2014 Liqui Moly Bathurst 12 Hour: 7-9 February (Merged)

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by Scooter185

Since DTM and JSGT500 could be classified as GT1, they wouldn't fit well at the B12. V8SC wouldn't fit too well either imo since they have their own race at the mountain where they are the whole show.

It would be a significant backward step for the v8 series if they were to comepte. due to undermining the popularity of the 1000km race

but it would be a positive step for the 12 hour

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by alfacors

Is it anti HQ if they don't allow HQs to run in the 12 Hour? Is it anti-Formula Vee if they can't run? Is it anti-AussieRacingCars if they aren't allowed?

I can give you rational reason why those classes would not be invited.

But if the only reason is that particular posters do not want them and those posters are well know for being anti v8's. then i can only conclude its because of there anti v8 bias.

Just give me 1 good reason Alfacors. no one has given one logical good reason yet

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

It would be a significant backward step for the v8 series if they were to comepte. due to undermining the popularity of the 1000km race

but it would be a positive step for the 12 hour

I am not sure it would be a positive step for the 12 Hour, becoming more like the October race is not in its best interests in moving forward.

The interest in the event is that it is different and offers something that is not provided by the October race. Why would they want to erode that?

Should GT's also be included in the October race?

As for your financial concerns you probably need to be more specific - The race has a naming rights sponsor, Government backing, presenting and product sponsors along with entry fees, support cateogry entry fees before any spectator income is factored in.

Not suggesting the event turns a massive profit but I dont think you need to be to concerned with the event financials

Originally Posted by peckstar

no one has given one logical good reason yet

They have - whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is a separate (internal) discussion

[MarkInTheStands]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Financial worries - do you mean for the event or the teams?

As that is my question, I am sure you don't mind me answering.
I wonder that that costs of organizing the event are covered be it by grant or sponsorship or entry fees or attendance.

I think the event is a fantastic. I am disappointed in numbers, when you consider a free test day bought 17,000 to SMP 8,000 for such a fantastic event is poor.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the level of access you could get and the availability of vantage points, I am planning to bring friends and family next time, as I found it a great event.

My concern is that it be a going concern. If it loses money is that loss sustainable? It is covers itself then well and good and that gives it opportunity to grow.

I would love to see this event grow, to see more and varied entries GT3, as well as the Performance Production cars. To see the last few hours shown on TV live, as that would start to open it up to more and more fans. Small steps for sure, but all of them are to be based on the question, is the event sustainable?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

I am not sure it would be a positive step for the 12 Hour, becoming more like the October race is not in its best interests in moving forward.

The interest in the event is that it is different and offers something that is not provided by the October race. Why would they want to erode that?

Should GT's also be included in the October race?

As for your financial concerns you probably need to be more specific - The race has a naming rights sponsor, Government backing, presenting and product sponsors along with entry fees, support cateogry entry fees before any spectator income is factored in.

Not suggesting the event turns a massive profit but I dont think you need to be to concerned with the event financials



They have - whether you choose to acknowledge it or not is a separate (internal) discussion

there we go again, back to the original question, Why not. It would still be a 12 hour race, It would still have class racing, it will still have a variety of cars. It would still be the Bathurst 12 hour, just with a different class, the same as the last 4 years of the race

the inteerest that you talk about is less than 20,000 people. This would increase the interest.

No GT's should not be in the 1000km race, they dont meet the criteris for the race as it is run inder a single class rule. that is a major difference. but if they did decide to change the rules, unlikely, i wont be sad about it as it is a good idea.

See mark in the stands repsonse regarding the financial viability of the race. it is a much more detailed repsonse. but unless you know something regardings its financials then your answer does not provide the answers,

And no there has not been logical good reason. If there has, name it

[R4z3rw33n]

Originally Posted by peckstar

Its not my argument, your arguing its exciting because of the huge size, i'm arguing that V8 supercars will be exciting because of the racing they will provide in their class, but also against the other classes.

I fail to see why any motorsport fan would not want to see GT's and V8 Supercars racing in the same race at bathurst in a 12 hour race.

I have some concerns about how the financials stack up for the race. but i am not aware of the financials, It just seems like its an expensive event without significant sponsor or crowd support.

For the same reason(s), there's little interest in seeing GT3 entries competing alongside V8SC at the 1000KM meet - placing aside any argument regarding the superiority of either race or class, they're separate items, serving separate interests, and there's not yet any worthwhile argument that sees the value of either increased by enacting such.

I understand you're suggesting inserting a class, rather than other more aggressive measures (i.e. BoP) that see V8SC entries shoehorned in to overall contention.
It's seen as likening one event to its alternative, by however minimal a margin, regardless.

As it is, there are two events that satisfy existing, and for the most part, separate interests - at least, economically.
Why alter (and potentially damage) one, only to make it more like its existing, healthy alternative?

[alfacors]

Originally Posted by peckstar

I can give you rational reason why those classes would not be invited.

But if the only reason is that particular posters do not want them and those posters are well know for being anti v8's. then i can only conclude its because of there anti v8 bias.

Just give me 1 good reason Alfacors. no one has given one logical good reason yet

Does it matter? Are you owed a reason from the organisers as to why they include some cars and not others? No one here makes the rules for B12. It's the organisers who decide who runs and who doesn't. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else here. It matters little that posters on here want this or that or the other. They have no bearing on how the event is run. There are plenty of people who want to see a V8 run, and plenty who don't. Personally, I can't see the value in it for the teams, but maybe some would run IF they were allowed in. But right now, they aren't. So it's a moot point. I don't want them to run personally, but it's not up to me. But that means I must be anti-v8s.... which is why I'm headed to Clipsal next Thursday night

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by peckstar

there we go again, back to the original question, Why not. It would still be a 12 hour race, It would still have class racing, it will still have a variety of cars. It would still be the Bathurst 12 hour, just with a different class, the same as the last 4 years of the race

Because it would be getting closer and closer to the October race - which is not in the events interests. You might not understand but the differentiation bewteen the two events is important and necessary.

Originally Posted by peckstar

No GT's should not be in the 1000km race, they dont meet the criteris for the race as it is run inder a single class rule. that is a major difference. but if they did decide to change the rules, unlikely, i wont be sad about it as it is a good idea.

And even if they changed it - I reckon there is a massive chance it wouldnt be a free for all. Class structures with limitations - crazy I know

Originally Posted by peckstar

See mark in the stands repsonse regarding the financial viability of the race. it is a much more detailed repsonse. but unless you know something regardings its financials then your answer does not provide the answers,

Short of seeing the events books what answers were you hoping to get?

The event is sponsored and well supported from Government along with big grids.

While this continues I am not sure what is driving your concern?

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by R4z3rw33n

For the same reason(s), there's little interest in seeing GT3 entries competing alongside V8SC at the 1000KM meet - placing aside any argument regarding the superiority of either race or class, they're separate items, serving separate interests, and there's not yet any worthwhile argument that sees the value of either increased by enacting such.

I understand you're suggesting inserting a class, rather than other more aggressive measures (i.e. BoP) that see V8SC entries shoehorned in to overall contention.
It's seen as likening one event to its alternative, by however minimal a margin, regardless.

As it is, there are two events that satisfy existing, and for the most part, separate interests - at least, economically.
Why alter (and potentially damage) one, only to make it more like its existing, healthy alternative?

I say well, done, Good valid points.

The sole purpose, from my opinion, is to increase the exposure of the the 12 hour race. I am sure no one is truly satisfied with only 8000 crowd and 10,000 watching online. It deserves more.

Introducing V8 supercars to the event is solely about doing that. increasing exposure.

[MarkInTheStands]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

While this continues I am not sure what is driving your concern?

That it will continue.

[D.R.T.]

Isnt this a concern for any sport organisation though - nothing is forever?

Why over worry yourself now when you have multiple year contracts with sponsors, local council and NSW Government on the back of record grids?

Sustainability is a challenge for all sports that they need to address with solid business and strategic plans however this isnt an issue only specific to the Bathurst 12 Hour.

Peckstar - exposure increased from 2012 to 2013 without the need for V8SA - no reason why this cant continue 2013 to 2014 and beyond.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Isnt this a concern for any sport organisation though - nothing is forever?

Why over worry yourself now when you have multiple year contracts with sponsors, local council and NSW Government on the back of record grids?

Sustainability is a challenge for all sports that they need to address with solid business and strategic plans however this isnt an issue only specific to the Bathurst 12 Hour.

Just checking, your ok with the NSW government paying for this event?

[alfacors]

They aren't paying for the event

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Isnt this a concern for any sport organisation though - nothing is forever?

Why over worry yourself now when you have multiple year contracts with sponsors, local council and NSW Government on the back of record grids?

Sustainability is a challenge for all sports that they need to address with solid business and strategic plans however this isnt an issue only specific to the Bathurst 12 Hour.

Just checking, your ok with the NSW government paying for this event?

and even though i missed the edit in the above quote

Did the exposure increase. Slightly bigger crowd, the bulk of it from the extra teams themselves, but did more people watch. last year from memory there was pay tv of some sort. didnt happen this year. but a highlights package a week latter, any ratings yet?

[D.R.T.]

The government contributiing to a permanent - multi use facility in line with a local council plan - yep I am ok with that.


"Did the exposure increase. Slightly bigger crowd" - You have just answered your own question.

FTA TV was also another increase in exposure.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by alfacors

They aren't paying for the event

So its free sponsorship then? nothing to do with the event but facility upgrades.

my understanding was the federal and Local governments were contributing to the upgrades, the state government were not

[alfacors]

Originally Posted by peckstar

So its free sponsorship then? nothing to do with the event but facility upgrades.

my understanding was the federal and Local governments were contributing to the upgrades, the state government were not

You worded your statement to infer they footed the bill for everything. They were a minor sponsor. Destination NSW has already been explained elsewhere. They utilise B12 as one of the major events for NSW, and even run a clip of it in their advertising.

[MarkInTheStands]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

Isnt this a concern for any sport organisation though - nothing is forever?

Why over worry yourself now when you have multiple year contracts with sponsors, local council and NSW Government on the back of record grids?

Sustainability is a challenge for all sports that they need to address with solid business and strategic plans however this isnt an issue only specific to the Bathurst 12 Hour.

Peckstar - exposure increased from 2012 to 2013 without the need for V8SA - no reason why this cant continue 2013 to 2014 and beyond.

Of course it is, and remember the life of an event not only survives on how well it performs but on its finacial health, if an event is losing money it may lose support, not just from Goverment, but also from the fans.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by D.R.T.

The government contributiing to a permanent - multi use facility in line with a local council plan - yep I am ok with that.


"Did the exposure increase. Slightly bigger crowd" - You have just answered your own question.

FTA TV was also another increase in exposure.

let me ask, was the government sponsorship to run the event (meaning it offset the costs of the event) (which you have previusly not been ok with) or did they contribute to improve a facility that will benefit all motosport fans

No i didnt answer the exposure question. As i dont know the ratings of the pay or FTA coverage at each event. I would think that less people watched it live in 2013 and i dont know about the replay.

[Richard Craill]

Let me clarify a few things.

1. I'm not sure where the discussion about financial viability has sprung from, but it's completely irrelevant. DRT is correct (Post #178). Speculation on the business model of the event is silly because no one here, aside from the people who run it, can possibly know what business model is in place and whether it is financially viable or if it isn't. But if it weren't viable - it wouldn't be happening, would it.

2. There were way, way, way more than 10,000 watching online. Remember it was streamed through Speedcafe, Radio LeMans and Audi.tv, amongst others. Add another zero. or more. Final figures still being collated but the reach is good.

3. TV Ratings will be released soon. They were really good.

4. The NSW government is NOT paying for the event. Their Destination NSW Tourism arm has an interest in promoting their state internationally and that is what they do via the event and the international competitors that visit. They are an event partner.

5. Of course no one is 'Satisfied' with an 8,000 crowd on race day (though that is a legit number). But how many people go to a VFL game compared to an AFL game? How many people go to whatever the state-level League matches are called in Sydney, compared to an NRL game? Or Shield Cricket compared to a test?

Let's be realistic. That's where the B12hr is in the motorsport landscape relative to other racing events. It's the equivalent to shield cricket or state footy. But it's growing and realising it's potential bit by bit.

Bathurst is far enough away from Sydney to make it a big effort just to pop up for the day - and the event doesn't yet have the proliferation of 20,000 campers like October does (Emphasis on Yet - I reckon it will one day). 8,000 is solid. 10-12K would be brilliant. Any more and it loses it's charm.

[Richard Craill]

Originally Posted by peckstar

No i didnt answer the exposure question. As i dont know the ratings of the pay or FTA coverage at each event. I would think that less people watched it live in 2013 and i dont know about the replay.

If I was to hazard a guess I would say that this years online audience probably trebled. And the TV audience will more than likely reflect the same.

[Reload]

Peck, whilst i know that you are going to deny it and try and support your argument by saying that you have said you want the event to be a success, it appears to me and maybe others that you are trying very hard to find holes in the event and your praise of it are thinly veiled.

[MarkInTheStands]

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

1. I'm not sure where the discussion about financial viability has sprung from, but it's completely irrelevant. DRT is correct (Post #178). Speculation on the business model of the event is silly because no one here, aside from the people who run it, can possibly know what business model is in place and whether it is financially viable or if it isn't. But if it weren't viable - it wouldn't be happening, would it.

It came from me and as a person involved with League and other events, I do know that some events are loss leaders to get the interest. That is the question, is there financial health in the event. Without that, we might see costs increase and for the type of event that we are seeing, I can't see that as helpful. I thought the pricing was reasonable as an attendee who arrived at 6:15 in the morning from Sydney to see the day’s events.

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

5. Of course no one is 'Satisfied' with an 8,000 crowd on race day (though that is a legit number). But how many people go to a VFL game compared to an AFL game? How many people go to whatever the state-level League matches are called in Sydney, compared to an NRL game? Or Shield Cricket compared to a test?

Interesting analogy, and how many VFL games or NSWRL games are played at the MCG or ANZ Stadium as a standalone event. Shield Cricket yeah but sometimes we see shield games at Bankstown instead of the SCG.

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

Let's be realistic. That's where the B12hr is in the motorsport landscape relative to other racing events. It's the equivalent to shield cricket or state footy. But it's growing and realising it's potential bit by bit.

Yet we saw some pretty big players in cars that weekend. What was it 3 former F1 drivers? You normally don't get that many top line people at a NSW cup game at Ringrose. If Jarryd Hayne played at Ringrose you would get an increase in people. It wouldn't be an NRL size crowd, but it would be bigger.

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

Bathurst is far enough away from Sydney to make it a big effort just to pop up for the day - and the event doesn't yet have the proliferation of 20,000 campers like October does (Emphasis on Yet - I reckon it will one day). 8,000 is solid. 10-12K would be brilliant. Any more and it loses it's charm.

Indeed, I agree but that is why growth is a double edged sword.

[racer69]

Originally Posted by Richard Craill

8,000 is solid. 10-12K would be brilliant. Any more and it loses it's charm.

This was a good conversation topic amongst a fair few of us attendee's at the 12hr the other week.

Obviously most of the spectators were motor racing enthusiasts, and we love the effectively open access in the pits to the teams & cars we got (Friday & Saturday evening was great, being able to stand in the pit lane & watch the teams prepare, practice pitstops, or in Audi's line all the cars up for a group promo shot), the ease of movement around the place for great views of the track and taking photo's etc...

For the success of the event we'd all love a million people to attend, but with that would likely come added 'commercialism' and of course as you say it loses it charm and the 'open' nature of the event is lost.

[D.R.T.]

Originally Posted by MarkInTheStands

That is the question, is there financial health in the event.

Looking from the outside at this years event and the event over the last 7 years - I would say yes.