FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[andrew]

I think a ban on alcohol will drive F1 towards in paticular Muslim countries because of there alcoholic beliefs.

Nothing wrong with that. It's good for F1 to be moving into new areas, as long as it is not at the expense of some of the older more historically significant tracks.

Ultimately, F1 will go where the money is as it is a business rather than a sport (ok, it's a sport to us the viewers but not the guys running it) so the aim is to make money.

But What's Next? Mobile phones cause radiation that is bad so are they going to ban Vodafone? Marussia? Etc. What about the long term health effects of Energy Drinks?

Health effects of burning fossil fuels. Lets ban cars in F1.......oh wait.

In America they don't allow hard liquor or cigarette sponsorship (not done voluntarily) in NASCAR but they do allow the NRA to sponsor race events.

Does this fall under the right to keep and bear arms? Sounds daft but that's closest thing to any form of logic I can think of for this one!

[CookinFlat6]

You're wrong, cookie.

I genuinely enjoy a glass of Bordeaux or stout or Chartreuse or Fernet Branca, etc., and I never get drunk! One drink, very rarely a second one within a couple hours, no more. This is one of the pleasures I wouldn't want to have to give up even if I don't indulge too much.

You only think you're enjoying it because you've been conditioned!

I've been conditioned too, a little too conditioned from time to time.

Yeah, funnily enough I actually enjoy the conditioning because I dont feel that bad when I start at lunchtime

[CookinFlat6]

You ask a 15 or 16 year old kid, “What do you want” and they don’t know. The challenge is getting the audience in the first place. I say to some people who start this nonsense about social media, look at what tobacco companies tried to do, get people smoking their brand early on because then people continue smoking their brand forever.
“If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

And so I rest my case, all those who rubbished the idea of tobbaco or alcohol sponsorship having no effect on kids 'who are well brought up by their parents' or who said 'the nanny state is not needed to protect our kids from old predators' you can all queue up to admit you were too trusting with regard to a certain evil old troglodyte and why alcohol will be removed

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/11/does-bernie-ecclestone-mean-what-he-says-about-f1-not-needing-social-media-and-young-audiences/

[myownalias]

We'll have to agree to disagree! Yes, sure some people will take up smoking/drinking etc because of what they see on advertizing. But I believe far more people smoke and drink because of peer pressure, because their friends are doing it. I simply don't believe it's as bad as certain sectors make out. I find censoring of advertizing media to be a slippery slope, where does it stop? shall we not allow advertizing of bathtubs and toasters together because potential they are dangerous.

[CookinFlat6]

We have to draw the line somewhere, and whatever you or I think, that line has been drawn and tobacco and alcohol fall on the otherside. The only argument for F1 to avoid the same rules as for every other business in Europe is to plead that F1 is only watched only by responsible adults. Alas this has been rejected

All we can do is get on with it and see what happens, moaning about it will not get the laws changed on this. F1 needs to find new sponsors pronto

[myownalias]

That is my worry, when a team like McLaren cannot find a title sponsor, what hope do teams like Force India and Sauber have?

[CookinFlat6]

Absolutely no hope. Which i suspect is the agenda. Therefore the revenue sharing and tv income doesnt have to be shared even more in favour of the teams than they are now.

Lets face it Bernies original deal was 50/50, and since then he has had to bribe and increasing number of teams once Ferrari let the cat out of the bag about their extra 2.5% from the teams 50%. So Bernie/CVCs share is now around 40%, if they have to help small teams that goes down even more. So once the small teams are forced out leaving only the ones being bribed right now, no more worries about teams failing or wanting a handout.

Ofcourse the problem then is, without a certain amount of cars on the grid, the main agreements with the hosts and Tv companies goes into default and there is a paper loss of billions for Bernies/CVCs equity. So either force the existing bribed teams (who appear to have agreed to field a third car as part of the bribe) to provide the extra cars to make up the numbers, or turn it into a 2 tier show by allowing customers to turn up and race for a fixed price.

Either way, we can safely say the F1 of the last decade will not last beyond 2015, and the big winners amongst the teams will be Merc - all customers will want a cheap yet 'profitable for Merc' B spec engine and McLaren and Williams providing chassis and other bits. Renault cant sell cheap engines and Ferrari dont really make chassis or engines anyone will want after seeing the grid position of Ferrari Sauber and Marrusia, so they might struggle. Honda should be ok as a package with McLaren chassis

[andrew]

You ask a 15 or 16 year old kid, “What do you want” and they don’t know. The challenge is getting the audience in the first place. I say to some people who start this nonsense about social media, look at what tobacco companies tried to do, get people smoking their brand early on because then people continue smoking their brand forever.
“If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

And so I rest my case, all those who rubbished the idea of tobbaco or alcohol sponsorship having no effect on kids 'who are well brought up by their parents' or who said 'the nanny state is not needed to protect our kids from old predators' you can all queue up to admit you were too trusting with regard to a certain evil old troglodyte and why alcohol will be removed

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/11/does-bernie-ecclestone-mean-what-he-says-about-f1-not-needing-social-media-and-young-audiences/

Been watching F1 for longer than I care to remember and I don't smoke and have never thought of taking it up, nor have I ever really drunk excessivly.

Rest your case all you like but your case is deeply flawed.

[CookinFlat6]

Its flawed but thats all you know? You dont know how its flawed but you know

Seems like your year away has not been spent expanding your knowledge beyond the 1 dimensional argumentum a contrario, Although by definition not a logical fallacy and actually viable when used by some, the fact it seems to be all you do means you should find some kindred spirits who prefer the fallacies

So provide ONE logical sentence/premise explaining the flaw and I can rspond like this is a new andrew that has something to add to the collective knowledge of the forum

[andrew]

:rofl:

Its flawed but thats all you know? You dont know how its flawed but you know

Seems like your year away has not been spent expanding your knowledge beyond the 1 dimensional argumentum a contrario, Although by definition not a logical fallacy and actually viable when used by some, the fact it seems to be all you do means you should find some kindred spirits who prefer the fallacies

So provide ONE logical sentence/premise explaining the flaw and I can rspond like this is a new andrew that has something to add to the collective knowledge of the forum

I actually gave you an example and other have explained it to you already. Try reading more than just your own posts Cooking.

Respond how you like, makes no difference.

[stonemonkey]

You ask a 15 or 16 year old kid, “What do you want” and they don’t know. The challenge is getting the audience in the first place. I say to some people who start this nonsense about social media, look at what tobacco companies tried to do, get people smoking their brand early on because then people continue smoking their brand forever.
“If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

And so I rest my case, all those who rubbished the idea of tobbaco or alcohol sponsorship having no effect on kids 'who are well brought up by their parents' or who said 'the nanny state is not needed to protect our kids from old predators' you can all queue up to admit you were too trusting with regard to a certain evil old troglodyte and why alcohol will be removed

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/11/does-bernie-ecclestone-mean-what-he-says-about-f1-not-needing-social-media-and-young-audiences/

Been watching F1 for longer than I care to remember and I don't smoke and have never thought of taking it up, nor have I ever really drunk excessivly.

Rest your case all you like but your case is deeply flawed.

I would guess most 15/16 yr olds (or whatever age) first experience of alcohol comes from their parents or friends parents drinks cabinets, with or without their consent. Either that or an older sibling or friend supplying them. Very little to do with advertising and more to do with peers.

[andrew]

You ask a 15 or 16 year old kid, “What do you want” and they don’t know. The challenge is getting the audience in the first place. I say to some people who start this nonsense about social media, look at what tobacco companies tried to do, get people smoking their brand early on because then people continue smoking their brand forever.
“If you have a brand that you want to put in front of a few hundred million people, I can do that easily for you on television.

And so I rest my case, all those who rubbished the idea of tobbaco or alcohol sponsorship having no effect on kids 'who are well brought up by their parents' or who said 'the nanny state is not needed to protect our kids from old predators' you can all queue up to admit you were too trusting with regard to a certain evil old troglodyte and why alcohol will be removed

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2014/11/does-bernie-ecclestone-mean-what-he-says-about-f1-not-needing-social-media-and-young-audiences/

Been watching F1 for longer than I care to remember and I don't smoke and have never thought of taking it up, nor have I ever really drunk excessivly.

Rest your case all you like but your case is deeply flawed.

I would guess most 15/16 yr olds (or whatever age) first experience of alcohol comes from their parents or friends parents drinks cabinets, with or without their consent. Either that or an older sibling or friend supplying them. Very little to do with advertising and more to do with peers.

That's how it went for me. I was brought up by parents who were not big drinkers and I honestly never saw drunk. They are both non-smokers and were raised by smokers who wish they didn't smoke. My grandparents made sure my parents never took up smoking and my parents did the same with me. But wait, I've been watching F1 since I was a baby! Surely I should be blind drunk right now and on my 67th smoke today?

Advertising isn't the problem here, educating the kids is. Making sure they don't bow down to peer pressure. Hiding away alcohol and tobacco products will make them seem even more attractive to the rebelious juvenile mind.

[LRW]

You are quite the Child Expert Andy.

[CookinFlat6]

Very little to do with advertising and more to do with peers.

Ok, you are exactly right - very little to do with advertising - its that little bit thats unacceptable that can be legislated for. As long as there is a little bit of influence of Martini Williams causing any kind of little bit of subliminal suggestion that alcohol is not a poision that causes a drain on the welfare system, then it is easy prey for legislation.

Its much harder to tackle the peer group pressures etc

We need to define this debate so we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. So here goes

Alcohol and tobacco like drugs cause a burden on the welfare state - FACT
Advertising, sponsorship, marketing, product placement in films etc have an effect, however slight on the numbers who become a drain on the welfare state - FACT (otherwise that would mean advertising is a waste of money and no one has noticed)
Policy makers make policies that need money - FACT
Tobbacco and alcohol and drugs are no longer allowed to be advertised - FACT
F1 offered a way around this ban by reminding EVERYONE watching about these products - FACT

Ok so far so good I hope

Now, does F1 sponsorship by Sahara or Johnnie Wallker or Martini make kids jump in cars and drive around drinking Martini? Ofcourse not
Can F1 therefore plead exemption from these laws? - Can F1 demonstrate that there Is NO effect? - Of course not

So we have come to the point where F1 having resisted for so long is now easy prey for any elected policy maker looking to get a few more votes etc

So whats the argument? Apart from those who just like to get emotional and moan and b!tch about the nanny state and political correctness and anything else - Is the argunment that someone is picking on F1? - nope F1 got away with murder for long enough
Is the argument that the rules are too restrictive? that argument and debate was done years ago, where were you then to speak up, speaking up now is pointless, its done
Is the argument that alcohol advertising has no effect on kids? - are you serious? where have you been for the last 20 years? again you missed the boat, its done and dusted, maybe the influence is 0.0000001% but that was enough for one side to WIN and introduce smoking bans in public places, stick health messages on cigarette packets etc

Why turn up on an F1 forum to fight for a case thats done and dusted years ago?

Why not discuss how the (unfair, restrictive blahblahblah, nanny state blahblah) LAW will affect F1?

People where arguing about the link between advertising and 15/16 year olds 20 years ago, the marlboro man advert was banned, lots of stuff have happened since

Why waste time and energy getting emotional about our rights to smoke drink and fck ourselves to death if we want to when its done and dusted????

[What's Burning?]

That is my worry, when a team like McLaren cannot find a title sponsor, what hope do teams like Force India and Sauber have?

PLEASE DON'T SAY THAT!

I've had the discussion with McLaren Tifosi! so I've gone down that road before. You've got it all wrong. It's not a team like McLaren not being able to find a title sponsor, it's a McLaren unwilling to take a penny less than the money they demand from a title sponsor, so they chose to go without, after all they don't need the money the budget for this year's team is actually larger than last year's!