of the Hitler-loving Mitfords.

A friend sent me an email a day or two ago saying that he claimed that he has carried a torch for his sexual preferences, that of buying women to humiliate, and that is has somehow become acceptable nowadays through his liberal outlook. She said she'd written off to the reporter/paper but it seems has not yet received a reply.

I understand why he wants to remind us that he likes having things stuck up his asre. Strange to keep repeating it when he suggested to the lovely Eady that the publication of his predilections humiliated his family. But I'm not bothered, unless it is a flaming torch - I'd watch that. But his use of women is not what one would expect of the person in charge of a multi-national concern.

I think I'll pass on this book.

You don't appear to have read the book, and clearly do not admire Mr Mosley. The fact of not liking the guy does not mean his book will not be interesting or a worthwhile read, even just to appreciate the thinking within the sport at the time.

I know he didn't seem to get on with Ron D, who, at the time, was highly regarded on here (to the point of religious fervour), but he had a wider job to do. Is Todt an improvement?

[Derek Smith]

deadslow said:

You don't appear to have read the book, and clearly do not admire Mr Mosley. The fact of not liking the guy does not mean his book will not be interesting or a worthwhile read, even just to appreciate the thinking within the sport at the time.

I know he didn't seem to get on with Ron D, who, at the time, was highly regarded on here (to the point of religious fervour), but he had a wider job to do. Is Todt an improvement?

There are a number of ways to 'judge' a person, liking/disliking is but one.

My father, who had a fascination for politics but was not political in the sense of being in favour of a political ideology, did have one particular dislike, fascism. He took me to Shoreditch, to a meeting of the Union Movement, where Ozzy, MM's father (the assumption is) and MM as the little me. What I saw put me off Mosley. But one should not judge a person by his politics, especially if they were those of his parents. Out of all the siblings of Ozzy, he's the only one not to disassociate himself from the political beliefs of their father. And mother of course, if not more so. She was, by reports, very close to Addy. But sport can often hold itself above such concerns.

Another way to judge a person is on what they do. Everybody criticises Balestre, and for good reason, but I could ignore his politics and dislike him for being partial. Seems odd now that I assumed there would be an improvement.

The sport is in the state it is in at the moment through the actions of MM and Ecclestone. Every other formula, WSC, Rally, F2, F3, saloon cars (at least in this country), emerged from MM's time much weaker than when he took over. That, I think, is his wider job, one that the state of these tends to suggest he did not do.

I studied the Stepney saga and whilst there were examples of poor practice on behalf of McLaren, it was the Ferrari team employee who was the instigator.

The only conclusion I could draw, and this was supported by a number of informed commentators, or rather my opinions supported theirs, was that Stepney and Coughlan were in it for what they could get out of it. McLaren, the company, was not a participant.

It is true that Alonso and PdlRosa behaved abominably, and these two were culpable, but they were given a Get out of Jail Free card by MM. Unbelievably.

Then there was the way the enquiry into the Benetton fire was conducted. Then the way Benetton were allowed to have every electronic aid on their car(s) 'except cruise control' to quote a much quoted mechanic of the team.

Then there was the way he ruined the sport in the USA. There was a simple out for the tyre problem that all teams agreed to in order to put on a show for the crowds but he decided to run what was in essence a one car race.

You say that he didn't get on with Dennis. A mastery of understatement there. I'm pleased that RD came out ahead in that matter. Still, it must have been difficult for this upper middle class bloke - someone who had, literally, had tea with Mussolini - to have little to show for his time in the sport or adulthood when a spanner man, with none of his advantages, ran the second most successful team in the sport. I bet that hurt more than the spanks.

The Ferrari International Assistance pun was during his time in charge.

We can judge a man on his friends as well. Look at the history of the sport during the period he was in charge, the arguments, the shady deals, the criticisms from the EU. He was buddies with a bloke whose nefarious dealings are just coming to light, to a limited extent, in recent court cases.

Or we could just look at what he personally has done for the sport. MM comes well down on the negative side. When you compare him to the likes of Williams, Head and Dennis, their contributions are massive.

I do not expect to hear anything new in the book, nor any explanation of the things which he only can explain. It appears to be as much a vanity project as most of the genre, and it is a book which I can quite easily pass by without loss.

There's much that could be said about the bloke I feel, but he has shown himself only too willing to issue writs will stop even supported contentions.

As I said, Balestre, for all his many faults, left motor sports in a much stronger position that when he took over. His behaviour tended to suggest he was also an enthusiast for motor sport. I'm not sure I could accuse MM of either of those. My judgement is that he was worse than the bloke he replaced, something many felt would be impossible.

I don't know the bloke so cannot say whether I would like him or not. He is, by all accounts, very personable. I am left to judge him in other ways.

I am close to someone who has met him. Perhaps he'd left the personable bit off that day.

[andyps]

deadslow said:

You don't appear to have read the book, and clearly do not admire Mr Mosley. The fact of not liking the guy does not mean his book will not be interesting or a worthwhile read, even just to appreciate the thinking within the sport at the time.

I know he didn't seem to get on with Ron D, who, at the time, was highly regarded on here (to the point of religious fervour), but he had a wider job to do. Is Todt an improvement?

I won't try to answer on Derek's behalf as he is very capable of answering himself, but I will give my response to your comments.

As I said, I am interested in reading the book but would not like to contribute directly or indirectly financially to Mosley so am unlikely to do so in the near future, I doubt, however, that the book will be an accurate description of the thinking within the sport at the time as it is unlikely to accurately represent the financial greed of the unpaid president of the FIA.

Whatever the wider job Mosley had to do, I don't think he did it well, or even the smaller job of putting F1 in a good long term position. He was very much in partnership with Ecclestone and almost every action of Mosley helped his friend, and in return, himself. The simple act of selling off the commercial rights to F1 for 100 years for a ridiculously low figure - around £200m I think. Look at how much Bernie/CVC make each year and it is obvious that the deal Mosley struck was not in the best interest of the sport, the FIA or almost anyone else you can think of. It was, however, very good for Ecclestone and, by many reports, good for Mosley too - both in a financial way.

Mosley was/is almost certainly jealous of Ron Dennis. Mosley came from a moneyed and privileged background but was a failure as a team owner whilst Dennis came from very little, initially working as a mechanic working his way to ownership of a very successful F1 team, and making a reasonable amount of money legitimately in the process.

As to whether Todt is better, he doesn't seem to have interfered as much as Mosley did, but he is partly stuck with the deal that Mosley struck with Ecclestone and therefore limited in ability to act. There is apparently a clause in the deal with Ecclestone/CVC to ensure a certain number of teams and if it falls below that the deal is void - maybe Todt is deliberately not interfering so the clause can be invoked and a better deal for all concerned (except CVC) struck. Time will tell. But in reality, almost anything is better than Mosley and I don't yet agree that his method was better than the current situation.

[deadslow]

andyps said:

deadslow said:

You don't appear to have read the book, and clearly do not admire Mr Mosley. The fact of not liking the guy does not mean his book will not be interesting or a worthwhile read, even just to appreciate the thinking within the sport at the time.

I know he didn't seem to get on with Ron D, who, at the time, was highly regarded on here (to the point of religious fervour), but he had a wider job to do. Is Todt an improvement?

I won't try to answer on Derek's behalf as he is very capable of answering himself, but I will give my response to your comments.

As I said, I am interested in reading the book but would not like to contribute directly or indirectly financially to Mosley so am unlikely to do so in the near future, I doubt, however, that the book will be an accurate description of the thinking within the sport at the time as it is unlikely to accurately represent the financial greed of the unpaid president of the FIA.

Whatever the wider job Mosley had to do, I don't think he did it well, or even the smaller job of putting F1 in a good long term position. He was very much in partnership with Ecclestone and almost every action of Mosley helped his friend, and in return, himself. The simple act of selling off the commercial rights to F1 for 100 years for a ridiculously low figure - around £200m I think. Look at how much Bernie/CVC make each year and it is obvious that the deal Mosley struck was not in the best interest of the sport, the FIA or almost anyone else you can think of. It was, however, very good for Ecclestone and, by many reports, good for Mosley too - both in a financial way.

Mosley was/is almost certainly jealous of Ron Dennis. Mosley came from a moneyed and privileged background but was a failure as a team owner whilst Dennis came from very little, initially working as a mechanic working his way to ownership of a very successful F1 team, and making a reasonable amount of money legitimately in the process.

As to whether Todt is better, he doesn't seem to have interfered as much as Mosley did, but he is partly stuck with the deal that Mosley struck with Ecclestone and therefore limited in ability to act. There is apparently a clause in the deal with Ecclestone/CVC to ensure a certain number of teams and if it falls below that the deal is void - maybe Todt is deliberately not interfering so the clause can be invoked and a better deal for all concerned (except CVC) struck. Time will tell. But in reality, almost anything is better than Mosley and I don't yet agree that his method was better than the current situation.

Yes, I don't particularly disagree with most of your factual comments, but there's always two sides to any story and it will be interesting to read Mosley's account. Ron is also a divisive figure who is not universally loved, and his autobiography will be equally interesting.

[belleair302]

I doubt any of us could understand a word written by Ron Dennis in his 'autobiography', it would need translation by his ghost writer.

[andyps]

belleair302 said:

I doubt any of us could understand a word written by Ron Dennis in his 'autobiography', it would need translation by his ghost writer.

I am very much looking forward to reading it, preferably in Ron's own words. However, I doubt it is something he is too concerned with writing - at the moment there are more pressing matters and longer terms he doesn't strike me as being interested in the vanity issues which push many autobiographies, including Mosley's.

[Derek Smith]

andyps said:

Stuff

I fully agree with.

deadslow said:

Yes, I don't particularly disagree with most of your factual comments, but there's always two sides to any story and it will be interesting to read Mosley's account. Ron is also a divisive figure who is not universally loved, and his autobiography will be equally interesting.

I've always found Head a little disconcerting. He never seemed to smile and his best mood seemed grumpy. His contribution to his team, and so F1, has been underrated by all accounts. He is one of the giants, but I don't think I would have overused the word chummy when describing him.

I met an ex F1 mechanic at a party and we got talking. I mentioned being a bit scared of Head and the chap said that when it comes to the team, Williams was the one without concern for anything or anyone other than Williams GP. Another chap in the sport once told me that Williams was the most acquisitive of all team leaders. If there's no money in it, Frank's not interested.

Even accepting these suggestions, there's no way they are diminished. Their contribution to the sport is unquestionable. To get to the top in a sport as competitive and politics ridden as F1, and Frank/Patrick have been there, you have got to be single minded and 'assertive'.

I feel certain the same goes for Dennis. I doubt any are universally loved.

I knew a chap who worked for a sponsor of McL and Tyrell. He was involved in the negotiations and said that it was accepted that whatever Dennis said, he'd stick by, something rather unusual in a business where lawyers trawl through contracts to see if they can shaft colleagues. Matters were discussed, an agreement was reached and Dennis expected the lawyers to draw up a contract on those grounds.

I've met Dennis twice. Once, I was to be introduced to him in the McL pits after qually. All he did was grunt at me. The chap who arranged it apologised and said that as Senna was over half a second off the pace, I was lucky to get a grunt. Some time later I was at the Goodwood FoS and Dennis was in the #1 GP McLaren waiting to go up the hill. There was delay due to an accident and I went up to him just to say thanks for all the entertainment.

He took off his glove, shook hands, chatted away, and then, when it was time to restart the engine, said thank-you.

I'm sure that anyone single-minded enough to reach the top in F1 will be a real pain on a one-to-one for any length of time. I don't think that changes the fact that for F1, Dennis is one of the greats and his contribution has been extremely positive. Had he not run his team, the sport would be damaged to an extent.

The feeling I get with MM is that had he never got into the role and instead been replaced by someone with the long term interests of the motor sport at heart, it would be healed.

If I was to go on holiday on, for instance, a boat, who would I choose out of the team leaders? Wolff is high on the list, and probably Horner would come into the decision. I'd consider Patrick but not Frank and there's no way I'd choose Ron, and this despite McL being 'my' team since the start of MP4. He's an icon of the sport and, despite my love of the English language, I can forgive his bdisation of it.

He was a mechanic in Brabham and Cooper, getting all oily. Some years later his team won all by one GP in the season. That's success by anyone's standard.

Compare that to MM's career. Silver spoon to soiled thermometer. So not quite so full of accolades. He took an unpaid position and came out a lot richer somehow. I'm not sure how that worked. F1 finances are murky but Dennis' fortune is based on the success of McL. The Business of Winning used to be the tag (get it?) line. I'm sure he has upset a few people along the way.

I'm glad that he has, apparently, upset MM just by making a success of himself.

[deadslow]

Derek Smith said:

andyps said:

Stuff

I fully agree with.

deadslow said:

Yes, I don't particularly disagree with most of your factual comments, but there's always two sides to any story and it will be interesting to read Mosley's account. Ron is also a divisive figure who is not universally loved, and his autobiography will be equally interesting.

I've always found Head a little disconcerting. He never seemed to smile and his best mood seemed grumpy. His contribution to his team, and so F1, has been underrated by all accounts. He is one of the giants, but I don't think I would have overused the word chummy when describing him.

I met an ex F1 mechanic at a party and we got talking. I mentioned being a bit scared of Head and the chap said that when it comes to the team, Williams was the one without concern for anything or anyone other than Williams GP. Another chap in the sport once told me that Williams was the most acquisitive of all team leaders. If there's no money in it, Frank's not interested.

Even accepting these suggestions, there's no way they are diminished. Their contribution to the sport is unquestionable. To get to the top in a sport as competitive and politics ridden as F1, and Frank/Patrick have been there, you have got to be single minded and 'assertive'.

I feel certain the same goes for Dennis. I doubt any are universally loved.

I knew a chap who worked for a sponsor of McL and Tyrell. He was involved in the negotiations and said that it was accepted that whatever Dennis said, he'd stick by, something rather unusual in a business where lawyers trawl through contracts to see if they can shaft colleagues. Matters were discussed, an agreement was reached and Dennis expected the lawyers to draw up a contract on those grounds.

I've met Dennis twice. Once, I was to be introduced to him in the McL pits after qually. All he did was grunt at me. The chap who arranged it apologised and said that as Senna was over half a second off the pace, I was lucky to get a grunt. Some time later I was at the Goodwood FoS and Dennis was in the #1 GP McLaren waiting to go up the hill. There was delay due to an accident and I went up to him just to say thanks for all the entertainment.

He took off his glove, shook hands, chatted away, and then, when it was time to restart the engine, said thank-you.

I'm sure that anyone single-minded enough to reach the top in F1 will be a real pain on a one-to-one for any length of time. I don't think that changes the fact that for F1, Dennis is one of the greats and his contribution has been extremely positive. Had he not run his team, the sport would be damaged to an extent.

The feeling I get with MM is that had he never got into the role and instead been replaced by someone with the long term interests of the motor sport at heart, it would be healed.

If I was to go on holiday on, for instance, a boat, who would I choose out of the team leaders? Wolff is high on the list, and probably Horner would come into the decision. I'd consider Patrick but not Frank and there's no way I'd choose Ron, and this despite McL being 'my' team since the start of MP4. He's an icon of the sport and, despite my love of the English language, I can forgive his bdisation of it.

He was a mechanic in Brabham and Cooper, getting all oily. Some years later his team won all by one GP in the season. That's success by anyone's standard.

Compare that to MM's career. Silver spoon to soiled thermometer. So not quite so full of accolades. He took an unpaid position and came out a lot richer somehow. I'm not sure how that worked. F1 finances are murky but Dennis' fortune is based on the success of McL. The Business of Winning used to be the tag (get it?) line. I'm sure he has upset a few people along the way.

I'm glad that he has, apparently, upset MM just by making a success of himself.

Yes, I get it. You support Ron therefore you don't like Mosley. No problem with this.

[carinaman]

rallycross said:

All the interesting bits are NOT going to be in the book (which is just Max doing a PR job) will it mention Spanky?

It's the first I've heard of the book. He's on Radio 4's Midweek next Weds. Rob Widdows from Motor Sport magazine has interviewed him and I understand he was on the BBC coverage for the Canadian GP. It's to promote the book.

[carinaman]

Derek Smith said:

A friend sent me an email a day or two ago saying that he claimed that he has carried a torch for his sexual preferences, that of buying women to humiliate, and that is has somehow become acceptable nowadays through his liberal outlook. She said she'd written off to the reporter/paper but it seems has not yet received a reply.

I understand why he wants to remind us that he likes having things stuck up his asre. Strange to keep repeating it when he suggested to the lovely Eady that the publication of his predilections humiliated his family. But I'm not bothered, unless it is a flaming torch - I'd watch that. But his use of women is not what one would expect of the person in charge of a multi-national concern.

I think I'll pass on this book.

Us proles are too uneducated to get it.

When his little tea party was all over the press didn't he do a piece for Gay Times saying the media coverage of his sexual preferences was like the discrimination that gay people get?

[anonymous-user]

So what's this thread about? Mosley's tome or just for Derek to air his oft repeated and often groundless prejudices?

[Derek Smith]

REALIST123 said:

So what's this thread about? Mosley's tome or just for Derek to air his oft repeated and often groundless prejudices?

You suggest 'often' groundless. I can support everything I've said on this thread. If you want to argue about the Stepney fiasco then by all means start another thread and I'll prove a lot more than I've put here. The Benetton fire? There's a lot more to that. The illegal software? Surely that's now accepted history.

I've produced reasons for me feelings about the bloke, so hardly prejudice.

The thread's title is nicely vague but Andyps' final sentence in his original post seems to me to be about perceptions of the bloke and whether it will say anything about his destruction of the sport. More or less.

I'm happy for people to disagree with my points of view. That's got to be one of the main reasons anyone comes on a forum. But just gainsaying and criticising the poster rather than the post is hardly an argument. If you feel the Stepney incident was well handled, that the responsibility for the fire was punished properly, or that allowing illegal software to be used by one team was a positive move for the sport, then by all means say that MM did a good job, but bring your reasons as to why you go against logic and good sense. These three incidents were not the major parts of the time he was in charge, we all know what was, but it does expose him.

I bet there will be no evidence to support either side's point of view in the book. I feel certain it will be nothing more than an exercise in conceit and vanity: that's prejudice as I haven't read it, but given the bloke's conceit and vanity, it's got to be likely.

[andyps]

REALIST123 said:

So what's this thread about? Mosley's tome or just for Derek to air his oft repeated and often groundless prejudices?

It was a thread I started to see if other people would be interested in reading Mosley's autobiography, not much more than that. I stated my own views in the opening post and have expanded some other of my thoughts. It would have surprised me if Derek hadn't joined in as I know he has strong feelings about Mosley, almost all of which I agree with. It could be said that Mosley is a bit of a marmite character, although my impression is that there are more haters than lovers - I can't remember how many posts there were in the "bye bye Max" thread when the News of the World exposed the story of his non-Nazi related orgy, but there certainly was a strong feeling it was time for him to go, not just because of that incident. The article about his book which I linked to suggested that some people had changed there views about him being bad for the sport. I haven't but would be interested to know if others have, along with justification for why he might have been good - any takers?

[Alex Langheck]

All I'll say is during his time as F1A President; the non F1 series were basically left to flounder. During his tenure, F1 = Motorsport.
Whatever you may think of Todt, he has brought back a World Championship for Sportscars. His work for the WRC has been mixed.

[61GT]

Max who?