Elliott too short in post-race interview.

#31

On 07 Oct 2003 06:05:43 GMT, khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com (KHanawalt) wrote:

Quote:

For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way too much
consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars that those
guys drive........ You know that without sponsors there'd be no racing, right?

WRONG! many races, on a regular bases, go on throughout the entire
world without sponsoship. You need to expand your horizon a bit. There
is more to the world than what come through that little box in your
house.

Quote:

However - how does Bill's curt response have
anything at all to do with his sponsors?

Ever hear of PR? That's why the sponsors pay the big bucks for these guys to
race--so they get their label on TV, and they don't like their label to be
associated with jerk-like behavior.

JaNaL? Is that you?

Quote:

Clueless. Have you ever competed at anything?

Sure, and when I lost I didn't act like a two-year-old.....except when I was
two.

I love to see a little emotion after a race if the situation warrants
it, but this one just looked like sour grapes to me.

And you define *if* the situation warrants it?

Here's an example: If Newman had done a bump-and-run to win.

Another? If someone hit him on pit road and ruined his car.

Another? If a Bodine lost it on his inside and put him into the wall.

Another? If Dale Jr. was blocking him for 10 laps and Waltrip won.

Another? If no one hit you, but you still couldn't make it past the leader
even though you had 15 laps to do it? No way. No harm no foul. Just racin'.

Bill has always had class before. Don't know what happened here.

He was responding to what the pit reporter said. Obviously a fact you
missed.

Quote:

KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Gentlemen, Eat my shorts ($1 to Bart)

#32

In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:

Quote:

For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way
too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars that
those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors there'd be
no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the sponsor
can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a couple of recent
cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry about what the sponsors want
do so from their armchairs as justification for their petty little bitches.
The sponsors do not seem to care one tenth as much as the crybabies in here
want them to.

Quote:

However - how does Bill's curt response have
anything at all to do with his sponsors?

Ever hear of PR? That's why the sponsors pay the big bucks for these
guys to race--so they get their label on TV, and they don't like
their label to be associated with jerk-like behavior.

Not nearly as much as folks would have you believe. Count the number of
times that sponsors have raised any stink with a driver.

Quote:

Clueless. Have you ever competed at anything?

Sure, and when I lost I didn't act like a two-year-old.....except
when I was two.

And neither did Bill. (and I'm not even a Bill fan).

Quote:

I love to see a little emotion after a race if the situation
warrants it, but this one just looked like sour grapes to me.

And you define *if* the situation warrants it?

Here's an example: If Newman had done a bump-and-run to win.

Another? If someone hit him on pit road and ruined his car.

Another? If a Bodine lost it on his inside and put him into the wall.

Another? If Dale Jr. was blocking him for 10 laps and Waltrip won.

Another? If no one hit you, but you still couldn't make it past the
leader even though you had 15 laps to do it? No way. No harm no
foul. Just racin'.

Bill has always had class before. Don't know what happened here.
KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Those are all fine enough situations, but they are not exhaustive. My
comment was intended to question why you feel you have the right to define
the situation which warrants emotion.
--

-Mike-
mmarlow (AT) REMOVEsprintmail (DOT) com

#33

Mike Marlow wrote:

Quote:

In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way
too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars that
those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors there'd be
no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the
sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a couple
of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry about what
the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as justification for
their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not seem to care one
tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Quote:

However - how does Bill's curt response have
anything at all to do with his sponsors?

Ever hear of PR? That's why the sponsors pay the big bucks for these
guys to race--so they get their label on TV, and they don't like
their label to be associated with jerk-like behavior.

Not nearly as much as folks would have you believe. Count the number
of times that sponsors have raised any stink with a driver.

Clueless. Have you ever competed at anything?

Sure, and when I lost I didn't act like a two-year-old.....except
when I was two.

And neither did Bill. (and I'm not even a Bill fan).

I love to see a little emotion after a race if the situation
warrants it, but this one just looked like sour grapes to me.

And you define *if* the situation warrants it?

Here's an example: If Newman had done a bump-and-run to win.

Another? If someone hit him on pit road and ruined his car.

Another? If a Bodine lost it on his inside and put him into the
wall.

Another? If Dale Jr. was blocking him for 10 laps and Waltrip won.

Another? If no one hit you, but you still couldn't make it past the
leader even though you had 15 laps to do it? No way. No harm no
foul. Just racin'.

Bill has always had class before. Don't know what happened here.
KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Those are all fine enough situations, but they are not exhaustive. My
comment was intended to question why you feel you have the right to
define the situation which warrants emotion.

#34

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:56:09 -0400, "R a p p y" <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mike Marlow wrote:

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the
sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a couple
of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry about what
the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as justification for
their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not seem to care one
tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Has Goodwrench done the same with Kevin?

If not, the match aint' over ..........

Pete

#35

R a p p y wrote:

Quote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way
too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars
that those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors
there'd be no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the
sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a couple
of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry about what
the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as justification for
their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not seem to care one
tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Ummmmmm because he physically attacked someone. That's close to saying
"whatever" I guess. LOL! For Christs sake, Bill is as about as low key and
non trouble making as you can get, quit trying to blow this out of
proportion. He's going to hang it up soon and I know you're grasping at a
way to try and discredit his career but he will go down as one of the top 25
drivers in Nascar history and nothing you can say or do will change that
fact.

Quote:

However - how does Bill's curt response have
anything at all to do with his sponsors?

Ever hear of PR? That's why the sponsors pay the big bucks for
these guys to race--so they get their label on TV, and they don't
like their label to be associated with jerk-like behavior.

Not nearly as much as folks would have you believe. Count the number
of times that sponsors have raised any stink with a driver.

Clueless. Have you ever competed at anything?

Sure, and when I lost I didn't act like a two-year-old.....except
when I was two.

And neither did Bill. (and I'm not even a Bill fan).

I love to see a little emotion after a race if the situation
warrants it, but this one just looked like sour grapes to me.

And you define *if* the situation warrants it?

Here's an example: If Newman had done a bump-and-run to win.

Another? If someone hit him on pit road and ruined his car.

Another? If a Bodine lost it on his inside and put him into the
wall.

Another? If Dale Jr. was blocking him for 10 laps and Waltrip won.

Another? If no one hit you, but you still couldn't make it past the
leader even though you had 15 laps to do it? No way. No harm no
foul. Just racin'.

Bill has always had class before. Don't know what happened here.
KennyH

Horsepower is cheaper than therapy.

Those are all fine enough situations, but they are not exhaustive.
My comment was intended to question why you feel you have the right
to define the situation which warrants emotion.

#36

In news:blv289$qd4$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:

Quote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way
too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars
that those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors
there'd be no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the
sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a couple
of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry about what
the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as justification for
their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not seem to care one
tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Oh come on Jim - read what I wrote again. I clearly said - even repeated...
"a couple of cases". Yes, I was referring to the Home Depot debacle and to
the Rubbermaid debacle. Two cases where sponsors way overstepped their
bounds simply because the world of sponsorship has overextended itself to
the realm of housewife sensativities.

No game, no set and no match. You have to return the serve first.
--

-Mike-
mmarlow (AT) REMOVEsprintmail (DOT) com

#37

Mike Marlow wrote:

Quote:

In news:blv289$qd4$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting way
too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars
that those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors
there'd be no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then the
sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a
couple of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry
about what the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as
justification for their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not
seem to care one tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them
to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Oh come on Jim - read what I wrote again. I clearly said - even
repeated... "a couple of cases". Yes, I was referring to the Home
Depot debacle and to the Rubbermaid debacle. Two cases where
sponsors way overstepped their bounds simply because the world of
sponsorship has overextended itself to the realm of housewife
sensativities.

No game, no set and no match. You have to return the serve first.

Ok...............

So what do you think sponsors should be able to expect from their drivers?

#38

In news:bm0nll$5pi$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:

Quote:

Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:blv289$qd4$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the
following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting
way too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars
that those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors
there'd be no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then
the sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a
couple of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry
about what the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as
justification for their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not
seem to care one tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them
to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Oh come on Jim - read what I wrote again. I clearly said - even
repeated... "a couple of cases". Yes, I was referring to the Home
Depot debacle and to the Rubbermaid debacle. Two cases where
sponsors way overstepped their bounds simply because the world of
sponsorship has overextended itself to the realm of housewife
sensativities.

No game, no set and no match. You have to return the serve first.

Ok...............

So what do you think sponsors should be able to expect from their
drivers?

Fair question - what I believe they ought to be able to expect is one
thing... I believe they ought to expect car placement and TV time. To some
degree both good and bad (to a limit) press will achieve that for the
sponsors. Beyond that I *do* belive some expect more than that these days,
as in the case of Home Depot and Rubbermaid, but like I said, I believe that
most sponsors have demonstrated that they are not as intrusive as these two.
--

-Mike-
mmarlow (AT) REMOVEsprintmail (DOT) com

#39

"R a p p y" <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

So what do you think sponsors should be able to expect from their
drivers?

To not smack the tar out of stupid reporters?

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

#40

Mike Marlow wrote:

Quote:

In news:bm0nll$5pi$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:blv289$qd4$1 (AT) bob (DOT) news.rcn.net,
R a p p y <rappy (AT) not (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the following:
Mike Marlow wrote:
In news:20031007020543.08032.00000320 (AT) mb-m11 (DOT) aol.com,
KHanawalt <khanawalt (AT) aol (DOT) com> burped and spewed forth the
following:
For one - Screw the sponsors! The damned sponsors are getting
way too much consideration these days.

Hmmm......maybe it's because they are paying for those fast cars
that those guys drive........ You know that without sponsors
there'd be no racing, right?

When the sponsor does not care for what the driver is doing then
the sponsor can bitch directly to the driver as has been done is a
couple of recent cases - read that - a couple. Folks that cry
about what the sponsors want do so from their armchairs as
justification for their petty little bitches. The sponsors do not
seem to care one tenth as much as the crybabies in here want them
to.

Gee...........how soon they forget.
Why did Home Depot demand Tony Stewart go get help?

Game set and match...............

Oh come on Jim - read what I wrote again. I clearly said - even
repeated... "a couple of cases". Yes, I was referring to the Home
Depot debacle and to the Rubbermaid debacle. Two cases where
sponsors way overstepped their bounds simply because the world of
sponsorship has overextended itself to the realm of housewife
sensativities.

No game, no set and no match. You have to return the serve first.

Ok...............

So what do you think sponsors should be able to expect from their
drivers?

Fair question - what I believe they ought to be able to expect is one
thing... I believe they ought to expect car placement and TV time.
To some degree both good and bad (to a limit) press will achieve that
for the sponsors. Beyond that I *do* belive some expect more than
that these days, as in the case of Home Depot and Rubbermaid, but
like I said, I believe that most sponsors have demonstrated that they
are not as intrusive as these two.

We have basic differences in what we believe sponsors expect.
In the past decade drivers like Gordon have forever changed the landscape
in thar reguard IMHO. What main sponsors pay for a year now is 10-15
million.
That's a far cry from what it was in the past..... Winning is the ultimate
for a sponsor
in terms of exposure, but beyond that they want as much driver face time on
TV as they
can get. Elliott had not only he chance but IMHO the obligation to give the
customary
interviews. Yes they are drivers first..........but they are also
spokesman and if they can't
carry that off then sponsors will take their money elsewhere or demand a
driver change.

Sure in the case of former champions and top notch teams they will look the
other way most
of the time but the trend is that sponsors have more and more power in who
teams hire for a driver
and how the person acts. It's nearly as important to sponsors as on track
performance is.

Pretend your big wheel at Dodge and you're watching the race.........they
stick a mic
in Bill's face after a great run and he does what he did. Would you be
pissed?

It's not like the 9 and 19 get air time like that very often..........