Silverstone to opt out of hosting GP
Discussion
All in all it is a worrying move. It might be nothing more than a stance from the BRDC for better conditions. The circuit is in a fairly strong position as it is they who can pull the plug and Liberty has no say. They could do a Rosberg and fly off at the last moment. What they need to do is start a new FOCO, in this case for circuits. They don't need them all on board, not that they would get them, but could get a significant number.
There might be other developments in the near future.
As a previous poster mentioned, 2019 might be significant as it will no longer be free to air in the UK. If attendances drop over the weekend, they take the hit.
Or, of course, it could be Brexit.
There might be other developments in the near future.
As a previous poster mentioned, 2019 might be significant as it will no longer be free to air in the UK. If attendances drop over the weekend, they take the hit.
Or, of course, it could be Brexit.
Derek Smith said:
What they need to do is start a new FOCO, in this case for circuits. They don't need them all on board, not that they would get them, but could get a significant number.
I've been thinking this for a long time. One of the problems is that every element of F1 (teams, circuits, sponsors, TV companies etc) are in competition with each other - so getting a group together to stand up to the commercial rights holders, whoever they may be, has proved pretty much impossible.Indeed, the rights holders have used the inability of the participants to present a united front as a weapon against them.
Maybe, some day, this will change. I certainly hope so - because the way things are being managed now will only result in one outcome.
FourWheelDrift said:
Back in May Bernie said a London Grand Prix could happen as soon as next year, maybe he knew of this threat for a while and has been pretending he has this lined up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/articl...
and recently - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/235797/1/ecclestone-w...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/articl...
"Quizzed on the prospects for Britain, if Silverstone does activate its break clause, Eccelstone stressed there are other options. In England we have two other opportunities. Not circuits, two other opportunities. I am not going to say where it is. We will see."
So he's probably still thinking London and somewhere else, but where could the other non-circuit be if it exists in his head?
I'd be amazed if as a very minimum we don't get British Grand Prix coverage free to air from 2019. It's in Sky's interest to grow their subscriber base, hiding F1 behind a pay wall for good won't help, presumably they're free to sell a highlights package to a free to air provider and could easily offer the BGP weekend for free via various methods.
FourWheelDrift said:
FourWheelDrift said:
Back in May Bernie said a London Grand Prix could happen as soon as next year, maybe he knew of this threat for a while and has been pretending he has this lined up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/articl...
and recently - http://www.crash.net/f1/news/235797/1/ecclestone-w...http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/articl...
"Quizzed on the prospects for Britain, if Silverstone does activate its break clause, Eccelstone stressed there are other options. In England we have two other opportunities. Not circuits, two other opportunities. I am not going to say where it is. We will see."
So he's probably still thinking London and somewhere else, but where could the other non-circuit be if it exists in his head?
I see this move by silverstone to be an attempt at placing the pressure back on F1 for better deals. Any talk of 'it's okay, we'll go to London' is just nonsense. They didn't want to host the start of the Tour de France because of the costs and does london need a GP to draw people in and raise its own profile? Probably be against it because it's not green.
DS240 said:
Chances of GP in central London.... 0% in my view.
I see this move by silverstone to be an attempt at placing the pressure back on F1 for better deals. Any talk of 'it's okay, we'll go to London' is just nonsense. They didn't want to host the start of the Tour de France because of the costs and does london need a GP to draw people in and raise its own profile? Probably be against it because it's not green.
I forget, but isn't there a list of protected "historic GPs" in the Concorde agreement? Or is it just a minimum number that must happen in Europe?I see this move by silverstone to be an attempt at placing the pressure back on F1 for better deals. Any talk of 'it's okay, we'll go to London' is just nonsense. They didn't want to host the start of the Tour de France because of the costs and does london need a GP to draw people in and raise its own profile? Probably be against it because it's not green.
bobbo89 said:
Derek Smith said:
Donington's got the M1, and I'm sure that will cope without problems. Mind you, there's the airport.
If certain airlines cottoned on and offered the right flights you could easily fly there in the morning, walk to the circuit then catch your flight home in the afternoon. Be cheaper than petrol, parking and a hotel! 
...very good, yes. But where would these flights go to and how many bods would they bring, willing to walk two miles to the circuit?Then there's the little problem that East Midlands Airport has this year overstretched itself, become too greedy with drop off fees and created gridlock within the airport, sometimes backing up to the M1 roundabout. That's 2.6 miles, and some people were taking two hours to do it during summer 2016.
The annual Dowload Festival at the circuit causes a week of disruption too, with traffic queueing on the M1.
Non starter, I'd say.
Even more so, given Berie's disgraceful manipulation of the circuit in order to get his way with Silverstone a few years ago. I reckon they'd tell him to go away and scratch his arse.
Eric Mc said:
I've been thinking this for a long time. One of the problems is that every element of F1 (teams, circuits, sponsors, TV companies etc) are in competition with each other - so getting a group together to stand up to the commercial rights holders, whoever they may be, has proved pretty much impossible.
Indeed, the rights holders have used the inability of the participants to present a united front as a weapon against them.
Maybe, some day, this will change. I certainly hope so - because the way things are being managed now will only result in one outcome.
You are spot on, of course. Indeed, the rights holders have used the inability of the participants to present a united front as a weapon against them.
Maybe, some day, this will change. I certainly hope so - because the way things are being managed now will only result in one outcome.
To have just the one authority is not necessarily bad in itself as long as the person/group has targets that will ensure the long term health of the sport. So we are in the s
t.There does not have to be a confrontation. Indeed, it will benefit the sport if the needs of all concerned at taken into account.
We have Sky with the exclusive rights in this country. That's not good.
I dumped Sky Sports, which included F1, with the intention of using Now! and wandering around to friends' houses. However, I only watched four of the non free to air races. More to the point, I didn't miss the others.
Liberty will need to service their loan and that means income. They've suggested more races, but I'm not sure that's going to bring all that much in.
jbudgie said:
I would put up an argument for Oulton Park for that premise.
The obvious issue being that a nice spectator friendly circuit isn't nice and spectator friendly once it's been upgraded to full FIA F1 spec and all the necessary segregation and corporate gubbins are installed. If you have a favourite non F1 circuit circuit the last thing you should wish for is for F1 to take an interest in it.This scales all the way down too, Castle Combe is hilariously inadequate for anything above club racing, which means it's absolutely wonderful for club racing and for spectators.
ukaskew said:
jbudgie said:
I would put up an argument for Oulton Park for that premise.
The obvious issue being that a nice spectator friendly circuit isn't nice and spectator friendly once it's been upgraded to full FIA F1 spec and all the necessary segregation and corporate gubbins are installed. If you have a favourite non F1 circuit circuit the last thing you should wish for is for F1 to take an interest in it.This scales all the way down too, Castle Combe is hilariously inadequate for anything above club racing, which means it's absolutely wonderful for club racing and for spectators.
As you say F1 gubbins would be the last thing wanted.
ukaskew said:
jbudgie said:
I would put up an argument for Oulton Park for that premise.
The obvious issue being that a nice spectator friendly circuit isn't nice and spectator friendly once it's been upgraded to full FIA F1 spec and all the necessary segregation and corporate gubbins are installed. If you have a favourite non F1 circuit circuit the last thing you should wish for is for F1 to take an interest in it.This scales all the way down too, Castle Combe is hilariously inadequate for anything above club racing, which means it's absolutely wonderful for club racing and for spectators.
This factor alone is enough to show how much of a disaster F1 in its current form is to motor sport in general.
Of course all of the other F1 events around the globe get Government backing. At the end of the day, should it be solely the BRDC's responsibility to fund and organise a British Grand Prix? They're only a group of past and present motorsport enthusiasts. From pretty much the day after each race, they have to pour so much time and money into promoting ticket sales for the next one, it's almost desperate. If the event loses the club money, then they're absolutely right to pull out at the first opportunity, rather than risk the existence of their club. Maybe they should try again with selling the circuit to a car manufacturer? That would guarantee them a nice windfall to keep the club going for the next generation and maybe secure the venue as a long-term F1 fixture?
As for the track itself, I know the drivers enjoy it, but it's never been a great experience for paying spectators.
As for the track itself, I know the drivers enjoy it, but it's never been a great experience for paying spectators.
Not got the latest details but back in 2014 apparently:
"15 of the 19 races were funded by respective governments of the countries where the race was hosted, around $600.5m was invested by the governments in hosting F1 races in their countries"
So if you take away Monaco and Britain, then that leaves just 2 others that year without state funding.
"15 of the 19 races were funded by respective governments of the countries where the race was hosted, around $600.5m was invested by the governments in hosting F1 races in their countries"
So if you take away Monaco and Britain, then that leaves just 2 others that year without state funding.
LotusOmega375D said:
Not got the latest details but back in 2014 apparently:
"15 of the 19 races were funded by respective governments of the countries where the race was hosted, around $600.5m was invested by the governments in hosting F1 races in their countries"
So if you take away Monaco and Britain, then that leaves just 2 others that year without state funding.
So 15 of 19 races aren't financially viable without state funding, with the British GP also seemingly heading into that category. Is that not a strong sign that the system is broken? There are billions of dollars floating around in the sport, with the sport's owners creaming a huge profit off the top. If they can't come up with a sustainable model with all the money coming into the sport from other sources then I say let it die. As much as I'd hate losing the BGP from the calendar, I really don't think our taxes should be used to rescue it. "15 of the 19 races were funded by respective governments of the countries where the race was hosted, around $600.5m was invested by the governments in hosting F1 races in their countries"
So if you take away Monaco and Britain, then that leaves just 2 others that year without state funding.
thegreenhell said:
As much as I'd hate losing the BGP from the calendar, I really don't think our taxes should be used to rescue it.
And if it's a painful wake up call for the sport then so be it, sadly. I've seen some 'fans' suggest the likes of Hamilton, Button etc should pay for it (because they have money, presumably), which is overlooking the fundamental issue somewhat...that of the even richer people at the top of the pile who are the ones actually making money from the hosting of each event.Ticket sales alone (which is pretty much all a circuit makes from a GP weekend) don't cover the cost of hosting a race AND paying massive race fees (that increase every year). A simple problem with a simple solution or two, either drastically reduce hosting fees or change the model to allow circuits to generate income through their own sponsorship deals, advertising etc.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff