Ferrari - 'special deal' - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**derisgun** · 12-20-2008, 03:29 PM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5372488.ece

Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One commercial rights-holder, launched a stinging attack on Luca di Montezemolo yesterday, effectively telling the Ferrari president to mind his own business, in the wake of the latter’s criticisms of the way Ecclestone is running the sport.

Speaking at the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy, this week, Di Montezemolo said that Formula One was not being run in what he called a “normal” manner, that the sport did not need a “dictator”, in a remark taken as a reference to Ecclestone, and that teams wanted more of the sport’s vast income and greater transparency from Ecclestone about the extent of that money. “We want to know more about the revenues,” he said.

An angry Ecclestone told The Times that Di Montezemolo should be the last person to be complaining about how much income the teams receive. “The only thing he has not mentioned is the extra money Ferrari get above all the other teams and all the extra things Ferrari have had for years – the ‘general help’ they are considered to have had in Formula One,” Ecclestone said.

It has always been known that Ferrari, whose presence on the grid is regarded as critical to the success and prestige of the championship, are on a special deal with Ecclestone’s company and get more money than their rivals. But Ecclestone put a figure on that for the first time yesterday, something that could be designed to drive a wedge between the Scuderia and the other teams.

“Ferrari get so much more money than everyone else,” he said. “They know exactly what they get, they are not that stupid, although they are not that bright, either. They get about $80 million (about £54 million) more. When they win the constructors’ championship, which they did this year, they got $80 million more than if McLaren had won it.”

Ecclestone added that the special deal with the Italian sports car manufacturer goes back to the attempt by the teams to form a breakaway championship in 2003, when Ferrari were the first to return to the fold. “They were the only team that broke ranks with the other manufacturers – why did they break ranks?” he said. “That’s where the $80 million comes in. We ‘bought’ Ferrari. We ‘bought’ Ferrari’s loyalty. Our deal with Ferrari was that we ‘bought’ them so they would not go to the others.”

Di Montezemolo’s call for more transparency about the huge annual income of Formula One was interpreted by Ecclestone as a thinly veiled attack on his business ethics. He said that since the first formal deal under which the teams race was signed, in 1981, the so-called Concorde Agreement, they have had the right to examine the finances of the business. “They have the right to send people into the company and search for everything,” Ecclestone said. “Ferrari in particular, more than anybody, from day one, have had the right and they’ve never done it. We have bankers here and we’ve got CVC (CVC Capital Partners, the principal owners of Formula One) checking every single solitary thing. So anybody that starts saying that we’ve done anything wrong, I’ll sue the a*** off them.”

As far as Di Montezemolo’s ambition to wrest more money for the teams from Ecclestone, the 78-year-old billionaire cast doubt on the chances of him agreeing to meeting in the new year to discuss this. Previously he had suggested that the teams should get less income, not more, in the light of the recent cost-cutting deal concluded with the FIA. He had a different idea yesterday. “What he should do, rather than asking for money, with all the extra money Ferrari gets, he should share all that amongst the teams,” Ecclestone said of Di Montezemolo.

The Ferrari president levelled a number of specific charges against Ecclestone, among them the decision to cancel the Canadian Grand Prix, which Di Montezemolo said he had found out about in the newspapers.

Once again the pugilistic Formula One official was having none of it. “The reason the Canadian Grand Prix is finished has been discussed with all the teams, including him, and it was agreed that what Canada was paying was nowhere near enough,” Ecclestone said.

In a final thought, he suggested that the Ferrari president knows less about his company than his own employees. “It’s a shame he’s not in touch with people that seem to run the company as opposed to what he does – work as a press officer,” Ecclestone said.

* Is F1 gently imploding?

**vulikox** · 12-20-2008, 03:54 PM

Thats awesome, Luca di Montezemolo asks for more transparency and Bernie instantly gives it - by revealing just how favourably Ferrari are treated! Lets face it, this outburst from Montezemolo is just the latest in a line of remarks that border on idiotic. I honestly believe that Luca doesnt actually think before issuing these statements, though I agree that the teams should have a bigger slice of the pie it is wrong that Ferrari should automatically get more money, like any other team they are a commerical entity and should raise money through sales, sponsorship and thier fair share of the prize fund. I personally hope that Bernie makes the sharing of money fairer and more transparent as Ferrari are bound to lose out!

**Oppofeescom** · 12-20-2008, 03:58 PM

“What he should do, rather than asking for money, with all the extra money Ferrari gets, he should share all that amongst the teams,” Ecclestone said of Di Montezemolo. Ouch.

**Rounteetepe** · 12-20-2008, 04:02 PM

As far as Di Montezemolo’s ambition to wrest more money for the teams from Ecclestone, the 78-year-old billionaire cast doubt on the chances of him agreeing to meeting in the new year to discuss this. Previously he had suggested that the teams should get less income, not more, in the light of the recent cost-cutting deal concluded with the FIA.

If the teams were to get less, would this mean that Bernie would get more? Or is he intending to ask for a smaller entry bond, less money from tracks etc...? No, didn't think so.

**Indessasp** · 12-20-2008, 05:39 PM

* Is F1 gently imploding?

It does appear that the formation of FOTA has rather "challenged" the established order of things.

**Uplillacype** · 12-20-2008, 06:29 PM

Now I expect Ecclestone can prove it, if not it is more like a childish rant.

**Broorbbub** · 12-20-2008, 06:39 PM

Ferrari cut a better deal.....so what? Good for them. You get what you are worth. F1 is a meritocracy, and in a meritocracy that's how things work.

Not so!! Ferrari sold out to Bernie by shafting the other teams and in doing so, Ferrari was "bought" by Bernie. (Bernie's words, not mine).

I'm just waiting to hear ioan's response.

, should be a beauty, seeing ioan is normally quite a fair sort of guy.

**Garry Richardson** · 12-20-2008, 09:05 PM

Getting a better deal from sponsors is business, however getting a better deal from the Governing body is something a little different.

I can see why it happened, you wouldn't want to see Ferrari walk away from F1 so an incentive was offered.

**Kilsimpaile** · 12-20-2008, 09:10 PM

Why do the Brits always back the dwarf?

**Rounteetepe** · 12-20-2008, 09:11 PM

Getting a better deal than your rivals and competitors is the very essence of competition, and competition is not restricted to the race-track.

Though I kind of agree with what you're saying, it seems wrong to me if the better deal (in this case massively more cash), can be used to buy an advantage (via access to more expensive technology) on the race track.

Distribution of monies should depend entirely on success in the competition, not which team you happen to be. Now I know Bernie isn't the FIA, but no wonder that there are accusations of bias towards Ferrari.

p.s. I'm a brit but certainly don't back the dwarf...

**quorceopporce** · 12-20-2008, 10:11 PM

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the deal with Ferrari, I think Bernie's going public on it in such a blunt way does little for the image of the sport. Ferrari are not the ones to have anything to be ashamed about here.

**Garry Richardson** · 12-20-2008, 11:24 PM

Why do the Brits always back the dwarf?

No we don't.

**Peapeuddedbaw** · 12-21-2008, 01:00 AM

wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind.

To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW!

That just baffles me.

Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators.

**PriernPayorse** · 12-21-2008, 01:11 AM

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5372488.ece

Bernie

Di Montezemolo’s call for more transparency about the huge annual income of Formula One was interpreted by Ecclestone as a thinly veiled attack on his business ethics.
* Is F1 gently imploding?

I wonder why this word "transparent" of "transparency" has become so popular a substitute for honesty; Could it be that because they do not meaning they are being honest?

---traditionally, when used with respect to such, it had the opposite meaning "the excuse was transparent" meaning we could see right through it, (so as to know they were lying out their butt)......-- the other class of meanings related to the quality of being invisisble, and in the world of computers, it has come to mean: "Computers.(of a process or software) operating in such a way as to not be perceived by users" http://dictionary.infoplease.com/transparent

Whenever I hear politicans say they are being transparent, I think of lack of substance, invisible, easliy seen through as in being liar and/or someone operating in a manner that can not be perceived......so as to hide the truth

**MeatteCen** · 12-21-2008, 03:08 AM

Whatever Ferrari is doing, Ecclestone has become a terrifying menace to the sport we all love. The medals idea is the proof of this. This idiot needs to go. I hope that his wife manages to take F1 from him and sell it to someone else.

**quorceopporce** · 12-21-2008, 03:13 AM

wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind.

To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW!

That just baffles me.

I wouldn't class myself as a member of the tifosi, yet I'm perfectly prepared to defend it. It's not Ferrari's fault that those responsible said yes to the deal.

Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators.

Of which there is no real evidence.

**Tactattcahhaw** · 12-21-2008, 03:51 AM

Wow! Bernie skips the knives and goes straight for the pistols. Me thinks that maybe Slavica should settle ASAP. His love for F1 (and the money that it's provided him) might be more than his former love for her. Settle, Slavica... or Bernie might produce some photos from the "scrapbook" that you never thought he would.

F1, like boxing and tennis... apparently just another fixed sport. Oh well...

**Eromaveabeara** · 12-21-2008, 04:09 AM

The fact that Ferrari received extra money from the Concorde Agreement and Bernie has been pretty widely known for many years. Alan Henry in his book "The Power Brokers" writes about it. Reading that book does help understand some of the cr-- that goes on.
However, the amount of money was never public knowledge as far as I know. The Team Owners might know but I doubt it. Can you imagine Stoddard or Eddie Jordan keeping quiet if they knew the details?
By the way Ferrari, before the Concorde, always got more money from the tracks by threatening not to show up. Sometimes just a few days before the event. That I know. I was involved.
The Demented Midget must be really p-ssed off to reveal the amounts, especially considering his reaction when the Cdn. Authorities did the same to him over Mtl.

**Erwtbimp** · 12-21-2008, 04:24 AM

wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind.

To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW!

That just baffles me.

Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators.

As your post baffles me? Did you actually think the Paul Stoddart was making it up when he said Ferrari was getting alot more then everyone because they have been in the championship longest? This is hardly news Mr. Ecclestone is giving us. The funny thing is, we are quick to assume that the whole $80m more is based on Ferrari signing the concorde, pratically killing the threat of a breakaway series, but we seem to forget they where already being treated better then the others.

**luspikals** · 12-21-2008, 06:05 AM

Ecclestone is trying to split FOTA by trying to put a wedge between Ferrari and the others. So obviously he feels threatened by it.

12-20-2008, 03:29 PM	#1
derisgun Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	Ferrari - 'special deal' http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5372488.ece Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula One commercial rights-holder, launched a stinging attack on Luca di Montezemolo yesterday, effectively telling the Ferrari president to mind his own business, in the wake of the latter’s criticisms of the way Ecclestone is running the sport. Speaking at the Ferrari factory in Maranello, Italy, this week, Di Montezemolo said that Formula One was not being run in what he called a “normal” manner, that the sport did not need a “dictator”, in a remark taken as a reference to Ecclestone, and that teams wanted more of the sport’s vast income and greater transparency from Ecclestone about the extent of that money. “We want to know more about the revenues,” he said. An angry Ecclestone told The Times that Di Montezemolo should be the last person to be complaining about how much income the teams receive. “The only thing he has not mentioned is the extra money Ferrari get above all the other teams and all the extra things Ferrari have had for years – the ‘general help’ they are considered to have had in Formula One,” Ecclestone said. It has always been known that Ferrari, whose presence on the grid is regarded as critical to the success and prestige of the championship, are on a special deal with Ecclestone’s company and get more money than their rivals. But Ecclestone put a figure on that for the first time yesterday, something that could be designed to drive a wedge between the Scuderia and the other teams. “Ferrari get so much more money than everyone else,” he said. “They know exactly what they get, they are not that stupid, although they are not that bright, either. They get about $80 million (about £54 million) more. When they win the constructors’ championship, which they did this year, they got $80 million more than if McLaren had won it.” Ecclestone added that the special deal with the Italian sports car manufacturer goes back to the attempt by the teams to form a breakaway championship in 2003, when Ferrari were the first to return to the fold. “They were the only team that broke ranks with the other manufacturers – why did they break ranks?” he said. “That’s where the $80 million comes in. We ‘bought’ Ferrari. We ‘bought’ Ferrari’s loyalty. Our deal with Ferrari was that we ‘bought’ them so they would not go to the others.” Di Montezemolo’s call for more transparency about the huge annual income of Formula One was interpreted by Ecclestone as a thinly veiled attack on his business ethics. He said that since the first formal deal under which the teams race was signed, in 1981, the so-called Concorde Agreement, they have had the right to examine the finances of the business. “They have the right to send people into the company and search for everything,” Ecclestone said. “Ferrari in particular, more than anybody, from day one, have had the right and they’ve never done it. We have bankers here and we’ve got CVC (CVC Capital Partners, the principal owners of Formula One) checking every single solitary thing. So anybody that starts saying that we’ve done anything wrong, I’ll sue the a*** off them.” As far as Di Montezemolo’s ambition to wrest more money for the teams from Ecclestone, the 78-year-old billionaire cast doubt on the chances of him agreeing to meeting in the new year to discuss this. Previously he had suggested that the teams should get less income, not more, in the light of the recent cost-cutting deal concluded with the FIA. He had a different idea yesterday. “What he should do, rather than asking for money, with all the extra money Ferrari gets, he should share all that amongst the teams,” Ecclestone said of Di Montezemolo. The Ferrari president levelled a number of specific charges against Ecclestone, among them the decision to cancel the Canadian Grand Prix, which Di Montezemolo said he had found out about in the newspapers. Once again the pugilistic Formula One official was having none of it. “The reason the Canadian Grand Prix is finished has been discussed with all the teams, including him, and it was agreed that what Canada was paying was nowhere near enough,” Ecclestone said. In a final thought, he suggested that the Ferrari president knows less about his company than his own employees. “It’s a shame he’s not in touch with people that seem to run the company as opposed to what he does – work as a press officer,” Ecclestone said. * Is F1 gently imploding? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 03:54 PM	#2
vulikox Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 638 Senior Member	Thats awesome, Luca di Montezemolo asks for more transparency and Bernie instantly gives it - by revealing just how favourably Ferrari are treated! Lets face it, this outburst from Montezemolo is just the latest in a line of remarks that border on idiotic. I honestly believe that Luca doesnt actually think before issuing these statements, though I agree that the teams should have a bigger slice of the pie it is wrong that Ferrari should automatically get more money, like any other team they are a commerical entity and should raise money through sales, sponsorship and thier fair share of the prize fund. I personally hope that Bernie makes the sharing of money fairer and more transparent as Ferrari are bound to lose out! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 03:58 PM	#3
Oppofeescom Join Date Dec 2005 Posts 444 Senior Member	“What he should do, rather than asking for money, with all the extra money Ferrari gets, he should share all that amongst the teams,” Ecclestone said of Di Montezemolo. Ouch. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 04:02 PM	#4
Rounteetepe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	As far as Di Montezemolo’s ambition to wrest more money for the teams from Ecclestone, the 78-year-old billionaire cast doubt on the chances of him agreeing to meeting in the new year to discuss this. Previously he had suggested that the teams should get less income, not more, in the light of the recent cost-cutting deal concluded with the FIA. If the teams were to get less, would this mean that Bernie would get more? Or is he intending to ask for a smaller entry bond, less money from tracks etc...? No, didn't think so. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 05:39 PM	#5
Indessasp Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 458 Senior Member	* Is F1 gently imploding? It does appear that the formation of FOTA has rather "challenged" the established order of things. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 06:29 PM	#6
Uplillacype Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 492 Senior Member	Now I expect Ecclestone can prove it, if not it is more like a childish rant. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 06:39 PM	#7
Broorbbub Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 610 Senior Member	Ferrari cut a better deal.....so what? Good for them. You get what you are worth. F1 is a meritocracy, and in a meritocracy that's how things work. Not so!! Ferrari sold out to Bernie by shafting the other teams and in doing so, Ferrari was *"bought"* by Bernie. (Bernie's words, not mine). I'm just waiting to hear ioan's response. , should be a beauty, seeing ioan is normally quite a fair sort of guy. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 09:05 PM	#8
Garry Richardson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	Getting a better deal from sponsors is business, however getting a better deal from the Governing body is something a little different. I can see why it happened, you wouldn't want to see Ferrari walk away from F1 so an incentive was offered. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 09:10 PM	#9
Kilsimpaile Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 495 Senior Member	Why do the Brits always back the dwarf? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 09:11 PM	#10
Rounteetepe Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 454 Senior Member	Getting a better deal than your rivals and competitors is the very essence of competition, and competition is not restricted to the race-track. Though I kind of agree with what you're saying, it seems wrong to me if the better deal (in this case massively more cash), can be used to buy an advantage (via access to more expensive technology) on the race track. Distribution of monies should depend entirely on success in the competition, not which team you happen to be. Now I know Bernie isn't the FIA, but no wonder that there are accusations of bias towards Ferrari. p.s. I'm a brit but certainly don't back the dwarf... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 10:11 PM	#11
quorceopporce Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 597 Senior Member	Whatever the rights and wrongs of the deal with Ferrari, I think Bernie's going public on it in such a blunt way does little for the image of the sport. Ferrari are not the ones to have anything to be ashamed about here. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-20-2008, 11:24 PM	#12
Garry Richardson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	Why do the Brits always back the dwarf? No we don't. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 01:00 AM	#13
Peapeuddedbaw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind. To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW! That just baffles me. Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 01:11 AM	#14
PriernPayorse Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 550 Senior Member	http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle5372488.ece Bernie Di Montezemolo’s call for more transparency about the huge annual income of Formula One was interpreted by Ecclestone as a thinly veiled attack on his business ethics. * Is F1 gently imploding? I wonder why this word "transparent" of "transparency" has become so popular a substitute for honesty; Could it be that because they do not meaning they are being honest? ---traditionally, when used with respect to such, it had the opposite meaning "the excuse was transparent" meaning we could see right through it, (so as to know they were lying out their butt)......-- the other class of meanings related to the quality of being invisisble, and in the world of computers, it has come to mean: "Computers.(of a process or software) operating in such a way as to not be perceived by users" http://dictionary.infoplease.com/transparent Whenever I hear politicans say they are being transparent, I think of lack of substance, invisible, easliy seen through as in being liar and/or someone operating in a manner that can not be perceived......so as to hide the truth Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 03:08 AM	#15
MeatteCen Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 507 Senior Member	Whatever Ferrari is doing, Ecclestone has become a terrifying menace to the sport we all love. The medals idea is the proof of this. This idiot needs to go. I hope that his wife manages to take F1 from him and sell it to someone else. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

12-21-2008, 03:13 AM	#16
quorceopporce Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 597 Senior Member	wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind. To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW! That just baffles me. I wouldn't class myself as a member of the tifosi, yet I'm perfectly prepared to defend it. It's not Ferrari's fault that those responsible said yes to the deal. Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators. Of which there is no real evidence. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 03:51 AM	#17
Tactattcahhaw Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 564 Senior Member	Wow! Bernie skips the knives and goes straight for the pistols. Me thinks that maybe Slavica should settle ASAP. His love for F1 (and the money that it's provided him) might be more than his former love for her. Settle, Slavica... or Bernie might produce some photos from the "scrapbook" that you never thought he would. F1, like boxing and tennis... apparently just another fixed sport. Oh well... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 04:09 AM	#18
Eromaveabeara Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 510 Senior Member	The fact that Ferrari received extra money from the Concorde Agreement and Bernie has been pretty widely known for many years. Alan Henry in his book "The Power Brokers" writes about it. Reading that book does help understand some of the cr-- that goes on. However, the amount of money was never public knowledge as far as I know. The Team Owners might know but I doubt it. Can you imagine Stoddard or Eddie Jordan keeping quiet if they knew the details? By the way Ferrari, before the Concorde, always got more money from the tracks by threatening not to show up. Sometimes just a few days before the event. That I know. I was involved. The Demented Midget must be really p-ssed off to reveal the amounts, especially considering his reaction when the Cdn. Authorities did the same to him over Mtl. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 04:24 AM	#19
Erwtbimp Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 348 Senior Member	wait a minute. If Ferrari could take advantage of their status and demand more from their sponsor than that' s all fair. However being awarded on a different scale compared to the other teams as it relates to competitive performance in a sport just blows my mind. To top it off the tifosi are already defending it. WOW! That just baffles me. Not to mention the "general help" they have been getting from the regulators. As your post baffles me? Did you actually think the Paul Stoddart was making it up when he said Ferrari was getting alot more then everyone because they have been in the championship longest? This is hardly news Mr. Ecclestone is giving us. The funny thing is, we are quick to assume that the whole $80m more is based on Ferrari signing the concorde, pratically killing the threat of a breakaway series, but we seem to forget they where already being treated better then the others. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

12-21-2008, 06:05 AM	#20
luspikals Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 470 Senior Member	Ecclestone is trying to split FOTA by trying to put a wedge between Ferrari and the others. So obviously he feels threatened by it. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote