Future Grands Prix?

[chillibowl]

Raiders are a west coast team, which means if they happen to be playing at home that weekend then they are either in the late game or evening game timeslot. they could also have a thursday night or monday night game or a thanksgiving day game held on thursday (as they did last year) making this issue moot.

if the game then happens to be on a sunday, a west coast US race would likely need to start before noon local time ideally 10am (so its not on too late for the European tv audience) with the NFL game starting at the earliest 1pm local time (i think?) and thus after the race 2.5 hour time window.

point being, its entirely possible for LV to host an F1 race and an NFL game on the same day and not have either event overlap on TV.

ideally they would facilitate it so that the sports mad punters could watch an F1 race in the morning/early afternoon and still have time to head out and catch an NFL game in the late aft/early evening (benefit of the a race on the strip).

work it so that the Raiders play the Broncos and new member of the Denver ownership group, Hamilton, gets to watch the game from the owners box....a cross promotion event of their dreams!

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Hotels, casinos will have deals for Raider's games.

bet on an F1 race with a NFL parlay...and to be able to watch both events live and in person!

take my money now please!

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Derwent

Liberty are diluting the product which will catch them out in time.

yep but no doubt they will have sold it on before the bottom falls out from under them.

as excited as i may get about an F1 race and NFL game on the same day in the same city, the pressure this puts on every other GP event to offer some type of next level entertainment package over the GP weekend is imo unsustainable.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Raiders are a west coast team, which means if they happen to be playing at home that weekend then they are either in the late game or evening game timeslot. they could also have a thursday night or monday night game or a thanksgiving day game held on thursday (as they did last year) making this issue moot.

In terms of NFL fixture times - are they also considering of the visiting team's time zone?

Raiders are scheduled to play home fixtures against Jets and Pats in 2023, will the schedule consider Eastern Time?

Also - I understand that the plan is for the F1 race to be at 10pm Pacific Time on the Saturday.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

In terms of NFL fixture times - are they also considering of the visiting team's time zone?

Raiders are scheduled to play home fixtures against Jets and Pats in 2023, will the schedule consider Eastern Time?

believe it is determined by the home team's time zone.

for example, if an east coast team (the Jets) was playing in the west and was given the early time slot then that game would be starting 9am east coast time and the only games on that early that i have every seen are for games played in the UK.

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Also - I understand that the plan is for the F1 race to be at 10pm Pacific Time on the Saturday.

in which case there is no conflict with the NFL and at that late hour probably not much of a conflict for college games scheduled for Sat night either?

pretty much wipes out the east coast N.A. tv audience tho.

[broadrun96]

NFL games are determined by two things ONLY, TV (time) and previous record (location).

That said, Raiders at home will ONLY be a 415 or 820 Eastern time. Games start at 115, 415 or 820 on Sunday and on one game is Sunday Evening. It is on NBC so not gonna have ANY cooperation with ESPN or LM for TV concerns. The WORST NFL game takes F1 out back and embarrasses the BEST F1 race ratings, and sorry but the NFL don't give a rip about international ratings or LM. The only involvement in LM and the NFL is satellite radio for a channel and local radio rebroadcast. the 415 kick would be either CBS for AFC/AFC games and mostly Fox for NFC visiting teams. ESPN has Monday Night games so TV would not be a concern for the current TV deal for F1.

The final schedule is determined AFTER this season so attempting to guess if the Raiders will be home X weekend is near impossible. It is based on finish in division for the non-division teams and then the other games have to be worked out. The majority is set based on division teams first, then scheduled AFC East and NFC Central teams, then 3 TBDs of AFC Central and North and NFC East opponents determined as by 2022-2023 table results. The AFC North and NFC East teams would be home games.

10 pm Pacific time sounds great on paper but that's 1am East Coast and will destroy the ratings they desperately want to push. Most of the night games for Pac coast teams would kick around 10pm, it's a well known late night East Coast football time but not great ratings compared to the daytime and primetime games. That would also be a bit early on Sunday for Europe no? 1pm in Nov would generally be mid 80s (30ish) but with high sun and VERY VERY low humidity. Evening temps drop FAST, 50s (10-12C) commonly after dark temps in late November.

The other MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR concern is the overhaul of ESPN tv deals currently. THE major conference of college football is moving to ESPN/ABC for 2023 college season, this draws pro football level numbers at 330 pm and 7-8ish evening games. ESPN will not be taking off the coverage that costs BILLIONS for something they buy on the cheap and would LM want to be live in the US market on ESPNews?? I have to think LM wants this to grow viewership to sell the product to the next investor not just sell the event in person only.

LV race would have to be worked in around football IF LM wants TV. It would also have to be around football for the sportsbooks but you can post your picks online now so in casino isn't as big for the smaller bids but the pros are still in house bidding at the window via proxies.


It will be entertaining how they think they can fit everything and boot out any conventions with that weekend. Multiple conventions LOVE early Nov but late Nov gets tough for travel between full airplanes and people wanting to be off the road for work. And they are not returning as fast as expected so denying a convention could hurt more than it used to

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

10 pm Pacific time sounds great on paper [...] a bit early on Sunday for Europe no?

It makes it (I think) 6am UK and 7am Central Europe. The key is getting it broadcast in Europe on the Sunday - which means 10pm Pac is probably about the best time they could schedule the race for European viewers.

[S griffin]

It will be quite hard to find a time that suits them. So it makes you wonder why they have to make it all glitz and glamour, if the track isn't going to be great. Still a lot of scepticism about this planned GP

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by S griffin

So it makes you wonder why they have to make it all glitz and glamour, if the track isn't going to be great.

For the same reason as Monaco?

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

For the same reason as Monaco?

Exactly that, it ain't for you or I. This and Miami and Monaco are for the sponsors to see and be seen and teams to entice new sponsors. If there were no stands LM would be happy, the local govt wants stands to sell the economic impact to support the impact of the race setup

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Exactly that, it ain't for you or I. This and Miami and Monaco are for the sponsors to see and be seen and teams to entice new sponsors. If there were no stands LM would be happy, the local govt wants stands to sell the economic impact to support the impact of the race setup

With such high a sanctioning fees, how would tracks make their money back if there were no stands and no spectators in them? Would companies want to advertise on TV if there were no stands and no spectators?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With such high A sanctioning fees, how would tracks make their money back if there were no stands and no spectators in them? Would companies want to advertise on TV if there were no stands and no spectators?

Which is why India and Korea disappeared pretty quickly.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I do wonder if Vegas will be able to cope with the F1 race. I often wondered why we needed the race anyway. There are too many GPs on the calendar as it is

Considering the sports that go on around November it will be tough to fit it in. So that's the big question mark over it

F1 is going from Europe Centric to the ROW centric with an emphasis on the US audience. They had a plan when they bought the series and now we are watching it unfold like it or not. Monaco must be under some threat because I saw an article showing the Prince out and about obviously trying to shore up support. Here you go https://www.autoweek.com/racing/form...co-grand-prix/

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With such high a sanctioning fees, how would tracks make their money back if there were no stands and no spectators in them? Would companies want to advertise on TV if there were no stands and no spectators?

iirc, FOM kept/keeps the revenue from the luxury/vip sections but this new Miami model with luxury seating/VIP cabanas/private boxes scattered around the track, often in lieu of grandstand seating for the punters, would mean the track keeps that revenue?

would be curious to know how that arraignments works, but if it is the venue/local promoters who keep that income then they may have have found a way to cover their fees and in the process found a new way for certain places to better monetize their events?

and if not, the city/state is paying for it anyways.

as for advertising...whats more valuable these days, actual people in grandstands or b-list celebs posting their access on their insta and tiktok feeds?

as broadrun said and i agree, several of these venues have squally moved into the category of 'it ain't for you or I'.

i suppose every sport/business has some event/activity that is there because it pays the bills and im ok with that if it means other less profitable places like Spa can remain. hopefully thats the quid pro quo here but i doubt it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

iirc, FOM kept/keeps the revenue from the luxury/vip sections but this new Miami model with luxury seating/VIP cabanas/private boxes scattered around the track, often in lieu of grandstand seating for the punters, would mean the track keeps that revenue?

would be curious to know how that arraignments works, but if it is the venue/local promoters who keep that income then they may have have found a way to cover their fees and in the process found a new way for certain places to better monetize their events?

and if not, the city/state is paying for it anyways.

as for advertising...whats more valuable these days, actual people in grandstands or b-list celebs posting their access on their insta and tiktok feeds?

as broadrun said and i agree, several of these venues have squally moved into the category of 'it ain't for you or I'.

i suppose every sport/business has some event/activity that is there because it pays the bills and im ok with that if it means other less profitable places like Spa can remain. hopefully thats the quid pro quo here but i doubt it.

What I read in Planetf1 regarding the Miami GP, https://www.planetf1.com/news/miami-...-expectations/, is tickets were very expensive, $500 being the lowest rate for race day alone, with some corporate hospitality tickets going for as much as almost $30,000 and the event still made a loss. As for the Las Vegas GP, this other article from Planetf1, https://www.planetf1.com/news/libert...land-purchase/, says Liberty have purchased $240m worth of land east of The Strip, to build a permanent pit and paddock facility. The race itself will take place on a Saturday night. That eliminates any clash with Raider's games.

TV advertising is aimed at the viewer and in the case of a televised sporting event, I would have thought that viewers would prefer to watch it if there is a good attendance at the venue. I don't think b-list celebs posting their access on their insta and tiktok feeds are going to generate much TV advertising revenue.

[chillibowl]

perhaps i put too much stock in the online platforms, but imo and unlike the Bernie years, FOM and i suspect most advertisers now days care far more about monetizing their products via online platforms, posts by social media of 'influencers', and promoting the sport through that network

so is TV advertising a priority any more for F1? basically FOM extracts a huge fee from a network (in my case SKY) and in turn that network in turn charges me a huge price to watch the races without commercials. selling ads doesnt seem to factor into it?

trackside advertising tho, which no doubt still has a rate card based on the number of viewers but is that defined by the number of TV viewers or the number of times something is viewed in general?

honestly though i dont think FOM cares much about advertising as anything other then a tool to extract more money out of SA...you want a race in SA Mr. Crown Prince, well then in addition to paying exorbitant sanctioning fees here is a trackside advertising contract for Aramco which you must also agree to.

i can pick the gas station i go to but its not like i can pick which country my country imports it gas from...so whats the point of Aramco ads to a regular consumer?

maybe im being cynical, but some of the current F1 advertising seems to exist in direct contrast to the consumer options available to us so why are these brands advertising trackside in the first place?

surely its not because they want us to visit..if they did they would have built more seats next to their race track right?

anywhoo, im just rambling!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

as broadrun said and i agree, several of these venues have squally moved into the category of 'it ain't for you or I'.

For something like Vegas and maybe a few others, I fully agree. I am attending the race in Austin and while general admission is not bad, anything beyond that is pretty costly.

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What I read in Planetf1 regarding the Miami GP, https://www.planetf1.com/news/miami-...-expectations/, is tickets were very expensive, $500 being the lowest rate for race day alone, with some corporate hospitality tickets going for as much as almost $30,000 and the event still made a loss.

Those amounts are just nuts!

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

TV advertising is aimed at the viewer and in the case of a televised sporting event, I would have thought that viewers would prefer to watch it if there is a good attendance at the venue. I don't think b-list celebs posting their access on their insta and tiktok feeds are going to generate much TV advertising revenue.

Agree that the celebrity related social media doesn't directly drive immediate revenue. It is about both reaching out/marketing to their audience (promotion the event) and lastly "elevation of the event" (upping the "cool factor") by them being in attendance.

Richard

[Casper]

Liberty is a media company and acquiring F1 was primarily to create more media product, the racing was simply the means to do that. There is a world wide shortage of product to fill the available media time and sport is the biggest available means of adding more and if they thought another sport had the same value with less problems then they would have not bought F1.

Being an American company and having a huge cashed up and untapped audience in the US was an opportunity they could not resist and the move to create more F1 events in the US is the result. Stand by for more developments in the US and that has to be at the expense of European events unless there are radical changes to how F1 is organised. Maybe regional championships and a run off series might fly but that might be a step too far. Rebutting Andretti and pushing for VW/Porsche/Audi indicates their thinking and the teams seem to be on board that, witness Toto's recent comments on the subject. If they could persuade Toyota and Honda to rejoin as full works teams that would have to be the icing on the cake.

CVC used F1 as a money making exercise by creating debt and when that idea came to an end they needed to get out before they had to repay it. That debt went into the hedge fund to benefit investors and did nothing to assist F1 in any way.

The traditional European centric calendar grew out of the lack of means to having races elsewhere and possibly the lack of need because everyone was quite happy racing in Europe so why bother doing anything else. That view has steadily been eroded away when money and commercial sponsorship started happening in the 1950's & 60's onwards and it will continue to be eroded as there is way more money outside Europe these days. The European fan base won't be impressed but it is going to happen.

It will be interesting to see what Liberty do when the change to electrification in Europe really gets going, do they run it as a retro style series or join in and go full electric? All the large series around the world face the same issue of course and no one has the answer or if they do they aren't saying. Fans always have an answer and it might be that they point the direction they want to see things go.

Just a few thoughts for today but no answers.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

With such high a sanctioning fees, how would tracks make their money back if there were no stands and no spectators in them? Would companies want to advertise on TV if there were no stands and no spectators?

Because FOM/LM don't care how the track makes their money, that's not part of their goal to make FOM a more profitable enterprise. And that hasn't been the F1 way for multiple decades now, see Bernie

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

For something like Vegas and maybe a few others, I fully agree. I am attending the race in Austin and while general admission is not bad, anything beyond that is pretty costly.


Those amounts are just nuts!


Agree that the celebrity related social media doesn't directly drive immediate revenue. It is about both reaching out/marketing to their audience (promotion the event) and lastly "elevation of the event" (upping the "cool factor") by them being in attendance.

Richard

Austin is trying to survive both with F1 and within the state, but it has been a fan experience decision of COTA rather than FOM/LM. The "premier and glitz" events of Monaco and what they are trying to sell with Miami and LV are FOM attracting the B2B crowd and making it look cool.

Sadly the majority of companies still think having xxxx pub your product on the InstaTikChat is worth revenue and the marketing geniuses are in all the companies advertising with F1 too, especially those little stickers on the sidepods. There's is a thought of if we're close to the event that's cool, everyone will think we're cool by association. Or whatever hip, cool, on fleek or whatever the morons think it the right term this week.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

perhaps i put too much stock in the online platforms, but imo and unlike the Bernie years, FOM and i suspect most advertisers now days care far more about monetizing their products via online platforms, posts by social media of 'influencers', and promoting the sport through that network

so is TV advertising a priority any more for F1? basically FOM extracts a huge fee from a network (in my case SKY) and in turn that network in turn charges me a huge price to watch the races without commercials. selling ads doesnt seem to factor into it?

trackside advertising tho, which no doubt still has a rate card based on the number of viewers but is that defined by the number of TV viewers or the number of times something is viewed in general?

honestly though i dont think FOM cares much about advertising as anything other then a tool to extract more money out of SA...you want a race in SA Mr. Crown Prince, well then in addition to paying exorbitant sanctioning fees here is a trackside advertising contract for Aramco which you must also agree to.

i can pick the gas station i go to but its not like i can pick which country my country imports it gas from...so whats the point of Aramco ads to a regular consumer?

maybe im being cynical, but some of the current F1 advertising seems to exist in direct contrast to the consumer options available to us so why are these brands advertising trackside in the first place?

surely its not because they want us to visit..if they did they would have built more seats next to their race track right?

anywhoo, im just rambling!

Broadcasting accounts for roughly 38% of FOM's revenue. As you say Sky pays FOM a huge fee to broadcast the race and Sky needs to recoup that by charging you a huge subscription fee and even though the race is ad-free Sky are still selling advertising space, with advertisements being shown either side of the race, so TV advertising certainly does factor into it. Sky are in it to make money.

Trackside advertising is another revenue stream for FOM and gives exposure to global partners like Aramco, DHL. Heineken, Rolex etc. as well as title rights.

This article from the National Motorsport Academy on sponsorship is worth reading. https://motorsport.nda.ac.uk/news/th...sorship-in-f1/

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

Because FOM/LM don't care how the track makes their money, that's not part of their goal to make FOM a more profitable enterprise. And that hasn't been the F1 way for multiple decades now, see Bernie

FOM/LM may not care how a track makes its money but if there were no stands, would broadcasters want to televise a sporting event with no spectators and would TV viewers want to watch a sporting event with no spectators? Broadcasters need TV viewers to attract advertising to pay FOM/LM, the NFL, whoever. for the broadcasting rights.

[chillibowl]

for sure a lot of spectators in the stands makes for a more compelling product/images on tv...im with you on that.

but with respect, if you look at the new venues being added, does it appear to you that either FOM or the broadcasters are pushing to prioritize places that will be capable of attracting huge crowds?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

for sure a lot of spectators in the stands makes for a more compelling product/images on tv...im with you on that.

but with respect, if you look at the new venues being added, does it appear to you that either FOM or the broadcasters are pushing to prioritize places that will be capable of attracting huge crowds?

I don't think they need to, as crowd attendance is good, especially now Covid isn't affecting it anymore.

[Alan52]

The confirmation of Albert Park for 2 April next year suggests South Africa is not going to happen.The drafts had Albert Park the weekend before with South Africa on that April date.There have been problems about finance and it appears these won’t be overcome.
That’s 1 less Euro round that has to be cut.

[bjohnsonsmith]

According to Autosport, SPA is on the 2023 F1 calendar.


https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/be...2023/10359488/