US Grand Prix- Austin (USA)

[Birddog07]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/88466

Suppose maybe that is good news, the track might be alittle interesting now, if ever even built.

[vin13]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

This article reveals how the US GP organizers plan to use public and quasi-public money to pay Bernie's extortionate rights fee of $29 M. It seems clear that Austin got the GP because it is one of the few places in the U.S. that would and could cut a deal like this. Apart from Tavo and his close associates, I doubt that anyone in Austin realizes how Bernie operates. But one day, when Bernie takes away the Austin GP to give it to some oil-rich kleptocracy like Venezuala, people may realize what happened to them.

City, county to discuss incentives for Formula One Austin
Austin Business Journal - by Jacob Dirr
Monday, November 22, 2010

Austin officials plan to further discuss the possibility of providing $40 million in economic incentives — $4 million annually for 10 years — for a Formula One development, City Council Member Laura Morrison said Thursday...

On Friday, a spokeswoman for the $250 million racing complex development said Travis County will also discuss possibly participating in the Texas Major Events Trust Fund program.

Through that program, the state has offered incentives of $25 million per year during the next decade, provided a local government contributes a match of $1 per $6.25 in state money, said Robert Wood, director of local government assistance and economic development for the comptroller’s office.

Such incentive money could go toward paying the annual sanction fee charged by the worldwide management organization for Formula One racing. The average sanction fee in 2009 was $28 million, according to documents provided by the city...

Post after post you spin and spin. Why not just let the cards fall and see what happens? Its obvious where you stand. Your senseless negativity is making this thread unreadable.

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by vin13

Post after post you spin and spin.

I'm linking to articles and commenting on them. I'm not a spin doctor. Spinning is what PR people do, like the PR people who work for Tavo and Bernie.

Originally Posted by vin13

Why not just let the cards fall and see what happens? Its [sic] obvious where you stand.

This is a message board. Its purpose is to exchange information and opinions among people who are interested in motor racing. I've been posting links to interesting articles about the proposed Austin F1 track while expressing my skepticism about the wisdom of the whole venture. If you have a different opinion about things, feel free to chime in. Differences of opinion help keep a message board interesting.

Originally Posted by vin13

Your senseless negativity is making this thread unreadable.

Then don't read it. I suggest you join the facebook group that supports the Austin F1 race and there you will read only nice things about the project. You can also read almost nothing but nice things in media stories about the project.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by vin13

Post after post you spin and spin. Why not just let the cards fall and see what happens? Its obvious where you stand. Your senseless negativity is making this thread unreadable.

If only it were that simple, unfortunately hosting a GP and dealing with Bernie is not that straightforward, you just need to look at what happened with the hosting of the British GP. Though Silverstone did well out of it in the end, they nearly lost it and Donington was ruined.

[vin13]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

I'm linking to articles and commenting on them. I'm not a spin doctor. Spinning is what PR people do, like the PR people who work for Tavo and Bernie.

Posting an article with dozens of Smilies pasted with sarcastic commentary isn't spin? You have 4 posts on this page alone, all of them contributing nothing to healthy discussion. A picture of covered wagons? Really??? And you say you've been to Austin before??

Originally Posted by BobHWS

Then don't read it. I suggest you join the facebook group that supports the Austin F1 race and there you will read only nice things about the project. You can also read almost nothing but nice things in media stories about the project.

I don't come to this thread expecting pretty things and happy thoughts on the monumental challenge that is bringing F1 back to the US but some news without the snide comments would be welcoming.

You compare Austin to Winston-Salem in an attempt to gain credibility. Same size? Nonsense, its not even close (84th vs 16th (2009)). Same scene? Nonsense. Austin is well-known around the world as a growing tech hub, its culture, and continues to prosper in times of an economic recession.

You mock their claims that the venue will provide educational value to the area while completely ignoring the fact that a top public university, The University of Texas at Austin, is well, in Austin. You shoot down claims that the venue could be used for other events like music while somehow ignoring Austin as a world-renowned musical hot spot. You mention ACL fest but know nothing of the over-crowding at the current venue.

What do you have to lose? Where does your slant come from? Hell, if they build the track (and its a big 'if' i'll grant you) come down for the gp and ill buy you a beer.

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

This article reveals how the US GP organizers plan to use public and quasi-public money to pay Bernie's extortionate rights fee of $29 M. It seems clear that Austin got the GP because it is one of the few places in the U.S. that would and could cut a deal like this. Apart from Tavo and his close associates, I doubt that anyone in Austin realizes how Bernie operates. But one day, when Bernie takes away the Austin GP to give it to some oil-rich kleptocracy like Venezuala, people may realize what happened to them.

Kicking in $4m per year is peanuts, it is standard practice for local/regional/national govt's to pay or contribute via other means to attract major events or even businesses.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

Apart from Tavo and his close associates, I doubt that anyone in Austin realizes how Bernie operates. But one day, when Bernie takes away the Austin GP to give it to some oil-rich kleptocracy like Venezuala, people may realize what happened to them.

Buyer beware. Austin would do well to talk to Damon Hill and the BRDC team that brokered the British GP deal; they did a fantastic job.

[Spritle]

Hey Austin, wake up before it's too late!!!

http://en.espnf1.com/europe/motorsport/story/35089.html

And Spain is a country that embraces F1, not a place the couldn't care less!

[Purist]

At least Austin can hope to save several million a year over Valencia, since they're not going to have to put up and take down the course every year. Plus, Bernie has generally had to accept lower sanction fees of late in North America than in other regions.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

...But one day, when Bernie takes away the Austin GP to give it to some oil-rich kleptocracy like Venezuala, people may realize what happened to them.

or like Dallas? they are pretty oil rich there aren't they? i must admit not knowing much about the place but if its anything like the TV show of old there is plenty of corruption and underhanded dealings going on there.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by vin13

Hell, if they build the track (and its a big 'if' i'll grant you) come down for the gp and ill buy you a beer.

Can anyone take you up on that one?

For the record I'd like to see it succeed - it can be depressing sometimes reading a forum dedicated to motor-sports and then seeing fans actually saying that places like Austin shouldn't bother, even if for perfectly logical reasons!

[Teretonga]

Theres no point in having a Ferrari centre in Valencia if there is no GP. How much is political mismash?

It is expensive (and I think it is too expensive in terms of bernies expectations and fees) but I don't trust major newspaper rumours unless they are backed up by people close to the sport.

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by vin13

Posting an article with dozens of Smilies pasted with sarcastic commentary isn't spin? You have 4 posts on this page alone, all of them contributing nothing to healthy discussion. A picture of covered wagons? Really??? And you say you've been to Austin before??

Vin, first of all, thanks for your willingness to debate the merits of putting the F1 USGP in the Austin Texas area. That's a more intelligent response to my comments than suggesting that I just keep quiet and hope for the best while trusting in Bernie and Tavo.

Second, none of my comments are intended to make fun of Austin as a city. Based on my short visit there, I came away thinking that it's a great city that has much to offer--a great university and all that goes with it, a fantastic music scene, a reasonable cost of living and a strong economy, and a nice climate (except July and August)--in short a great place to live and a nice place to visit.

Having said that, I still don't think that it's the right home for the F1 USGP. Why not? Well, go back and read my comments above and you'll see. But here's a quick summary of what I think:

1. The main reason that Bernie picked Austin was that he was given assurances that government funds would be used to guarantee his sanctioning fee--that's his practice with all GPs that have been added to the calendar recently.

Based on what I've read, I think Bernie will get about $29M/year from the Austin race ($25M from the Texas Special Events Fund and $4M/year from some other special fund mentioned in one of the articles I cite.) I realize that state and local governments routinely make such payouts in support of special events, but the money usually doesn't go right into the pockets of one person.

2. I don't think Austin is a natural fit for an F1 GP. I'm not sure that any location in the U.S. is (think of all the places F1 has failed) but, assuming that you could get adequate facilities, I think someplace like California or New York is a better place. The problem, of course, is that no one is willing to step forward with $200M to build the kind of facility that Bernie's F1 circus demands from a new race location.

A major problem with Austin is that, like Malaysia, China, Turkey, Bahrain, etc., there is no natural fan base in Texas for F1. True, people will come out for the first couple years just to enjoy the novelty and the glamour. But they will quickly tire of it when they realize how expensive it is and how boring it can be if you're not really into it as a longtime fan. F1 has been having a problem with fan support in lots of places and yet Bernie keep awarding races to sites that will guarantee his sanctioning fee no matter how many fans show up or not. Not only that, but he takes away or threatens to remove races from locations that have great fan support but hesitate to pay his ever-rising fees (e.g., Montreal and Indy).

3. I am still skeptical about the source of the $200M+ construction cost of the facility. Is Red McCombs putting up all the money? I doubt it. So who are the other investors? I hope they're not banks in Texas. Don't we have enough problems with bad real estate loans in the U.S.? Also, let's not forget what happened with the infamous USF1 team. We had all kinds of assurances that they had plenty of investors lined up too. I say, "show me the money."

4. All the promises about tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of "economic impact," spin-off economic development, and alternative uses of the track are made up out of thin air. It takes a giant leap of faith to believe that so many wonderful things will happen from building a huge race track that has exactly one proven future use, i.e. a car race over one 3-day weekend per year for 10 years. And the 10-year guarantee isn't worth much either. Look at what is happening in Valencia as we debate this--the host city can't afford the fee anymore and they want out of the contract.

Originally Posted by vin13

Hell, if they build the track (and its a big 'if' i'll grant you) come down for the gp and ill buy you a beer.

I appreciate the offer and who knows, I may take you up on it (though I'd rather go to Austin to see a UT football game or a concert than an F1 race). If you're ever in Winston-Salem (and I'm not recommending it as a destination for your next vacation ), then the beer's on me.

[BobHWS]

Originally Posted by johnh875

Kicking in $4m per year is peanuts, it is standard practice for local/regional/national govt's to pay or contribute via other means to attract major events or even businesses.

I know that. However, as I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I believe that the state of Texas is kicking in not just $4M/year (an amount that might be reasonable), but $29M/year. And it all goes right into Bernie's pocket.

[duke_toaster]

Originally Posted by BobHWS

1. The main reason that Bernie picked Austin was that he was given assurances that government funds would be used to guarantee his sanctioning fee--that's his practice with all GPs that have been added to the calendar recently.

Based on what I've read, I think Bernie will get about $29M/year from the Austin race ($25M from the Texas Special Events Fund and $4M/year from some other special fund mentioned in one of the articles I cite.) I realize that state and local governments routinely make such payouts in support of special events, but the money usually doesn't go right into the pockets of one person.

The money isn't going in to Bernie's pockets per se, it's going in to the pockets of CVC Capital Partners.

2. I don't think Austin is a natural fit for an F1 GP. I'm not sure that any location in the U.S. is (think of all the places F1 has failed) but, assuming that you could get adequate facilities, I think someplace like California or New York is a better place. The problem, of course, is that no one is willing to step forward with $200M to build the kind of facility that Bernie's F1 circus demands from a new race location.

A major problem with Austin is that, like Malaysia, China, Turkey, Bahrain, etc., there is no natural fan base in Texas for F1. ...

Part of the problem with media coverage of F1 is the absolutely shambolic TV deals it has in non-major countries. F1 should be on free television in the US, if not on ESPN.

4. All the promises about tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of "economic impact," spin-off economic development, and alternative uses of the track are made up out of thin air. It takes a giant leap of faith to believe that so many wonderful things will happen from building a huge race track that has exactly one proven future use, i.e. a car race over one 3-day weekend per year for 10 years. And the 10-year guarantee isn't worth much either. Look at what is happening in Valencia as we debate this--the host city can't afford the fee anymore and they want out of the contract.

An F1 grade race track in Texas would probably get more uses than just F1 - possibly ALMS and IndyCar dates (or testing or both), maybe even NASCAR ... and of course there's track days.

[Teretonga]

Track use isn't an issue.
There is no real international first class road racing facility in the mid-west or southern states of the US so use is going to be there.
Events such as an ALMS weekend and a NASCAR weekend (nationwide and /or trucks) are quite likely. An indycar weekend uolfd give them a very full table of events and throw in an AMA weekend and there you have it.
It isn't inconceivable Moto GP may go there too. You won't have all those events avcross a year but two of them in addition to F1 would just about saturate the market.
On top of that testing and track days etc will eat up a lot of the available track use as long as the cost isn't exorbitant. revenue will be generated by the facility so it will justifyand maintain itself if properly run. The US has a long motorsport history so it is not like buildin gsome prestige event in a third world country with little or no internal national motorsport.

The questions are over the actual construction cost and financing, not of the track but the infrastructure to the Tilke/Bernie standards of architecture (Why does a F1 track in the country need architecture that would not be out of place in a major downtown city...?) and the size of the race fee. They are ultimately the killer costs in building permanent F1 circuits and running the races.
Ticket costs in the US are relatively low.

You can go to a major NASCAR race for a fraction of what a F1 ticket costs in Europe so getting people to fork out for an astronomical race fee is not going to work.
F1's demise in the US/North America can actually be laid at the feet of F1 management. Its approach has been the antithesis of what was needed. They have never understood how racing works in America or the mindset and values of American people.

The US once had three GP's in a year, plus Canada... or two plus Canada and Mexico.....where did you go wrong Bernie?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Track use isn't an issue.
There is no real international first class road racing facility in the mid-west or southern states of the US so use is going to be there.
Events such as an ALMS weekend and a NASCAR weekend (nationwide and /or trucks) are quite likely. An indycar weekend uolfd give them a very full table of events and throw in an AMA weekend and there you have it.
It isn't inconceivable Moto GP may go there too. You won't have all those events avcross a year but two of them in addition to F1 would just about saturate the market.

I don't know how well Bernie would take to IndyCar racing at Austin, not that IndyCar is anyway capable of posing the threat to F1 that Bernie thought CART did, however he kicked up a fuss about the season opener at São Paulo.

[dyewat808]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I don't know how well Bernie would take to IndyCar racing at Austin, not that IndyCar is anyway capable of posing the threat to F1 that Bernie thought CART did, however he kicked up a fuss about the season opener at São Paulo.

Man its annoying when Bernie sticks his head into another series business.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by dyewat808

Man its annoying when Bernie sticks his head into another series business.

It didn't work and hopefully if the people running Austin have any sense, they'll allow for as many series to race there; hell they'll need the money if they are to pay Bernie his fee.

[Oreti kid]

What do you have to lose? Where does your slant come from? Hell, if they build the track (and its a big 'if' i'll grant you) come down for the gp and ill buy you a beer.[/QUOTE]

If they succeed and i most certainly hope they do i will be across from New Zealand and i will take you up on the beer or even a 6pack. Austin is as good a place as anywhere to have a circuit and you will find once there it will drive the business case itself. try and book a track weekend in NZ or Aussie and you are struggling.

[Rgms320]

Well, it's December. This is the month of the first tangible milestone.

If anyone in Austin sees the Caterpillars moving mud this month, please let us know.

[BobHWS]

I think this article does a good job of explaining how the state of Texas plans to spend $29M/year to support the Austin F1 race. You can believe or not that it's worth it. But it's clear to me that Austin was chosen as the site of the USGP because it's probably the only city in the USA that was able to promise Bernie such a large annual payment derived from public funds. I believe that the citizens of Texas will eventually come to regret this particular use of public money.

Austin’s $4 million F1 incentive?

By Eric Dexheimer | Thursday, December 2, 2010, 07:00 AM
statesman.com

Austin City Council Member Laura Morrison recently caused a minor stir when she alluded to what seemed to be another public subsidy for Formula One. Here’s what she said:

“As I understand it, there is going to be discussions later next year about whether or not the City of Austin is interested in participating in economic incentives to the tune of what I think I heard is $4 million per year for 10 years, and obviously at that point in time, in order to consider or that request, there is going to be a whole lot more information that’s needed in terms of economic costs and benefits, environment issues.”

...But is Austin really going to kick in $4 million a year to subsidize Formula One racing? The short answer is: maybe, sort of, kind of...

[Dutton]

They will absolutely subsidise it. The only question is how long it all lasts before the local government has the good sense to tell Bernie to go fornicate with decomposing mammal matter.

Bernie will just jack the rates at as high a rate as he thinks is sustainable in the 5-year term, and eventually they will say no more (but not after they have already paiud a ridiculous amount - and also pay the cancelation fees. They will do so because at some point you have to stop the madness).

It is exactly the same business model the garbage company I used to work for used. It can definitely work as long as you are a force to be reckoned with, but in the real long-term I think it is unsustainable and will cause your own downfall.

Both F1 and the company I refer to are experiencing the start of the longterm declines I am alluding to.

It is an unsustainable strategy in the longterm. This is why we all need Bernie to die: soon!

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

This is why we all need Bernie to die: soon!

Well, someone did try to help out there. But, as usual, Bernie turned it to his advantage.

[Spritle]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Well, someone did try to help out there. But, as usual, Bernie turned it to his advantage.

He actually turned it into a business, albeit with lower fees.

Bernie Bashing could easily surpass his USGP revenue if he gets clobbered weekly wearing different watches from different makers. I could see Tag Heuer, Patek Philippe, Jaeger-LeCoultre and Blancpain amonst others queuing up waiting for their turn to snap a shot of Bernie with a shiner or knocked out tooth, sporting one their watches.