Quote:
Originally Posted by chillibowl
that said, i get that Silverstone sells out so maybe they see little incentive to do more...for me that is an issue.
i think the stakeholders who achieve the most success (get the most prize money or sell the most race tickets) have more of a responsibility to promote the sport, to give back, and to engage with their fan base...success, imo, is certainly not a reason to advocate doing less.
anyways my friend...as always agree to disagree 
 |
Cheers to you too, Chilli.
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.