Comments on: Sharing the British Grand Prix – nice idea but not economically sound

By: DG

DG — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:28:40 +0000

Bernies argument has always been that the British Government doesn’t support F1 the same way that other countries do, and supply the extra cash needed to provide a circuit with all the Pits, Hotels, Girls etc that are on his wish list.
No doubt at the meeting with the Minister of the week, he would have said as much, and won’t mind if the GP is at Silverstone or Donnington, or Cardiff or Bognor Regis as long as its on a circuit which meets every one of his specifications.
Keith – is there a definitive list of these anywhere? I get the impression it changes every month!
I think unless something happens this year to make a British GP a certainty in 2010, we will be in for a shock announcement. Either that or Bernie will wait for the value of Silverstone to plummet over the next 2 years, then buy it and say ‘Hey look, its a lovely circuit! We can hold the GP here!’

By: Rohan

Rohan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:49:43 +0000

Surely teams would still test at Silverstone though, seeing as it is nearer to most of their bases than is Donnington. Hence it might still be the case that one can see F1 cars at two separate venues in the UK.

By: KingCobra

KingCobra — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:29:52 +0000

I do hope that a solution will be found to keep the British GP both on the calender and on the British soil (I mean, the Swiss GP was held in France in the 80′s and there was the Luxembourg GP some years ago at the Nurburgring). I am Ukrainian, but I do care about the British GP, because I love the sport and realize how important the British GP is for F1. Hopefully, those people at the helm of the FOM love the sport just as much as I do.

By: Alex Cooper

Alex Cooper — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 08:04:41 +0000

My biggest concern is that, like a few have already mentioned, Bernie’s using this as a way to drop the British Grand Prix altogether. If this happens then the UK loses a major industry. With our car industry disappearing over the last 40 odd years many of those highly skilled and intuitive engineers went into motorsport.

With no British Grand Prix, why would any of the teams based in Britain’s ‘Silicon Valley’ stay here when every GP will be further East?

This is the point that I think the British Government is missing when it criticises FOM’s regard of the British Grand Prix and why they should have put their hands in their pockets. Silverstone would have only needed a fraction of the funds poured into the farce that already is the 2012 Olympics, to be held in London.

By: Noel

Noel — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 05:26:59 +0000

Talk about tracks losing money per race… I live just six miles away from the Silverstone circuit and I can confidently say that local towns, villages, farms, hotels etc all benefit massively from having the Grand Prix every year. My town literally buzzes for a week and the financial input it produces is definitely our largest single source of tourism income.

If the government can’t/don’t subsidise the race, or redevelopment of the facilities, the local economy around the circuit will suffer immensely, to the tune of millions of pounds. Surely it makes sense to subsidise a race to and stabilise local (taxable) income than let it disappear altogether and let small communities suffer the consequences?

By: Todd

Todd — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:04:54 +0000

It’s not an overall bad idea i think.

Like you said, every GP works at a loss, and hockenheim said that they cant afford to loose 3m every year, but 3m every 2 years is ok.

It’s the same issue with Australia, they cant afford to lose something like 5million every year, but if it was melbourne 1 year, sydney the next, then it’s only a 2.5m a year hit and australia keeps a race.

and it adds an additional track to the 2 year rotation, more things for drivers to learn, more opportunities for people to visit a race and a boost for local business in 2 areas not 1.

Race tracks are used for more than just f1, so upgrading them isn’t a bad idea, it works out well for all the other events that visit the circuit, i’m sure fuji attracts more race events now that it’s in an f1 rotation then it did after it was dropped.

and I’m sure donnington will become more popular among drivers and teams once it has upgrades.

@michael counsell

I dont agree that FOM should promote the sponsors of the track more, because i think they are doing it too much already, have you seen the last 2 trophy’s? they aren’t trophy’s anymore, they were both santander logos… pathetic

By: the limit

the limit — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 03:02:15 +0000

I have only been to Donnington Park once, probably a good three years ago now, and I think $200 million is a conservative estimate. No offence to those Donnington fans out there, as the track itself is fantastic. The location is good, close to a major airport, M1 nearby, in the centre of the country.
Its just the pit facilities were awfull, truly awfull.
I never thought it would be as bad as that. If they are really serious, then they should invest that kind of money. Please, please, please don’t give F1 those kinds of facilities as I saw back in 2005.
Good point about the German Grands Prix, and how alternating between Hockenheim and the Nurburgring has not been the greatest of successes. For Silverstone to have a secure future, as always, it needs government aid.
For me, personally, I don’t care which venue is overhauled. Just give the British F1 race fan what he or she deserves. Good facilities, good access, at a good price, and they will come! It will make money.
Give them something to be proud of and stop taking the piss.

By: Gman

Gman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:07:01 +0000

Sorry, hit the wrong button too soon- I meant to say “annual F1 visit.” Continuing…

This is the mode of business Bernie preferrs, and it’s not at all helpful to promoters/owners/management at circuits in Europe, North America, and other places such as Australia. If F1 dose indeed lose it’s GP in Britain, it will be a tragety for the sport and fans around the world. Hopefully this will not happen, but the deal with Donnington dose seem shaky, and who knows what will be the deal if that falls through…

By: Gman

Gman — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 02:01:34 +0000

Indeed, the alternating GP idea seems a good one…but I wonder just how long these arrangements will last in either Germany and Japan? I suppose in Japan, with the car companies owning both locations, it’s got a good chance of sticking. But in Germany…what if a change in track management, or something along those lines, puts one venue out of the picture?

Looking at the British example, the race at any of the tracks mentioned would be perfectly fine if not for the overwhelming sanctioning fee forced on all circuits. And thus, we find ourselves back at the same old dilemma…the government-funded circuits in the Middle East and Asia can easily build/upgrade to Bernie’s standard, and easily pay every year for the annual F1

By: michael counsell

michael counsell — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:14:44 +0000

The only reason FOM charges so much to hold races, is that the teams seem to be willing to pay and sign up for contracts tha tsees them paying more and more each year i nreal terms. The contracts are never up for renewal together so the tracks have no chance of sticking together to force prices to drop.

Maybe the FOM need to promote the sponsors of the race more which would in theory incraese the money coming to the tracks. Otherwise by limiting the money going to the tracks, the FOM are limiting the ability of tracks to improve their facilities.