Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Harte
But the problem that you inadvertently highlight is that Silverstone, and this is the venue that Carey criticised in particular, manages to sell out every year, but it has made a loss on the race except for 2015 when they actually managed to break even. And every person that goes to or uses Silverstone throughout the rest of the year are having to pay extra just so that the circuit can be maintained so that it can hold the GP the next year. And the circuit still loses money overall every year.
So how can we, or Carey, expect the BRDC (the owners) to fund anything beyond just keeping the circuit as a going concern. And I think that I am right in thinking that F1 is the only event where the circuits are expected to pay a sanctioning fee to the "promotor" just for the privilege of having the race on their tarmac. If I am right in my beliefs, all the other big races, such as the WEC, pay the circuits for bringing a round to their tracks; a complete reversal.
And I would imagine that at least half the circuits used during the season are in the same financial predicament as Silverstone. Let FOM pay and put something back into the sport instead of being just a leech.
|
Hear, Hear. We in Australia have a situation where V8SC demand all sorts of infrastructure be built at permanent circuits, at vast cost to the venue operator, before they will deem the circuit to be worthy of the V8SC circus. However, non of this infrastructure is entirely necessary for the other 51 weeks, but are all those others users required to subsidise these costs?
Also in Australia, the permanent circuit operators have to pay a fee to V8SC to host a round of the series. Some of them have now realised that fee is more than their likely income, so they simply dry hire the venue to V8SC who manage and promote the event themselves. Has F1 considered taking on the risk and effort of event promotion themselves?