In what alternate universe is it even remotely possible to "honor" a group's opinion by blithely ignoring the group's opinion? What the --- kind of logic is that?Toto Wolff wrote:“It’s clear that you have to support the commercial rights holder and if TV audience dropping I think we have an obligation to listen.”
“When we got the [overwhelmingly negative] reaction afterwards it was not what we expected. You have to honour that, and I think nothing has changed since then. The last race remains double points. Let’s see what we are able to do next year.”
"I can't swim, so I better jump into this water as quickly as possible."
As if anyone really needed the reminder, he was forthright enough to acknowledge the sport's priority here: "...you have to support the commercial rights holder..."
Subsequently left unsaid, yet strongly implied, was: "You do not, however, have to support the group whose existence is the sole reason why commercial rights are even available in the first place."
I really wish F1 had the kind of cohesive fan base required to stage a noticeable boycott of all coverage of the last race. I'd love to see even F1 websites go dark that weekend. (Steven?) This rule is only permitted by the ubiquitous notion that there's no such thing as bad PR.
Well, how about no PR?
Bad dog! No kibble for you.
) are the other obvious area connected to it. It's really no accident that DRS and different tyre strategies gave just about the only proper overtake (2 direct competitors) after opening laps in Malaysia - Alonso-Hulkenberg and driver involved helped. Button-Massa-Bottas another example of how big a difference you need for something to happen. Current tyres/better car over a lap/engine not enough.
