“Is it April 1st?” Hamilton’s decision stunned race engineer Bonnington

40 comments on ““Is it April 1st?” Hamilton’s decision stunned race engineer Bonnington”

1. 

   T
   4th February 2024, 0:54

   I absolutely adore how we kind of hand wave Andretti’s role in missing the most important email they’ve ever received so far but go in hard on FOM for not going out of their way to make sure Andretti replies to its emails. Andretti is the applicant here but somehow it is FOM’s responsibility to ensure the applicant answers questions because that’s how that works apparently.

   Like we’ve gotten to the point where we’re making up scenarios and false dichotomies entirely to justify our anger at FOM’s decision to turn down the offer and revisit it at a later time. If this was LKYSUNZ or some other entrant we couldn’t care less about, we’d be asking questions like why are they claiming to be building a car with a rule book that doesn’t exist or why even are they working on a car they legally can’t touch until 2025 or maybe why didn’t they follow up with the questionnaire they sent back. But hey, an excuse the likes of ‘the dog ate my homework’ and ‘actually I changed my mind because of you’ will suffice if it means we don’t have to read the report and point the pitchfork at FOM.

   just a mild observation, we can carry on with this…whatever…this…is
   1. 

      Aaron MacPhee
      4th February 2024, 1:08

      If FOM were asking for something, rather than supposedly offering something, they surely would have followed up. Does that not give some insight into intentions or expectations in context of the lack of follow-up?
      1. 

         T
         4th February 2024, 2:40

         Oh let me myself clear, I absolutely agree and acknowledge FOM has no incentive whatsoever to agree to Andretti’s entry. they don’t need them, like at all

         I also think we should establish that FOM were not and are not offering anything to Andretti. Its the other way around. FOM does not need anything from them. They already have all the stuff from the FIA Andretti submitted. this is effectively the second part of a job interview.
         the report states, FOM sent documentation for Andretti to fill out, along with a process letter detailing exactly how FOM intends to conduct its assessment. Andretti subsequently filled it out then FOM wanted to allow Andretti to make a case in person for their entry before deliberation and Andretti never replied (the email). FOM made its deliberation and turned down their entry for now citing various reasons while leaving the door open to be revisited in 2028.

         I don’t see how it’s FOM’s responsibility to ensure Andretti answer their email. This wasn’t a party FOM was hosting, they didn’t need a head count for catering. In fact, Andretti is aware of FOM’s process in the Process Letter. So I’m really really having a hard time giving Andretti the benefit of the doubt here like many of my colleagues are. They knew what the next steps were so why not follow up if you believe there isn’t progress? You’ve been hounding FOM about feeling snubbed but you couldn’t be bothered to check in on your last submission? No email, no official letter correspondence, couldn’t talk to MBS?

         It’s all right there in the report. I don’t know how much more clear it can get, so it boggles my mind that we’re siding with an entrant that is known for it’s iron grip on public narrative and has been spinning half truths and bold face lies for the better part of a year.

         I’m seriously asking here, somebody clue me in on the memo you all were clearly cc’d on.
         1. 

            Tristan
            4th February 2024, 3:42

            somebody clue me in on the memo you all were clearly cc’d on

            It’s a bit laughable to suggest Andretti has an iron grip on public narrative compared to Formula 1 which is very strict with its media accreditation standards and what they allow their brand to be associated with.

            I think it’s just in general a bit of people being sick of seeing the same 3 teams at the top for over a decade now with everyone else miles behind, while F1 uses competitiveness as a reason to disallow new entrants that could disrupt the status quo. Teams like Haas and Williams coming out publicly in the last year against a new entrant hasn’t really helped F1’s argument here. And then you’ve got the bitcoin casino and arguably biggest payment processor in the world bankrolling another 2 teams which aren’t performing.

            It’s easy to question who’s spinning the half-truths and bold-faced lies when it comes to Andretti’s denial. Especially when F1 implies Andretti is not a recognisable name or associated with competitive motorsports performance.

            I don’t think the public reaction is unexpected or unreasonable, even if I agree that Andretti’s spam folder excuse is a bit laughable. They’d get more respect from me if they just said, “We know putting on a dog and pony show wouldn’t have made a difference as FOM already made up their mind.” It’s not as if F1 has been giving them a warm reception at any point.
            1. 

               T
               4th February 2024, 5:15

               I don’t think it’s laughable, almost everything we’ve heard about the application and it’s accompanying process has been from Andretti. FOM’s strict accreditation standards and brand associations is just… business 101 and I’m not sure what exactly it has to do with an 11th team

               I think it’s just in general a bit of people being sick of seeing the same 3 teams at the top for over a decade now with everyone else miles behind, while F1 uses competitiveness as a reason to disallow new entrants that could disrupt the status quo.

               See this is the argument that bothers me.
               When it suits us, Andretti is here to shake things up but when FOM cites that exact same expectation as a reason to inquire if Andretti understands what it’s signing up for, we don’t like that.
               FOM is completely and objectively correct in the assessment that it doesn’t need andretti and in fact granting Andretti a commercial license right now would be more beneficial to Andretti than FOM. F1 is still growing, making billions, and diversifying even in the middle of Max’s unparalleled dominance. So if Andretti are to provide value, they need to, HAVE to, hit the ground as giant killers. How exactly are they going to do that with zero experience building their own car, being a B team for Alpine and having to build two different cars for two different regulations in two years? How is this not a Haas 2.0 in the making?

               FOM’s implication of Andretti lesser name recognition is completely fair. The type of audience f1 has cultivated are motorsport newcomers in no part thanks to DTS. Established names mean nothing to them not to the mention the concrete fact that Andretti’s involvement in other motorsports aren’t exactly setting those series on fire. Some people still don’t know they compete in formula e and they just won it. This application process has done more for their brand cache than the last five years across all their motorsport efforts. Andretti has won one thing over the last decade if memory serves – the aforementioned formula e title and that’s more on Porsche for making an excellent powertrain and the heavy helping of luck and Dennis’ work.

               I don’t think FOM is spotless and like I already mentioned I acknowledge their reluctance in this matter, I just don’t see how Andretti is being paraded as a martyr here. It’s state of the art factory? Still a render. You can find a litany of quotes from Mario or Micheal listing random locations in America based on who they’re talking to as the base for production. All of which don’t exist or have broken ground. At one point I believe Michael heavily alluded that a 2026 engine was possible. 2026 engine deadlines had passed and Cadillac was still non committal at that point. Now in their official response they’re claiming actually they’re working towards 2026 (an interesting choice given the rules aren’t codified and it’d be illegal to work on a 2026 car) after citing 2025 as an entry point with micheal claiming a few months ago a 2024 x scale spec car has been built is undergoing testing while simultaneously hiring staff.

               Come on if this was any other entry would we be heaping this much benefit of the doubt? Like I get we don’t care for FOM right now but we’re not even trying to hold some skepticism over Andretti’s words. We’re just taking them as gospel or glossing over them when it barely makes sense or is straight up contradictory
            2. 

               Tristan
               4th February 2024, 5:47

               Your entire reply is essentially “I agree with FOM” which is fine, make that point.

               No need to frame it as everyone else being wrong for their opinion as you have in your original comment.
            3. 

               T
               4th February 2024, 6:50

               I never framed it as that. I called no one wrong.
               I just don’t understand what others’ point of view is especially when we have data to work with. Maybe I am missing something.
               This is like the fifth time over the last week I’m having this conversation across multiple platforms and it always ends like this. I raise some questions, it doesn’t get answered and they walk away high and mighty, like they’ve made some salient point.
               It’s just frustrating how legitimate questions and skepticism levied at Andretti is immediately seen as a stamp of approval for fom even it’s made distinctively clear FOM is not spotless.

               I’m starting to realize why having a nuanced conversation on the Internet is a fruitless endeavor. Cheers, I’m off to bed, thanks for taking the time to reply!!
            4. 

               Tristan
               4th February 2024, 8:14

               it doesn’t get answered

               You asked a question, I specifically answered it assuming you asked it in good faith, but really you just wanted to argue.
               Maybe you’re having the same arguments because that’s all you’re looking to do, disagree and argue…

               Why not just make your point and move on? Life isn’t about forcing others to agree with your opinion.
            5. 

               anon
               4th February 2024, 8:53

               Tristan, with due respect, when you say that “Life isn’t about forcing others to agree with your opinion.” – you seem to be rather determined to force T to agree to your opinion from the way that you are posting.
            6. 

               MichaelN
               4th February 2024, 10:02

               The share of the audience that’s new is a bit overstated; the viewing figures for DTS are just a tiny fraction of the number of viewers F1 claims for its races.

               Growing F1 in the USA has long been a desire of F1 and the teams, and its precisely there that Andretti is definitely a big motorsport name. Sure, maybe not in Abu Dhabi or Madrid or Shanghai, but that’s not really important. People in Manilla or Athens aren’t constantly thinking about Williams either. The only global players that matter are already in F1 in Mercedes and Ferrari.

               The FOM response is just all-round comedy, because they’re talking about things that are none of their concern. If Andretti is too slow, they won’t be allowed to participate. It’s not a problem. If Andretti needs an engine, the rules have a process for that. It’s not a problem, although it’ll be awkward for 2026 especially with three one-team suppliers currently announced complicating things.

               Whether or not Andretti can de competitive for race wins and podiums is a bogus standard. Is Haas? Williams? Sauber? Alpine? Red Bull’s test team? Heck, even Aston Martin and Mercedes weren’t competitive for wins. This is not a standard, it’s just FOM trying to demean Andretti but making itself look silly in the process.
            7. 

               Tristan
               4th February 2024, 11:52

               Err @anon what opinion? If anything my opinion agrees with T’s lol. All I did was try to explain what they apparently couldn’t understand, why people are siding with FOM. In many of my comments on this site I’ve said how I think Andretti’s proposal is fishy and how FOM are in the right.

               Doesn’t mean I’m going to kick up a fuss and ask why people don’t understand that… Both sides of the argument are really easy to understand.

               Beating a dead horse at this point.
            8. 

               T
               4th February 2024, 15:20

               Hey Tristan, I asked multiple questions
               You handpicked one to answer
               I replied with my answer and more questions
               You did not answer and essentially called me a FOM apologist – my phrasing, feel free to correct – even after I’d made clear multiple times I don’t think FOM are in the clear
               I called that out and went to bed
               Explain to me exactly how I’m arguing in bad faith here?
               While you’re at it, feel free to tackle any of the other questions or points I asked above or don’t, honestly I’m tired of this.
               this isn’t productive for either of us. Let’s take your advice and “move on”

               MichaelN,

               The share of the audience that’s new is a bit overstated; the viewing figures for DTS are just a tiny fraction of the number of viewers F1 claims for its races.

               They aren’t overstated, the lastest survey sampling conducted by motorsport network, Nielsen and formula 1 make it clear f1 is enjoying unprecedented growth, specifically new growth. And that data has three more new years of growth to account for.
               I also wasn’t talking about global players, Andretti’s claim is galvanizing the United States and F1 has already done that and is continuing to do so, sporting integrity be damned so if Andretti are to provide value, they need to hit the ground flying – giant killers If you will – this is where FOM comes in making claims about competitiveness rightly or wrongly.

               You can think it’s comedy but both parties in FIA and FOM seemed to have up the ante on their requirements for new entrants. For the first time ever, the fia was legitimately evaluating an entrant’s societal impact and their sustainability benchmarks, what does that have to do with sporting regulations? I’m glad the FIA did look into it but I wouldn’t begrudge anyone for calling it comedy
            9. 

               MichaelN
               4th February 2024, 20:59

               That group of respondents that trends younger is also relatively newer to F1 is no surprise. It’d be odd if these younger people were somehow watching F1 for over 10 years.

               Netflix, like Liberty, is a bit opaque in how it reports its viewer counts – preferring to list ‘cumulative minutes viewed’ instead. So an audience of about 6 million viewers for Drive to Survive seems very much at the high end, whereas Liberty claims about 70 million viewers on average for F1 races (1.5 billion cumulatively for all the races). I’m sure the series has brought new people into F1, but it’s still just a small part of the total audience; and that’s assuming every Netflix watcher becomes an avid follower of F1, which seems unlikely.

               That the FIA is serious about Andretti is a good thing. That FOM thinks its their job to guesstimate how competitive Andretti can be is pointless, and indeed comical. FOM and the teams have just come out of a season where 8 teams spent billions of dollars to win all of 1 race. And they’re now the experts on how to be competitive? Not likely. Let’s also not forget the big role FOM played in drafting the regulations that produced F1’s most dominant season by a single team since 1988. These are not the experts they think they are.
         2. 

            EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
            4th February 2024, 4:09

            They knew what the next steps were so why not follow up if you believe there isn’t progress? You’ve been hounding FOM about feeling snubbed but you couldn’t be bothered to check in on your last submission?

            Sounds very simple when summarized in that way.. but ‘did they know’ the next step was an invite to a meeting. And given how drawn out this has been, at what time do you determine there has been insufficient progress?

            In my view, if FOM want to send out an invite without chasing it up, that’s up to them. But to use that in any way to discredit the intended recipient is a little underhand.
            1. 

               T
               4th February 2024, 5:23

               at whichever time they want, waiting for a reply or an approval has never stopped them. Didn’t you hear? their work continues at pace!! Even before the FIA’s approval, Micheal and Mario had been on record expressly stating they are operating on the basis of a greenlight

               As to whether they knew the next step was an in person meeting, I can’t answer that only FOM and or Andretti can. We do know Andretti weren’t clueless sitting ducks:

               Following the FIA’s announcement, we wrote to the Applicant on 10 October 2023, setting out the assessment process, and details of the considerations and decision-making process pursuant to which we would conduct our commercial assessment (the Process Letter). The Process Letter contained a list of questions for the Applicant, to which the Applicant provided responses on 24 October 2023.
         3. 

            S
            4th February 2024, 6:22

            I don’t see how it’s FOM’s responsibility to ensure Andretti answer their email.

            It’s not – but obviously, it is their responsibility to make sure that Andretti are informed.
            It is also, at the very least, respectful to pick up the phone and confirm with Andretti that they did actually receive an email, given that 6 weeks passed between the invitation supposedly going out and FOM’s decision being published.

            FOM could have come out of this looking, at minimum, semi-professional if they could say “We tried to email Andretti, we tried calling them and we even sent a letter in the post, but after 6 weeks we had still received no response – and as such assumed that they are no longer interested in participating in this process.”
            But they can’t say that, can they… All they’ve said, by their own admission, is that they sent an email and received nothing back.
            Alarm bells are ringing if this is how they run a business – never mind one on the scale of F1’s commercial side.
            Their trustworthiness and public image – and by extension, the perception of F1 as a whole – has plummeted (even further) as a direct result of this and they’ve only got themselves to blame.

            couldn’t talk to MBS?

            What good would that do? His organisation (the FIA) has approved Andretti to compete in the F1 World Championship already – and it didn’t go down at all well with Liberty and the existing teams.
         4. 

            Alan Dove
            4th February 2024, 8:12

            “I also think we should establish that FOM were not and are not offering anything to Andretti. Its the other way around. FOM does not need anything from them. They already have all the stuff from the FIA Andretti submitted. this is effectively the second part of a job interview.”

            If you were communicating in good faith, you’d absolutely expect to see the party sending the invite following up in case of any possible error/bug. We need to remember that Liberty specifically stated that “the Applicant did not take us up on this offer”. To state ‘did not take up the offer’ suggests they knew that Andretti saw the invitation. If, and we’re still int he world of ifs, Andretti did not see the email, then what Liberty put out is without doubt very questionable. If you want to state as fact Andretti ‘did not take up the offer’ you better be making damn well sure they saw the offer.
            1. 

               SteveP
               4th February 2024, 9:10

               To state ‘did not take up the offer’ suggests they knew that Andretti saw the invitation.

               It would be interesting to see whether FOM had read-receipt turned on for the mail in question.
               One thing is certain, they knew the mail got there (no mail server reject message) and Andretti have confirmed that it got there.

               T’s comments elsewhere about trusted mail domains and DKIM suggests they are either a techie, and their failure to understand many of the comments here stems from that.
               Techie – rational, logical, evidence based reasoning, emotions are secondary/optional and rarely understood; Cynics by nature.
               Rest of the world – emotionally driven, logic is secondary/optional. Excellent customers, willing to be sold something.
            2. 

               Alan Dove
               4th February 2024, 9:22

               I reject the notion that this logic vs emotion argument. The logical evidence based thing to do is follow-up. If you are to state ‘did not take up offer’ you absolutely need to be on sound ground to state asuch. Errors, bugs, spam, and humans being humans, means the absolutely base level rational thing to do is double check. You need written confirmation of rejection of invite.
            3. 

               T
               4th February 2024, 14:40

               I think it depends on your definition of “did not take up offer”
               You hold the opinion that should mean a definitive no
               Clearly FOM are of the opinion inaction or no response works just as well. And while I think I it’s intentionally ambiguous, I don’t think it’s wrong. No answer this time is an answer especially if you’ve answered prior correspondence.

               I’ve slept on it and we’re not going to agree and like Tristan said, that’s fine. Arguing with strangers on the Internet is the least productive thing I’ve done all week.
            4. 

               Nick T.
               4th February 2024, 22:26

               “T” has seemingly lost his mind here. Imagine FOM had say Tag Heur wanting to become the new official timepiece of F1 at double the cost of Rolex, I wonder if FOM would say “oh, well F them, they haven’t responded to that one email and I don’t think we should spend 10 secs to call, text, etc. to let them know we sent an email.”
   2. 

      chimaera2003 (@chimaera2003)
      4th February 2024, 9:43

      I suspect a good chunk of the issue is that FOM appear to be trying to increase barriers to entry whilst the current ‘product’ (at least in its 2023 guise) is clearly not sustainable. This just gives the impression that FOM care more about the commercial numbers of the current teams as opposed to improving the long-term prospects of the ‘product’, this position will clearly aggravate hardened F1 fans who have an axe to grind with respect to the direction of the sport.

      I’m personally not too bothered on the barriers to entry being raised, what I do have a problem with is that it is clear that some of the incumbent teams wouldn’t meet this criteria either so Andretti aren’t getting a fair shot to demonstrate their suitability.

      The whole ‘whose responsibility is it’ episode on the email just confirms the dynamic in play here. FOM are at best ambivalent towards Andretti and appear to have a heavy preference for the status quo, therefore they aren’t incentivised to chase up. It just perhaps demonstrates the extent that they really weren’t interested at all if they didn’t even try to follow up given they knew how keen Andretti were.
   3. 

      SadF1fan
      4th February 2024, 10:32

      I don’t what your experience is in doing business and owning and running a company. But important B2B meetings are never solely arranged on the basis of an email from a minor employee.
      There are a lot of phone calls to and fro between CEOs and higher management for such a meeting to be put on the agenda.

      The “we send an email and you didn’t show up” argument might hold weight when you are hanging out with your mates, and perhaps for self employed businesses, but on that level its not feasible argument.
      The FOM and LM are playing a media game, one in which they are very well versed. And clearly alot of fans, who have no business experience whatsoever, think that the email argument is a valid one.

      F1 isn’t called the piranha club for no reason, the games are ferocious.
   4. 

      tielemst
      4th February 2024, 12:04

      Although I agree that it’s a bit goofy for Andretti to miss an email, it’s just not enough to let FOM off the hook here. When you make a decision and there has been no response to your request/invitation to meet up before a decision is made it’s very odd the decision is made without reaching out to Andretti at least once more. This comes across as FOM desperately hoping that Andretti would miss that mail.
2. 

   Dex
   4th February 2024, 1:20

   …Asked whether Bonnington might accompany Hamilton to Mercedes he said: “This is a discussion which everyone needs to have in the months to come.”

   This part needs correcting (Mercedes/Ferrari). Feel free to erase the comment, of course; it’s just a “bug” report.
3. 

   GT Racer (@gt-racer)
   4th February 2024, 2:18

   Hearing talk that the next concorde agreement will more than likely cap the number of entries at 10 teams.

   I was actually reminded yesterday. The current concord agreement is based around there been 12 teams so you could actually make the argument that rather than an 11th or 12 team entering F1 taking money away from the current 10 teams it’s actually been the current 10 teams taking a larger piece of the pie than they should be.

   And on the ‘lack of space’ argument. All grade 1 circuits (Including temporary one’s) have to be able to accommodate upto 13 teams/26 cars. As such no circuit should have any issues accomodating an 11th team.
   1. 

      Jere (@jerejj)
      4th February 2024, 6:02

      Not to mention those same pit buildings had enough space for 12 teams in 2010-12.
   2. 

      Jungle
      4th February 2024, 7:34

      I remember at the time thinking it was a rather exorbitant amount and more a deterrent than an invitation to any new team looking to step up.
4. 

   kcrossle (@kcrossle)
   4th February 2024, 3:27

   Long ago I read a book – about writing a resume – which asserted “it is the responsibility of the communicator to assure that the message has been received”.

   That stuck with me throughout my professional career. You’d think that FOM would be professional.
   1. 

      Yellow Baron
      4th February 2024, 14:10

      Exactly. Fom have shown in a couple ways they’re happy to look the other way because they don’t care about andretti’s entry. More towards childish than professional. Infact wouldn’t the most professional way be to just be upfront and say they don’t want them? I suppose they didn’t clearly say that in their release and mentioned 2026 or was it 2028? Still, to overlook communication and not be clear shows what they want or don’t want
   2. 

      baasbas
      5th February 2024, 19:47

      @kcrossle
      I feel you miss a very important nuance there. Without having read the mentioned book: when writing a resume, the writer wants something from the reader. In this case it is the other way around.
5. 

   Tristan
   4th February 2024, 3:49

   Food for thought in that Brawn article. I wonder if there’s a serious possibility of it happening. If Brawn is suggesting it, you’d have to think…
   1. 

      MichaelN
      4th February 2024, 13:43

      It – assuming you’re referencing the move away from hybrids – is definitely possible, but a lot will depend on how scalable that is. Road car manufacturers aren’t going to be super excited about ICEs with fully sustainable fuels if it has no relevance to their main business. That said, there is a huge incentive to make it scalable because the ‘BEV-revolution’ is not nearly as smooth sailing as many of its proponents suggest.

      Currently less than 1 in 40 vehicles in the UK is a BEV. Already, electricity infrastructure in many places is struggling to adapt to the increase in both demand and supply (private solar panels). Upgrading this network will be very expensive, and basically everyone involved is trying to offload those coasts to governments. At the same time, subsidies for these cars are under increased scrutiny for both financial and political reasons. It’s a lot of public money to spend to get already well-off people driving even more expensive cars, when ICEs in that market segment are already among the least problematic (aside from the silly SUVs with pointlessly big engines, of course). But purely from a pollution and efficiency standpoint, there’s much more to be gained by replacing 80s and 90s cars with BEVs (or even just modern ICEs) than trading in 2018 Audi A5s for Teslas.
      1. 

         Lewisham Milton
         4th February 2024, 16:06

         TLAs, FFS…
6. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   4th February 2024, 6:09

   Logically thinking, Ricardo Adami will become Hamilton’s race engineer & Bono should receive whoever ultimately becomes Hamilton’s successor, as unlike trainers (with Pyry Salmela being an exception when he didn’t follow Gasly to Alpine), race engineers generally don’t follow drivers through their team changes.
   For example, Rob Smedley (when Massa moved to Williams), Andrea Stella (alongside Alonso’s Mclaren return), & Ayao Komatsu (Grosjean’s Haas move) eventually didn’t switch to continue as race engineers.
   On a side note, I never realized Komatsu used to play Rugby in the distant past.

   Lawson might still be Red Bull’s first choice, but as he won’t do any active racing this year, he risks losing out for 2025 if Iwasa performs well in Super Formula.
   1. 

      The Dolphins
      5th February 2024, 1:15

      If Ferrari and Lewis are serious about starting strong at the team then all effort should be done to maintain some level of continuity which in this case would mean extending an offer to Bono. Having the two of them navigate a new culture together would undoubtedly be easier than if Lewis did it alone. Regardless I don’t expect Lewis’ move to be a success in terms of race wins but it is a bucket list item for him which is a reason why perhaps he won’t push Bono to join him, especially if Bono’s got a more promising future at Mercedes.
7. 

   OOliver
   4th February 2024, 11:50

   RE: COTD
   I am not a big fan of FOM, but I am curious to know how previous communications have been handled.
   I am a bit suspicious that Andretti is trying to win a sympathy vote from the fans but not willing to fulfill all requirements with FOM
   1. 

      GT Racer (@gt-racer)
      4th February 2024, 14:41

      @OOliver In the Bernie era if there was a meeting he needed to arrange and the fax, e-mail or letter he had sent out initially had gone unanswered he would get somebody to follow up with a phone call (Or do so himself).

      If he needed to arrange a meeting he deemed important and/or urgent he would usually have the initial point of contact be a phone call that he would make himself.

      The fact that in this case Liberty got somebody further down the chain to send it & then made no effort to follow it up suggests to me that it wasn’t a meeting they deemed to be all that important.
8. 

   stefano (@alfa145)
   4th February 2024, 23:50

   Asked whether Bonnington might accompany Hamilton to Mercedes

   you mean to Ferrari, @keithcollantine
9. 

   Boomerang
   6th February 2024, 7:55

   Just stay at Merc Bono to prove that my erased comments are justified. Well, not to mention the other things…

Comments are closed.