Quote:
Do you think that when Koni/Conti challenge was being run by Grand Am it was being propped up by the mother ship (NASCAR) and now that it's IMSA and NASCAR doesn't have to subsidize it per say, they have to be profitable? Hence costs going up and "savings" not matching the increase in the slightest. I have no idea if Grand Am was or wasn't profitable for the series BTW, just going off "popular opinion"
|
There was a time where the series had about 80-100 entrants per event. Thus, they had to split the races because too many cars. Top that off with GA had a total of two haulers and brought 35 employees to the track for a combined Conti/Rolex weekend. With IMSA it went to 130 employees and 7 haulers. I suspect that the increase in the number of employees, number of haulers and the reduction in entrants, makes the current model where you need to get the money from the competitors to make it work. That would explain why there's an an increase in the amount the teams pay to IMSA and the reduction onto what they pay out.
I run my own business and I know a number of other former team owners and renters that do the same. They just have a hard time accepting that IMSA can decide to run at an inflation rate 10X than what they an do. In the end, they go elsewhere. IMSA thinks that the TV time makes up for it but it doesn't. In that day of age, TV is out and streaming it in. Thus explains the disconnect with PWC and IMSA with the new customer base.