So I did go over to YouTube, @CxmeronCc, here are some of your quotes: "Let's have a look at Zak Brown, his history as far as the companies at which he's been a C-Suite Director/CEO. In the first instance, McLaren Racing Limited..." But director ≠ CEO https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"How can you be Lando Norris's director and CEO of Quadrant and not want him to win a driver's champion over Oscar Pastri?" - @CxmeronCc Problem? Jamie MacLaurin has been CEO since 2020 when the biz was started which you could've verified on LinkedIn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This isn't even a conflict of interest per se... surely because of their relationship, because of their history, length of service and tenure, Zak Brown, if he could push a button, would push the Lando Norris button every single time." So is it a conflict "per se" or not?
Because the statements made and the words used by @CxmeronCc literally describe a conflict of interest. You are speaking in contradictions by using "per se" as an adverb: "This is not a conflict of interest [by, of, or in itself]..."
I'm not telling good stories or using semantics. But you haven't explained why you explicitly (and wrongly) state that Zak Brown was CEO and Director of Quadrant. This and ZB's "commercial" objectives act as the basis for why McLaren favours Norris for a WDC over Piastri.
