Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
So the next installment of the Brit GP saga is out. With severe financial troubles Donnington's chances of keeping the GP in Britain are going down.
It looks like Korea or India will inherit the spot, unless the government gets their ass up and chips in some cash to fill the gap.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
I first found about the leasing problems with this article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsp ... 015028.stm
Shame they are having problems. It must be devastating for British fans.
What also concerns me is Bernie's attitude. In the article mentioned, he appears totally indifferent, not caring a whit. Bernie probably has another venue lined up to replace the British GP, and it will make him even more money.
Racing should be decided on the track, not the court room.
And governments must support F1? Can someone tell me why? Do you mean that tickets are so cheap that race organizers can not make a go of it? Lack of TV coverage/money? Golly gosh -- what am I missing here?
Just another example of how tenuous the claim that F1 is a "World" championship.
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
From a market point of view Ecclestone is right. Australia has been subsidizing their race by the tax payer for quite some time and plenty of other governments do the same. So he is never short of venues to take the British GP to. The British tax payer and lottery player has thrown billions into other sports, particularly the Olympics, so there is a point to make.
On the other hand there is the potential veto by the FIA which has always worked to get Britain a race on the cheap compared to other venues. That little play may have come to an end now, that Max Mosley has other negotiating targets with FOM.
I believe that unless Ecclestone or the gov invests in Donnington the race will go.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
donskar wrote:And governments must support F1? Can someone tell me why? Do you mean that tickets are so cheap that race organizers can not make a go of it? Lack of TV coverage/money? Golly gosh -- what am I missing here?
Just another example of how tenuous the claim that F1 is a "World" championship.
Whoever makes a profit out of it should bear the burden of the cost..
So, yes, the Governments should also support F1.
WhiteBlue wrote:The British tax payer and lottery player has thrown billions into other sports, particularly the Olympics, so there is a point to make.
There you go! Finally a good example of another "activity" that's become even more ridiculously "all about the money" than F1.. I wonder whether ANYONE would have the balls to cut costs in the Olympic Games in the current economic crisis!!!
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
The house of lords discussed the issue. Interesting reading.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
Using tax-payers money to any special interest is to my mind outrageous, two wrongs doesn't make one right.
As little as I want to see my money wasted on a new Football-arena which I never will frequent, either do I expect somebody else to pay for my kid's Radio Control race-track.
The paramount reason for the EvilTwin's relocating of races to God knows where, is that spectator-, franchise- and sponsorship-money is no longer enough. They found a way to milk more honey from far-away dictatorships, money which has been stolen from its own population.
Democracies subsidizing races would in effect be no different. Britain and the City of Montreal are absolutely correct, somebody has to put the foot down to end the senseless profiteering of the sport.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
The accumulation of every single tax payer's "special interests" makes up for a society's needs, and it is a government's obligation to care and provide for these needs, to the degree that such a thing is feasible.
One could argue that an F1 circuit is a "special interest".
One could argue that in this logic, almost anything can be regarded as a "special interest" of a group of people. Will the number of people sharing that "special interest" be a decisive factor? Of course it will. Should it? That's another story..
Examples can be found in every sector of public spending, be it healthcare, education/science, sport/entertainment and so on.. I won't go into that, but you can understand what I mean.
Obviously, some needs are basic, and some are not. Obviously, basic needs should be given priority, but if we stopped at that we would still be living in caves and hunting our lunch.
Secondly, an F1 circuit is much more than a venue for F1 racing. It has been shown that if it is managed properly it can boost the local economy.
Plus, it can be used to promote science, engineering, road safety, various forms of motorsport, automotive industry purposes, charity events, personal entertainment.
More specifically, hosting an F1 race is an event that attracts global interest, and this is why there are many Governments out there that would do almost anything to enjoy that privilege..
Should the government bear the whole financial burden? Of course not: everyone who benefits should, and that includes the evil twins, participating teams, sponsors, track owners, local authorities, government and public..
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
Depending of political conviction, the government decides what should be needful spending for the good of society, where most people seem to agree that a judiciary system, defense, schools, healthcare, infrastracture, and at least a minumum of a welfare safety-net is reasonable to share.
In all honesty, I fail to see a Formula One race even remotely qualifying to one of the above needs.
I know that whenever Olympics are discussed, even conservatives switches into a strange socialistic mode rambling about tax-money returns from public investments. Sigh.
As a libertarian, Conceptual might argue that government should not do anything of the above, although I belive he represents a rater small minority.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Most of the money for sport subsidies is generated by the lottery. I fail to see why motor racing should not participate. The parlimantary debate shows that Donington isn't after direct subsidies. They would need some garanties for the banks that would help with the finance. The other issue would be infrastructure investment into road , rail and air access to the track. It would make sense for Britain to support the motor sport industry which is unique and currently going through a very rough patch.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
I'm glad my badly written post generated some input.
The points I failed to make:
Government subsdies are required mainly (only?) because the prices Bernie charges promoters are unsupportable; simply absurd from an economic point of view. In addition, he cuts them out of many secondary revenue streams.
It is hard for most of us (especially me!) to accept that F1 has been prostituted to a great degree: it is now largely a money/marketing machine that happens to include some race cars.
Enzo Ferrari was a great man. But he was not a good man. -- Phil Hill
xpensive wrote:Depending of political conviction, the government decides what should be needful spending for the good of society, where most people seem to agree that a judiciary system, defense, schools, healthcare, infrastracture, and at least a minumum of a welfare safety-net is reasonable to share.
In all honesty, I fail to see a Formula One race even remotely qualifying to one of the above needs.
Problem is, as soon as you start arguing what can be defined as really needful you might end up with nothing..
Is the Space Program really necessary when there is poverty and famine? Is Higher Education really necessary when you have unemployment? Even the level of government funded Healthcare could be debatable: why should the taxpayers bear the financial burden of the NHS so that a smoker can have his blood pressure medication with a minimal charge since it could be his bad habit that ignited his condition? Why should people have a right to state funded Dental care if they don't brush their teeth properly? And so on..
In my view, we should constantly be asking for MORE for our hard-earned cash we are obliged to donate to the state, not less.. The money IS there alright, it's just a question of how THEY decide to spend it.. (wars against "terror" anyone?)
donskar wrote:Government subsdies are required mainly (only?) because the prices Bernie charges promoters are unsupportable; simply absurd from an economic point of view. In addition, he cuts them out of many secondary revenue streams.
It is hard for most of us (especially me!) to accept that F1 has been prostituted to a great degree: it is now largely a money/marketing machine that happens to include some race cars.
Totally agree with you. As I said on my previous post, the whole thing needs to be well managed..
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. H.P.Lovecraft
