题目内容
Few people, except conspiracy theorists, would have expected so public a spat as the one this week between the two ringmasters of Formula One (F1) motor racing. Bernie Ecelestone, a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. It would seem with his longstanding associate, Max Mosley, president of F1"s governing body, the Federation International of Automobile (FIA). On the surface, the dispute has broken out over what looked like a done deal. Last June, the FIA voted unanimously to extend Mr. Ecelestone"s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast F1 racing, which expire in 2010. For these favorable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecelestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecelestone, who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecelestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the F1 rights after 2010, perhaps in a group of car makers that own F1 teams. For his part, Mr. Ecelestone has, rather theatrically, accused Mr. Mosley of "trying to do some extortion". What is going on Only three things can be stated with confidence. First, the idea that Mr. Ecelestone cannot find the 560 million is ridiculous: his family trust is not exactly short of cash. having raised around $2 billion in the past two years. Second. it would not be in Mr. Ecelestone"s long-term financial interest to discard a deal which could only enhance the value of his family"s remaining 50% stake in SLEC, the holding company for the group of companies that runs the commercial side of F1. Third, the timing of the dispute is very interesting. Why Because the other 50% stake in SLEC owned by EM. TV. a debt-ridden German media company, is up for sale. EM. TV badly needs to sell this stake in the near future to keep its bankers at dead end. The uncertainty created by the dispute between Mr. Ecelestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV"s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecetestone"s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV"s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecelestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion—and the better the deal Mr. Ecelestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV"s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecelestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecelestone has the fight to veto a plan proposed last December by Kireh, a privately owned German media group, to buy half of EM. TV"s holding for $550 million. In the coming weeks, Mr. Ecelestone will doubtless be deploying his formidable negotiating skills to best advantage. It would be hasty to bet against his securing a good deal out of EM. TV"s difficulties. His dispute with the F1A may then be easily resolved. As usual, he holds all the cards. Which statement is probably TRUE
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Few people, except conspiracy theorists, would have expected so public a spat as the one this week between the two ringmasters of Formula One (F1) motor racing. Bernie Ecelestone, a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. It would seem with his longstanding associate, Max Mosley, president of F1"s governing body, the Federation International of Automobile (FIA). On the surface, the dispute has broken out over what looked like a done deal. Last June, the FIA voted unanimously to extend Mr. Ecelestone"s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast F1 racing, which expire in 2010. For these favorable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecelestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecelestone, who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecelestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the F1 rights after 2010, perhaps in a group of car makers that own F1 teams. For his part, Mr. Ecelestone has, rather theatrically, accused Mr. Mosley of "trying to do some extortion". What is going on Only three things can be stated with confidence. First, the idea that Mr. Ecelestone cannot find the 560 million is ridiculous: his family trust is not exactly short of cash. having raised around $2 billion in the past two years. Second. it would not be in Mr. Ecelestone"s long-term financial interest to discard a deal which could only enhance the value of his family"s remaining 50% stake in SLEC, the holding company for the group of companies that runs the commercial side of F1. Third, the timing of the dispute is very interesting. Why Because the other 50% stake in SLEC owned by EM. TV. a debt-ridden German media company, is up for sale. EM. TV badly needs to sell this stake in the near future to keep its bankers at dead end. The uncertainty created by the dispute between Mr. Ecelestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV"s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecetestone"s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV"s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecelestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion—and the better the deal Mr. Ecelestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV"s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecelestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecelestone has the fight to veto a plan proposed last December by Kireh, a privately owned German media group, to buy half of EM. TV"s holding for $550 million. In the coming weeks, Mr. Ecelestone will doubtless be deploying his formidable negotiating skills to best advantage. It would be hasty to bet against his securing a good deal out of EM. TV"s difficulties. His dispute with the F1A may then be easily resolved. As usual, he holds all the cards. The last sentence of the passage implies______.
一奶牛左眼羞明、流泪，眼睑闭合，角膜周围有新生血管，则该病是
Joy William"s quirky fourth novel The Quick and the Dead follows three 16-year-old misfits in an abnormal Charlie"s Angels set in the American south-west. Driven unclearly to defend animal rights, the girls accomplish little beyond curse: they rescue a wounded ox and hurl stones at stuffed elephants. In what is structurally a road novel that ends up where it began, the threesome stumbles upon both cruelty to animals and unlikely romance. A mournful dog is killed by an angry neighbor, a taxidermist falls in love with an 8-year-old direct-action firebrand determined that he pays for his sins. A careen across the barely tamed Arizona prairie, this peculiar book aims less for a traditional storyline than a sequence of noisy (often hilarious) conversations, ridiculous circumstances, and absurdist scene. The consequent long-walk-to-nowhere is both the book"s limitation and its charm. All three girls are motherless. Fiercely political Alice discovers that her parents are her grandparents, who thereupon shrivel: "Lie had kept them young whereas the truth had accelerated them practically into oldness". Both parents of the sorrowful Corvus drowned while driving on a flooded interstate off-ramp. The mother of the more conventional Annabel ("one of those people who would say, we"ll get in touch soonest" when they never wanted to see you again") slammed her car drunkenly into a fish restaurant. Later, Annabel"s father observes to his wife"s ghost. "You didn"t want to order what I ordered, darling". The sharp-tongued ghost snaps back: "That"s because you always ordered badly and wanted me to experience your miserable mistake". Against a roundly apocalyptic world view, the great pleasures of this book are line-by-line. Ms. Williams can break setting and character alike in a few slashes: "it was one of those rugged American places, a remote, sad-ass, but courageous downwind town whose citizens were flawed and brave". Alice"s acerbity spits little wisdoms: putting lost teeth under a pillow for money is "a classic capitalistic consumer trick, designed to wean you away at an early age from healthy horror" and sensible dismay to greedy, deluded, sunny expectancy". Whether or not the novel, like Alice, expressly advocates animal rights, an animal motif crops up in every scene, as flesh-and-blood "critters" (usually dead) or plain decoration on crockery. If Ms. Williams does not intend to induce human horror at a pending cruel Armageddon, she at least invokes a future of earthly loneliness, where animals appear only as ceramic-hen butter dishes and extinct-species Elastoplasts. One caution: when flimsy narrative superstructure begins to sag, anarchic wackiness can grow wearing. While The Quick and the Dead is sharp from its first page, the trouble with starting at the edge is there is nowhere to go. Nevertheless, Ms. Williams is original, energetic and viscously funny: Carl Hiaasen with a conscience. The second paragraph tells us ______.
"Making money is a dirty game", says the Institute of Economic Affairs, summing up the attitude of British novelists towards business. The IEA, a free market think-tank, has just published a collection of essays (The Representation of Business in English Literature) by five academics chronicling the hostility of the country"s men and women of letters to the sordid business of making money. The implication is that Britain"s economic performance is retarded by an anti-industrial culture. Rather than blaming rebellious workers and incompetent managers for Britain"s economic worries. Then, we can put George Orwell and Martin Amis in the dock instead. From Dickens"s Scrooge to Amis"s John Self in his 1980s novel Money, novelists have conjured up a rogue"s gallery of mean, greedy, amoral money-men that has alienated their impressionable readers from the noble pursuit of capitalism. The argument has been well made before, most famously in 1981 by Martin Wiener. an American academic, in his English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit. Lady Thatcher was an admirer of Mr. Wiener"s, and she led a crusade to revive the "entrepreneurial culture" which the liberal elite had allegedly trampled underfoot. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, sounds as though he agrees with her. At a recent speech to the Confederation of British Industry, he declared that it should be the duty of every teacher in the country to "communicate the virtues of business and enterprise". Certainly, most novelists are hostile to capitalism, but this refrain risks scapegoating writers for failings for which they are not to blame. Britain"s culture is no more anti-business than that of other countries. The Romantic Movement. which started as a reaction against the industrial revolution of the 21st century, was born and flourished in Germany, but has not stopped the Germans from being Europe"s most successful entrepreneurs and industrialists. Even the Americans are guilty of blackening business"s name. SMERSH and SPECTRE went our with the cold war, James Bond now takes on international media magnates rather than Rosa Kleb. His films such as Erin Brockovich have pitched downtrodden, moral heroes against the evil of faceless corporatism. Yet none of this seems to have dented America"s lust for free enterprise. The irony is that the novel flourished as an art form only after, and as a result of the creation of the new commercial classes of Victorian England, just as the modern Hollywood film can exist only in an era of mass consumerism. Perhaps the moral is that capitalist societies consume literature and film to let off steam rather than to change the world. American academic Martin Wiener"s argument______.
微信支付 
支付宝支付