Will Hamiltion Move?

He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind Alonzo, will
he be-able to tolerate it? he is only on $500 000 for this season, with a
contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to deliver what do you reckon on
him going to Ferrari in the near future?
Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year.

"Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:5aGdnT4a0JIhsf3bnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...
> He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind Alonzo,
> will he be-able to tolerate it? he is only on $500 000 for this season,
> with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to deliver what do you
> reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near future?
> Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year.
>
If He does not like being second to Alonso I dont think being second to
Massa wil suit

Grant wrote:

> He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind
> Alonzo, will he be-able to tolerate it?

That's a big IF. Don't be fooled, as many were, into thinking that that
fully explains what happened in Monaco.

If things had gone his way, e.g. a SC at nearly anytime in the first
stint he would have been gifted the win and they would not have taken
it away from him.

If Hamilton can genuinly outpace Alonso he will be given the chance to
try for the WDC, but McLaren aren't going to be happy to split the
points all season if Ferrari look threatening. If they think they can
have both championships they won't sacrifice one to allow some in
fighting. Not again.

> he is only on $500 000 for
> this season, with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to
> deliver what do you reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near
> future? Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year.

According to? Edward Gorman?

5 races is still only 5 races.

--

"Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f6xxvz5jn43a01y@news.individual.net...
> Grant wrote:
>
>> He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind
>> Alonzo, will he be-able to tolerate it?
>
> That's a big IF. Don't be fooled, as many were, into thinking that that
> fully explains what happened in Monaco.
>
LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to run two
more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer than FA suggest
even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed to run longer. I think
its obvious what happened.
>
> If things had gone his way, e.g. a SC at nearly anytime in the first
> stint he would have been gifted the win and they would not have taken
> it away from him.
>
> If Hamilton can genuinly outpace Alonso he will be given the chance to
> try for the WDC, but McLaren aren't going to be happy to split the
> points all season if Ferrari look threatening. If they think they can
> have both championships they won't sacrifice one to allow some in
> fighting. Not again.
>
>> he is only on $500 000 for
>> this season, with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to
>> deliver what do you reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near
>> future? Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year.
>
> According to? Edward Gorman?
>
> 5 races is still only 5 races.
>
> --
>

"Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net...

> LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to run
> two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer than FA
> suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed to run longer.
> I think its obvious what happened.

Me too.

To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with impartiality.

http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434

Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I feel
there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an accurate
picture of Lewis' performance.

Andy wrote:

>
> "Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
> news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
>
> > LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to
> > run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer
> > than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed
> > to run longer. I think its obvious what happened.
>
> Me too.
>
> To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with
> impartiality.
>
> http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434
>
> Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I
> feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an
> accurate picture of Lewis' performance.

By not impartial do you mean it doesn't share your conclusions.

The article is a response to the jingistic tabloids. The writer has
come to a conclusion and has presented the evidence to support that
conclusion. It is not an unusual way of writing an article.

Of course anyone who has reached a different conclusion can do the
same. I have yet to read anything of the sort that is in any way
convincing. Most are no better than a tabloid headline themselves.

--

"Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0f72us03rgmne00s@news.individual.net...
> Andy wrote:
>
>>
>> "Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
>> news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>>
>> > LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to
>> > run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer
>> > than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed
>> > to run longer. I think its obvious what happened.
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>> To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with
>> impartiality.
>>
>> http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434
>>
>> Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I
>> feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an
>> accurate picture of Lewis' performance.
>
> By not impartial do you mean it doesn't share your conclusions.
>
> The article is a response to the jingistic tabloids. The writer has
> come to a conclusion and has presented the evidence to support that
> conclusion. It is not an unusual way of writing an article.
>
> Of course anyone who has reached a different conclusion can do the
> same. I have yet to read anything of the sort that is in any way
> convincing. Most are no better than a tabloid headline themselves.
>
Ah Journalism. The writer has come to a conclusion and written evidence to
back it up.
Never let the fact's get in the way of a good story.

Trev wrote:

>
> "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xn0f72us03rgmne00s@news.individual.net...
> > Andy wrote:
> >
> > >
> >>"Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
> > > news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net...
> > >
> > >
> >>> LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed
> to >>> run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was
> longer >>> than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was
> not allowed >>> to run longer. I think its obvious what happened.
> > >
> > > Me too.
> > >
> > > To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with
> > > impartiality.
> > >
> > > http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434
> > >
> > > Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I
> > > feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an
> > > accurate picture of Lewis' performance.
> >
> > By not impartial do you mean it doesn't share your conclusions.
> >
> > The article is a response to the jingistic tabloids. The writer has
> > come to a conclusion and has presented the evidence to support that
> > conclusion. It is not an unusual way of writing an article.
> >
> > Of course anyone who has reached a different conclusion can do the
> > same. I have yet to read anything of the sort that is in any way
> > convincing. Most are no better than a tabloid headline themselves.
> >
> Ah Journalism. The writer has come to a conclusion and written
> evidence to back it up. Never let the fact's get in the way of a
> good story.

An ironic statement to say the very least.

--

	#1
Grant	Will Hamiltion Move? He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind Alonzo, will he be-able to tolerate it? he is only on $500 000 for this season, with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to deliver what do you reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near future? Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year.

	#2
Trev	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? "Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message news:5aGdnT4a0JIhsf3bnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net... > He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind Alonzo, > will he be-able to tolerate it? he is only on $500 000 for this season, > with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to deliver what do you > reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near future? > Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year. > If He does not like being second to Alonso I dont think being second to Massa wil suit

	#3
Bigbird	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? Grant wrote: > He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind > Alonzo, will he be-able to tolerate it? That's a big IF. Don't be fooled, as many were, into thinking that that fully explains what happened in Monaco. If things had gone his way, e.g. a SC at nearly anytime in the first stint he would have been gifted the win and they would not have taken it away from him. If Hamilton can genuinly outpace Alonso he will be given the chance to try for the WDC, but McLaren aren't going to be happy to split the points all season if Ferrari look threatening. If they think they can have both championships they won't sacrifice one to allow some in fighting. Not again. > he is only on $500 000 for > this season, with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to > deliver what do you reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near > future? Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year. According to? Edward Gorman? 5 races is still only 5 races. --

	#4
Grant	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message news:xn0f6xxvz5jn43a01y@news.individual.net... > Grant wrote: > >> He's a winner, if he's asked or manoeuvred in to second behind >> Alonzo, will he be-able to tolerate it? > > That's a big IF. Don't be fooled, as many were, into thinking that that > fully explains what happened in Monaco. > LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed to run longer. I think its obvious what happened. > > If things had gone his way, e.g. a SC at nearly anytime in the first > stint he would have been gifted the win and they would not have taken > it away from him. > > If Hamilton can genuinly outpace Alonso he will be given the chance to > try for the WDC, but McLaren aren't going to be happy to split the > points all season if Ferrari look threatening. If they think they can > have both championships they won't sacrifice one to allow some in > fighting. Not again. > >> he is only on $500 000 for >> this season, with a contract that runs till 2011. If Kimi fails to >> deliver what do you reckon on him going to Ferrari in the near >> future? Where he could earn $40 000 000 a year. > > According to? Edward Gorman? > > 5 races is still only 5 races. > > -- >

	#5
Andy	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? "Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net... > LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to run > two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer than FA > suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed to run longer. > I think its obvious what happened. Me too. To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with impartiality. http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434 Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an accurate picture of Lewis' performance.

	#6
Bigbird	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? Andy wrote: > > "Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message > news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net... > > > > LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed to > > run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was longer > > than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was not allowed > > to run longer. I think its obvious what happened. > > Me too. > > To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with > impartiality. > > http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434 > > Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I > feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an > accurate picture of Lewis' performance. By not impartial do you mean it doesn't share your conclusions. The article is a response to the jingistic tabloids. The writer has come to a conclusion and has presented the evidence to support that conclusion. It is not an unusual way of writing an article. Of course anyone who has reached a different conclusion can do the same. I have yet to read anything of the sort that is in any way convincing. Most are no better than a tabloid headline themselves. --

	#8
Bigbird	Re: Will Hamiltion Move? Trev wrote: > > "Bigbird" <bigbird.usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:xn0f72us03rgmne00s@news.individual.net... > > Andy wrote: > > > > > > >>"Grant" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message > > > news:0pSdnepHMcE_0v3bnZ2dnUVZ8qqlnZ2d@pipex.net... > > > > > > > >>> LH had more Laps in his Tank (FIA Findings) but was only allowed > to >>> run two more Laps than FA. On the first stint, LHs stop was > longer >>> than FA suggest even more laps in hand over FA yet was > not allowed >>> to run longer. I think its obvious what happened. > > > > > > Me too. > > > > > > To my way if thinking this ITV-F1 article is not written with > > > impartiality. > > > > > > http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?T...al&PO_ID=39434 > > > > > > Ok, Lewis has been over-hyped by them too, but in this instance I > > > feel there's a spin on that article which doesn't really paint an > > > accurate picture of Lewis' performance. > > > > By not impartial do you mean it doesn't share your conclusions. > > > > The article is a response to the jingistic tabloids. The writer has > > come to a conclusion and has presented the evidence to support that > > conclusion. It is not an unusual way of writing an article. > > > > Of course anyone who has reached a different conclusion can do the > > same. I have yet to read anything of the sort that is in any way > > convincing. Most are no better than a tabloid headline themselves. > > > Ah Journalism. The writer has come to a conclusion and written > evidence to back it up. Never let the fact's get in the way of a > good story. An ironic statement to say the very least. --