Future Grands Prix?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Still no sign of a German GP.
Mercedes are offering help but I don't think they are going to pay all $$$$$$$$ that Bernie wants for a race to go ahead.
If there is no German GP this year I wonder who is it going to reflect worst on Bernie or the organisers for not coming up with enough money.

The other factor that will come into play soon is the time needed to organise the race, sell tickets etc.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/wo...an-gp-survival

Toto Wolff's certainly not wrong about that, ''It is an important Grand Prix for us''.

[wolfhound]

The other thing with Bernie in Germany is the aftermath of his trial there.
If he is seen to be asking too much money to run a GP and it quite often involves some government money in Germany then the whole bribery thing could come back at him.

[wolfhound]

Reading between the lines in this article in Grand Prix.com there will not be a German GP this year.
I find it sad that a country of 80 million people cannot muster 100,000 or so to go to a GP and make it viable (although with Bernie's prices they might need double that) considering that the current constructor's champion is Mercedes and there will be at least one German driver in contention for the world championship.



http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30098.html

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Reading between the lines in this article in Grand Prix.com there will not be a German GP this year.
I find it sad that a country of 80 million people cannot muster 100,000 or so to go to a GP and make it viable (although with Bernie's prices they might need double that) considering that the current constructor's champion is Mercedes and there will be at least one German driver in contention for the world championship.


http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns30098.html

You talk about it being possible to make it financially viable, but have you done the sums?

Let us say that you can get 100,000 fully paying customers through the gates, they would have to pay something in the region of £200 each just to pay the FOM sanctioning fee. On top of that they have all the other incidental costs to pay, because FOM take all the advertising revenue, TV payments and even most of the hospitality profits (the big money in comparison to that made from the hamburger stalls, etc. around the circuit). I believe that the circuits have to pay for the helicopter and ambulance cover, plus all the costs involved in running the circuit medical centre.

This is why it is, realistically, only those countries that have governments that are prepared to underwrite F1 races that can really afford the luxury of a GP. Even Silverstone, which is already half sold out (virtually all the most expensive seats have already gone, and the park and ride appears to have also sold out) will make a loss on the event even if they get manage to have a capacity crowd, which they seem to do every year.

[wolfhound]

Just done a back of an envelope calculation if Bernie gets 20 million for a GP and there are 100,000 paying spectators. It will cost 200 per spectator for Bernie's fee alone thats before anything else that will surely be into a number of millions to run the event.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

...On top of that they have all the other incidental costs to pay, because FOM take all the advertising revenue, TV payments and even most of the hospitality profits (the big money in comparison to that made from the hamburger stalls, etc. around the circuit). I believe that the circuits have to pay for the helicopter and ambulance cover, plus all the costs involved in running the circuit medical centre.

its absolutely bonkers that these tracks agreed to these types of deals in the first place.

iirc, it was Austin that had a "Welcome to Texas' type sign up and FOM considered it free advertising so FOM gave them a choice...either take it down or pay the given advertising rate to keep it up.

that is an anecdotal (and possible not remembered correctly) example, but yeah these are seriously onerous and one sided agreements.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Just done a back of an envelope calculation if Bernie gets 20 million for a GP and there are 100,000 paying spectators. It will cost 200 per spectator for Bernie's fee alone thats before anything else that will surely be into a number of millions to run the event.

That's $200 per spectator, before they've spent anything else, like on food and getting there.

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Oh come on, F1 is the most backwards and short sighted of all of the worlds' premier sporting divisions. We should all know this by now.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

Oh come on, F1 is the most backwards and short sighted of all of the worlds' premier sporting divisions. We should all know this by now.

Additionally F1 is run in some of "the most backwards and short sighted of all the worlds' premier" ..... holes!

[Biscuits In A Red Bull]

Why does anyone in their right mind follow this sport again???

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

Why does anyone in their right mind follow this sport again???

F1, its more addictive than cigarettes.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

F1, its more addictive than cigarettes.

Hazardous to your health too!

They tell me you are at a vastly increased risk of a heart attack for 48 hours after you become upset or angry too.

Wonder how profound disappointment ranks?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Biscuits In A Red Bull

Why does anyone in their right mind follow this sport again???

Because it can be fun and exciting.?

[wolfhound]

Bernie says the only thing stopping a German GP is the fee. I assumming he is asking for more $$$$$$$$ than the Nurburgring can afford to pay if they are to end up at least breaking even. If they have no hope of making a profit why should they run a GP?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/nu...fee-ecclestone

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Bernie says the only thing stopping a German GP is the fee. I assumming he is asking for more $$$$$$$$ than the Nurburgring can afford to pay if they are to end up at least breaking even. If they have no hope of making a profit why should they run a GP?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/nu...fee-ecclestone

We all know what Bernie will do, he'll blame them for the GP not going ahead.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

We all know what Bernie will do, he'll blame them for the GP not going ahead.

The problem is that he has backed himself into a corner over these sanctioning fees. He "allows" these corrupt and/or undemocratic countries to buy their way into the F1 season with astronomical amounts paid by their governments, and then uses these high fees as the benchmark for demanding the same from the organisers of all the traditional races. It just so happens that in the majority of these tradition venues that their governments are unable or possibly unwilling to give financial backing.

So, Mr Ecclestone is now stuck between a rock and a hard place, because he can't back down over one circuit as all the others would all do the same as Germany, i.e. tell him that they can't afford to run the race. Germany would become the precedent, and Monza will surely follow as surely as night after day, with Silverstone behind them. Also in the queue to have their sanctioning fee to be reduced will Canada and Australia, probably Texas and Brazil as well. I would think that Japan are also in the same boat, as is Spain and Spa.

In reality, Mr Ecclestone, because of his and CVC's avarice, have pretty well milked their tradition cash cow dry, and going forward they may well have to rely on the despots to fund the future of F1 racing.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The problem is that he has backed himself into a corner over these sanctioning fees. He "allows" these corrupt and/or undemocratic countries to buy their way into the F1 season with astronomical amounts paid by their governments, and then uses these high fees as the benchmark for demanding the same from the organisers of all the traditional races. It just so happens that in the majority of these tradition venues that their governments are unable or possibly unwilling to give financial backing.

So, Mr Ecclestone is now stuck between a rock and a hard place, because he can't back down over one circuit as all the others would all do the same as Germany, i.e. tell him that they can't afford to run the race. Germany would become the precedent, and Monza will surely follow as surely as night after day, with Silverstone behind them. Also in the queue to have their sanctioning fee to be reduced will Canada and Australia, probably Texas and Brazil as well. I would think that Japan are also in the same boat, as is Spain and Spa.

In reality, Mr Ecclestone, because of his and CVC's avarice, have pretty well milked their tradition cash cow dry, and going forward they may well have to rely on the despots to fund the future of F1 racing.

That's exctly what he does and F1's going to get another Gulf State GP in Qatar soon, not that it needs three of them, very likely to the detriment of an established European GP.

Monza and Silverstone pay a reduced sanctioning fee because of their historic status. I don't know how long the deal is with Monza but Damon Hill, when he was President of the BRDC, presided over and secured a 17-year contract for Silverstone to hold GPs, a deal that will outlast Bernie.

[TheMightyM]

The problem that Bernie and Co. face is that they ultimately want and, yes, need the money from selling the television rights to F1 in Europe. Which means that they need actual fans in Europe — and it’s difficult to keep those if the series prices itself out of actually racing there and in places that European fans can relate to — Brazil, Canada, U.S., and Japan.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by TheMightyM

The problem that Bernie and Co. face is that they ultimately want and, yes, need the money from selling the television rights to F1 in Europe. Which means that they need actual fans in Europe — and it’s difficult to keep those if the series prices itself out of actually racing there and in places that European fans can relate to — Brazil, Canada, U.S., and Japan.

It doesn't help secure the European fan base, when so much of F1 is now on pay to view TV. It won't attract the casual fan. He needs to stop taking GPs away from Europe, so that fans, casual or not can actually go to see races. That would also lead to fewer fly-away GPs and help reduce those costs incured by fly-away GPs.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

That's exctly what he does and F1's going to get another Gulf State GP in Qatar soon, not that it needs three of them, very likely to the detriment of an established European GP.

Monza and Silverstone pay a reduced sanctioning fee because of their historic status. I don't know how long the deal is with Monza but Damon Hill, when he was President of the BRDC, presided over and secured a 17-year contract for Silverstone to hold GPs, a deal that will outlast Bernie.

The fees being paid by the traditional circuits may well be reduced, and they may well be long term, but that still doesn't make them affordable. In fact, the published accounts from BRDC show that Silverstone makes a financial loss every year on the Grand Prix. It is only pride, I think, that made it possible for BRDC to agree the new contract with FOM, but it has alreadu led to the club having to sell or set up a very, very long lease on some of it's assets to subsidise the GP. I have a feeling that most of that money has now gone, mainly to reduce it's debts to nil, and that in the future costs to other users of Silverstone are going to have dig deep into their pockets to keep the circuit fiscally afloat.

A different, but in many ways similar, story seems to be coming out of Melbourne. They may well have recently extended their contract for the annual race, but how long will be state administration be able to subsidise the event before the local residents finally say enough is enough. The same seems to apply in Canada, and the natives are extremely restless in Texas, and in fact, I believe that they have already started legal proceedings to halt the state from subsidising their race.

And so on and so forth.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The fees being paid by the traditional circuits may well be reduced, and they may well be long term, but that still doesn't make them affordable. In fact, the published accounts from BRDC show that Silverstone makes a financial loss every year on the Grand Prix. It is only pride, I think, that made it possible for BRDC to agree the new contract with FOM, but it has alreadu led to the club having to sell or set up a very, very long lease on some of it's assets to subsidise the GP. I have a feeling that most of that money has now gone, mainly to reduce it's debts to nil, and that in the future costs to other users of Silverstone are going to have dig deep into their pockets to keep the circuit fiscally afloat.

A different, but in many ways similar, story seems to be coming out of Melbourne. They may well have recently extended their contract for the annual race, but how long will be state administration be able to subsidise the event before the local residents finally say enough is enough. The same seems to apply in Canada, and the natives are extremely restless in Texas, and in fact, I believe that they have already started legal proceedings to halt the state from subsidising their race.

And so on and so forth.

There's been talk for sometime, about how long the state will carry on subsidiseing Melbourne. As for Silverstone, I haven't seen the accounts and don't know how much of a loss they incur. What is the loss?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

There's been talk for sometime, about how long the state will carry on subsidiseing Melbourne. As for Silverstone, I haven't seen the accounts and don't know how much of a loss they incur. What is the loss?

Their accumulated losses up until the end of 2013 was approximately £15 million. This was after they had cleared their debts, and paid for the new Wing facility, and was achieved by them entering into a, if I recall correctly, 999 year lease (yes, you read that correctly) on their land which entailed a fairly decent down payment, of which there is none left. At the end of 2013, they had liabilities in the region of £25 million, whilst their current debtors owed less than about £2 million; they also had more than a couple of million stated as bad debts.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Their accumulated losses up until the end of 2013 was approximately £15 million. This was after they had cleared their debts, and paid for the new Wing facility, and was achieved by them entering into a, if I recall correctly, 999 year lease (yes, you read that correctly) on their land which entailed a fairly decent down payment, of which there is none left. At the end of 2013, they had liabilities in the region of £25 million, whilst their current debtors owed less than about £2 million; they also had more than a couple of million stated as bad debts.

Thanks for that, .

[wolfhound]

Is Bernie looking for more $$$$$$$$$$ from Melbourne?

There is mention of a GP in Sydney.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/me...reat/?v=11&s=1

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

Is Bernie looking for more $$$$$$$$$$ from Melbourne?

There is mention of a GP in Sydney.

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/me...reat/?v=11&s=1

Melbourne have got it till 2020 and a lot can happen between now and then.