单项选择
单项选择
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
A:abjection B:negotiation C:kidnapping D:racketeering
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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
A:Mr. Ecclestone just wanted to get more benefits through the EM.TV sale. B:Mr, Ecclestone wanted to give up the benefits from the contract. C:The tinting of the dispute is very improper. D:Mr. Ecclestone cannot afford the money,
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
Mr. Eccestone will win because______.
A:he deploys to best advantage B:he wins all the cards C:he never fails himself D:he takes the cards in hand
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
FIA would give its partner the right to stage the racing till ______.
A:Mr. Ecclestone gave all the money B:the contract time is reached C:the 100th year after 2010 D:Mr, Ecclestone gave it $60 million
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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______.
A:Mr. Ecclestone can win at cards B:Mr. Ecclestone will achieve great success in the negotiation C:Mr. Ecclestone cheated all his partners D:Mr. Eccestone will lose the whole contract with FIA
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
A:Mr. Ecclestone gave all the money B:the contract time is reached C:the 100th year after 2010 D:Mr, Ecclestone gave it $60 million
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
A:abjection B:negotiation C:kidnapping D:racketeering
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
A:Mr. Ecclestone can win at cards B:Mr. Ecclestone will achieve great success in the negotiation C:Mr. Ecclestone cheated all his partners D:Mr. Eccestone will lose the whole contract with FIA
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 Ecclestone. a very wealthy British motor sport entrepreneur, is at odds. it would seem. with his longstanding associate. Max Mosley, president of Fl’s governing body, the Federation International de l’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. Ecclestone’s exclusive fights to stage and broadcast Fl racing, which expire in 2010, by t00 years. For these favourable rights, Mr. Ecelestone was to pay the FIA a mere $360 million in total, and only $60 million immediately. The FIA claims that Mr. Ecclestone has not made the payment of $60 million, a claim denied by Mr. Ecclestone. who insists the money has been placed in an escrow account. Mr. Mosley has asked Mr. Ecclestone to pay up or risk losing the deal for the Fl rights after 2010. perhaps m a group of car makers that own Fl teams. For his part. Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone’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. Ecclestone and Mr. Mosley might depress the value of EM. TV’s holding. Could that work to Mr. Ecctestone’s advantage Quite possibly. The lower the value of EM. TV’s stake, the higher the relative value of an option Mr. Ecclestone holds to sell a further 25% of SLEC m EM. TV for around $1 billion--and the better the deal Mr. Ecclestone might be able to extract for surrendering the option. Whoever buys EM. TV’s stake in SLEC will have to negotiate with Mr. Ecclestone over this instrument. The Economist understands that Mr. Ecclestone 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. Ecclestone 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.
A:he deploys to best advantage B:he wins all the cards C:he never fails himself D:he takes the cards in hand
