I met him twice, first in Paris in 2004 when we talked about his desire to bring European football management out of the dark ages, and again last year in Switzerland when we spoke about football czar Joseph Blatter of FIFA. Arriving at Louis-Dreyfus’ lakeside villa in Zurich for that second interview, I was surprised to find him wearing a bathrobe with an intravenous tube in his arm. No one had told me he was sick. Louis-Dreyfus was much thinner than when I’d met him earlier, but made no reference to his illness and answered my questions intelligently and candidly.

Rio's capital raising has been a long-time coming. Ever since the miner forked out $38 billion for Canadian mining firm Alcan back in 2007, the company has been saddled with mounting debt. Rio has two trances of debt -- almost $20 billion combined -- that are due by October 2009 and 2010, respectively. That's why Chief Executive Tom Albanese courted Chinalco, and why eventually he ditched the Chinese in favor of a shareholder rights issue and a lucrative joint venture with BHP Billiton.

The fact investors were willing to hand over more cash to Rio just shows how much confidence has returned since early 2009. When the Rio-Chinalco tie-up was first announced, analysts said it was the most viable way for the miner to raise much-needed capital in a short period of time. Since then, global financial markets have somewhat rebounded, and Rio's shareholders balked at being left out of Chinalco deal.

For sure, we haven't returned to the credit-soaked mining mergers of two to three years ago, when the likes of BHP Billiton was (unsuccessfully) offering $160 billion for rival Rio Tinto. But that doesn't mean deals have vanished altogether. The recent offer from Xstrata, the Swiss-based miner, to merge with Anglo American could be a sign of things to come. In response, Anglo is reportedly shopping its Brazilian operations to raise a war chest to see off Xstrata's advances.

Does that mean the commodities industry has survived the worst of the recession? Maybe not just yet. But if shareholders are willing to spend almost $15 billion in Rio's rights issue, the investment case for the mining sector could well pick up in the second half of the year.

But in hindsight, that delay may have been a stroke of good luck for Airbus and its forthcoming A350 aircraft.

Boeing has seen a raft of 787 orders evaporate in the past few months, as financially strapped airlines have cancelled more than 70 orders and deferred dozens more. The latest blow came on June 26, when Australia's Qantas announced it was cancelling an order for 15 of the planes and putting off delivery of 15 others from 2010 until 2013. "The operating environment for the world's airlines has clearly changed dramatically," since Qantas initially placed its order in 2005, CEO Alan Joyce said in a statement.

Airbus has been spared that scenario because the A350 isn't scheduled to enter service until 2013, when most analysts figure the aviation business will be well on its way to recovery.

BA says the moves will save the troubled airline up to $16.5 million. Walsh, who will be forgoing his own salary in July, described his employees offers somewhat patronizingly considering his own $1.2 million salary last year as a "fantastic first response."

That implies Walsh is hoping for more, something union leaders say is unrealistic. Britian's biggest union Unite claims employees were bullied into accepting the cuts through "intimidating e-mails from senior managers."

Having racked up $662 million in losses in the year through March, the biggest in 25 years, BA needed to do something fast. But the savings from these latest moves are just miniscule compared with the carrier's deteriorating financial position.

Walsh argues that moves are necessary to avoid redundancies. But by resporting to such drastic tactics is BA merely making a bad situation worse by magnifying existing employee, and equally as important, shareholder fears?

What do you think?

As I said before, some sort of compromise was always likely to happen. What's more interesting, though, is why. The official line is that both sides buried the hatchet. The truth, though, could lie with Luxembourg-based mega private equity firm CVC Capital Partners. The company bought the commercial rights to F1 between 2005 and 2006 for an estimated $3 billion -- mostly funded through debt.

That's a lot of money to pay back. So when most of the big teams voiced plans to jump ship, it's understandable CVC was fretting about owning a franchise that could have lacked big name teams, big name drivers, and -- most importantly -- big name sponsors.

For now, CVC's investment looks safe. Formula One teams agreed to reduce their costs and support new teams with equipment. The FIA also mollified its proposals and controversial FIA president, Max Mosley, has taken a back seat and won't run for re-election in October.

Now, CVC must be hoping people's attention will turn back to motor racing.

So it's fair to ask whether BP is imitating Shell by hiring Carl-Henric Svanberg, CEO of Swedish telecom equipment maker Ericsson, as its new Chairman. The move invites comparison to Shell's appointment of Jorma Ollila, the former CEO of Finnish telecom whizz Nokia, as Chairman in 2006 following a scandal over misreporting oil reserves.

The answer may be that for these very global companies the Nordic countries are a logical place to look for senior business figures to grace their boards. The Nordics are politically non-controversial and their telecom makers are among the most outward looking of global companies, having long been forced to develop markets outside their own rather small home bases. Svanberg will be familiar with such key developing markets as Russia and China, as well as the U.S.

BP has struggled to find a Chairman to replace Peter Sutherland, an Irishman, who is retiring. Svanberg, who gets good marks for turning around Ericsson after its near death experience in the previous recession, doesn't look an absurd choice--though he may lack Ollila's gravitas and may not be familiar with the issues that an oil giant confronts.

Svanberg, who takes over on Jan, 1, 2010, will be replaced at Ericsson by Hans Vestberg, currently EVP and CFO. That transition was expected, though its timing comes as a surprise.

Since opening its first store in Russia in 2000, the Swedish retailer has become a potent symbol of Russia’s consumer boom. An instant hit with Russian shoppers, Ikea has since plowed billions of dollars into the country, building giant shopping malls in a dozen of Russia’s largest cities. Ikea’s Russian success seemed like personal vindication for its founder, Ingvar Kamprad. The reclusive 81-year-old billionaire has long harbored an almost obsessive fascination with the country, describing it as “his last big hobby”.

So it is more than a little ironic to see what Ikea and Kamprad have been saying about Russia more recently. On 23 June, Ikea announced that it was temporarily suspending all investment in Russia, blaming the halt on “the unpredictable character of administrative procedures in some regions.”

Over-optimism is not a charge often leveled at the Germans. But UBS economists are not the only ones worried that German business people are underestimating the risks to an economic recovery. For example, New York University economist Nouriel Roubini’s RGE Monitor points out that unemployment in Germany could still rise sharply. Because of government incentives for companies to reduce worker hours rather than lay people off, the jobless rate has risen only modestly, to 8.2% in May 2009 from 7.8% a year earlier. Consumer sentiment has also held up remarkably well.

The announcement came after Irish pay-TV broadcaster Setanta, which spent a reported £125 ($204 million) for the soccer rights back in 2006, was stripped of its EPL deal when the company failed to pay £10 million ($16 million) in outstanding debts to the Premiership. ESPN will now add British viewers to its existing broadcast presence in Asia where it shows Premier League games through ESPN STAR Sports -- a joint venture with Murdoch's New Corp.

The deal has been a long-time coming for ESPN. Earlier this year, the U.S. network was outbid for the EPL rights by Setanta. By offering soccer to British viewers, ESPN can broaden its appeal, particularly as it currently offers mostly U.S. sports on its existing ESPN Classic and ESPN America channels available in the United Kingdom.

Forking out almost $150 million also could represent the latest move in a global race for soccer TV rights.

"In the harshest trading environment airlines have experienced, we believe it is more important than ever to embrace the future and innovate. That is what this historic new route is all about," Walsh said in a statement.

There's no doubt times are tough at BA. The airline reported record annual losses in May of $361 million. But speculation over BA's future has intensified since Walsh asked all employees to follow the lead set by senior executives including himself and work a month without pay.

More recently, some observers question whether BA will shutter or try to sell (good luck in this environment) the BA OpenSkies subsidiary, which runs flights from Paris and Amsterdam to the U.S., just a year after it was created.

Further stoking investor fear, Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson said over the weekend in interviews to promote his airline's 25th anniversary that he had looked at making a bid for BA but that "the airline wasn't worth much anymore." Branson then urged the British government not to intervene to save BA. "It would be better to wait for its demise," he told the BBC.

In response, BA has said it has not and will not seek government aid.

Indeed, some analysts speculate that Walsh's negative tone and calls for staff to forgo pay are simply a way to force intransigent unions to cooperate. Analysts say Walsh is desperate to secure concessions on cost cuts from unions before the end of the month to avoid their nearly-annual summer strikes.

What do you think? Is BA's launch of a business class only service this September the actions of healthy airline with cash in the bank or a carrier in denial?

Business would likely have mixed views of such an outcome. On the one hand, business deplores instability that might mean lost production. On the other, many Iranian entrepreneurs would like to see Ahmadinejad replaced.

There are signs of splits in the elite. As has widely been noted, several members of the family of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is close to business, have been briefly detained in what appears to be an effort to intimidate the longtime power broker.

A less-remarked instance of disaffection came from Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, a conservative who is close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Larijani has said that a majority of Iranians do not believe the vote was fair and has criticized the state media's handling of the election. He has called for an investigation into the vote that puts the doubts to rest. "Although the Guardian Council is made up of religious individuals, I wish certain members would not side with a certain presidential candidate," said Larijani, according to a Web site affiliated with him, the Washington Post reported. In addition, the government is acknowledging that reported votes exceeded registered voters in some 50 Iranian cities, possibly affecting 3 million votes.

The Revolutionary Guards may be issuing threatening statements, but Mohsen Rezaie, a former commander of the group, is one of the candidates protesting the vote. He says he was robbed.

Despite such signs of unease, the regime still seems to be banking that a combination of half-measures, such as partial recounts, and repression ends the protests. There's reason for the regime to doubt the opposition's staying power. One wonders, for instance, how long the cause of electing Mousavi, who is, after all, a longstanding regime insider, will maintain its appeal. But at the same time the reaction to the elections has the feel of something big. Stay Tuned!

Like so many things in life, the stand-off revolves around money. With the global recession in full swing, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), which regulates the sport, wants to set a $65 million annual spending cap on teams. The logic goes that if you stick to the $65 million limit, the FIA will give you more leeway to tinker with your car. If you exceed the cap, then you have to stick to a more stringent set of technical rules. With Formula One's heavy-hitters easily forking out $300 million each year on their cars, you can see why some aren't best pleased.

So why are teams griping about not being allowed to spend mega money?

A Hungarian discount airline? Don’t snicker. Wizz, founded by a former CEO of Hungarian flag carrier Malev, is thriving by attracting budget-conscious travelers during the economic crisis. Its traffic was up 30% from January through May. It already has an all-Airbus fleet, so buying from the same source makes sense – especially now, when Airbus is doubtless offering great deals to win scarce orders.

In fact, many of Airbus’s sales this week were to ambitious discount or regional airlines looking to take advantage of a buyer’s market to build their fleets. Others included Malaysian carrier Air Asia, which ordered 10 of Airbus’s new A350 widebody jets, and Cebu Pacific of the Philippines, which is taking at least 15 narrowbody planes. “There are some rays of sunshine in the market, especially in the low-cost sector,” Airbus CEO Tom Enders said at a signing ceremony for the Air Asia deal.

Yet even as Airbus faces the risk of a ruling that could force it to repay billions in past subsidies, European governments are gearing up to give the planemaker billions more. On June 15, representatives of France and Germany agreed in a meeting at the Paris Air Show to provide up to $4 billion in loans to help Airbus develop its new A350 jet. Britain and Spain will probably soon kick in more, so that government loans will cover about one-third of the A350’s estimated $15.2 billion development cost.

Boeing CEO James McNerney, upon hearing the news, told reporters at the air show that the Europeans seemed to consider the WTO proceeding “irrelevant.”

At first blush, it does seem strange that they would take such a provocative action now. But they have a couple of reasons.

Obviously, Etihad has grand ambitions and deep pockets – but so do a lot of other Middle Eastern carriers. Qatar Airways, Dubai-based Emirates and its low-cost affiliate Fly Dubai, and Bahrain-based Gulf Air together have more than 420 passenger jets on order from Boeing and Airbus. ALAFCO and DAE, two leasing companies based in the region, have ordered about 260 more planes.

Even as the airline industry was spiraling into deep recession, Airbus booked an astonishing $30 billion in orders from Middle Eastern customers, accounting for some 61% of its order book during the 12 months leading up to the show. Qatar ordered another couple of dozen planes, worth almost $2 billion, as the show opened on June 15.

The question is whether all these airlines can possibly succeed, or even survive. Boeing and Airbus, in their long-term market forecasts, say they expect passenger traffic in the Middle East to rise an average 6% to 7% annually over the next two decades, compared to an average rate of 5% or so worldwide. Yet Hogan predicts Etihad will grow 12% annually at least through 2020. The orders from other carriers imply that they are counting on similar expansion.