Captain Hammer wrote:I've read over the Saward and Pitpass articles on the idea of Coke sponsoring McLaren, and I have to say, the Pitpass one seems to be far more credible. I know, Pitpass doesn't have the greatest reputation, and I don't think much of Saward, but I'm trying not to let either of those colour my thoughts on the subject.
Pitpass describe Coca-Cola as doing some serious research on Formula 1 recently, and while we only have their word on that, Saward's entire argument is that Lucozade's presence on the McLarens makes it impossible for Coke to sponsor them. And I'd be inclined to agree with that, but several things spring to mind: firstly, that Lucozade isn't the only brand owned by GlaxoSmithKline. They own the likes of Macleans, Nicorette and NiQuitin. Lucozade is perhaps the GSK brand that fits sports sponsorship best, but I could see Nicorette appearing on the car. Secondly, Saward doesn't even explore the way contracts can be bought out. Will Buxton, on the other hand, reckons that the rumours are actually fairly serious, and while Lucozade's branding does make things difficult, he seems to think it could be done.
In short, it appears that Saward is attacking the Pitpass report because it was written by Pitpass, rather than based on the actual content of the story. I had to laugh during the telecast of the British Grand Prix when the Australian commentators referred to him as "the respected journalist, Joe Saward". Saward isn't respected - just read the comments section of his blog. He can't post a story without someone criticsing him for it, and he can't take those criticisms down without a repeat of the "Mallya lied" saga, when he deleted any comments that opposed him.
JSNSNBM. He is a bad influence, and a worse journalist.