http://www.autosport...t.php/id/120405
It seems Bernie E is unwilling to keep F1 at Monza unless they can come up with the unrealistic hosting fees that new venues are willing to pay....
Posted 21 August 2015 - 23:10
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/120405
It seems Bernie E is unwilling to keep F1 at Monza unless they can come up with the unrealistic hosting fees that new venues are willing to pay....
Advertisement
Posted 21 August 2015 - 23:22
And yet they still wonder why F1 is on such a decline..
Posted 21 August 2015 - 23:30
Another carpark in the desert, coming to a TV screen near you, soon.
Posted 21 August 2015 - 23:30
Posted 21 August 2015 - 23:49
Well, it's not like parabolica is not carpark-esque. And before any "safety" guys come in, read the article on that V8 Supercars guy who got injured by a helicopter fly-over - should we seal all drivers in human-form foam costumes just to make sure they don't get injured, rather than regular policemen or firefighters?
Posted 22 August 2015 - 00:04
Monza dropping off the calendar would only speed up the process of me not giving a crap about F1 any more.
Spa, Monza, Silverstone, and yes, even Monaco, should always be on the calendar. They are a link to the history and heritage of the sport. F1 not visiting Monza or any of those others would be like NASCAR no longer racing at Daytona, for instance.
It is a shame that those who have the most power in F1 seem to have such disregard for the history of the sport.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 02:43
if Monza does indeed go.... End of an era, IMO.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 07:56
Posted 22 August 2015 - 08:29
Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:32
I don't even like Monza all that much personally but losing it would be a massive loss for F1. Even if we look past the history, the sport needs tracks with specific characteristics.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 10:47
I doubt Monza will go. Seems to me more like a message from Bernie to other circuits. Kinda like "I'm playing hardball with Monza. You think I'd give 2 shits about dropping your ass off the calendar?"
But who knows.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 11:07
I don't even like Monza all that much personally but losing it would be a massive loss for F1. Even if we look past the history, the sport needs tracks with specific characteristics.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 11:49
I don't even like Monza all that much personally but losing it would be a massive loss for F1. Even if we look past the history, the sport needs tracks with specific characteristics.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 15:20
Posted 22 August 2015 - 15:39
I don't even like Monza all that much personally but losing it would be a massive loss for F1. Even if we look past the history, the sport needs tracks with specific characteristics.
Agreed. I love the new Hockeheim, but I would also like to see the old Hockeheim back again.
Posted 22 August 2015 - 16:20
Posted 22 August 2015 - 19:58
Bernie's argument about not making any exceptions re race hosting fees is ridiculous.
Monaco pays zero.
What Bernie says is never the truth unless the truth is what suits his purpose at the time.
Posted 23 August 2015 - 07:27
I don't know if I dreampt this but wouldn't it be funny for Bernie....No French GP, Reanault pull out, no German GP, Mercedes pull out, no Italian GP.....Ferrari pull out.........Dreams eh, don't you love em.
Posted 23 August 2015 - 09:42
I don't know if I dreampt this but wouldn't it be funny for Bernie....No French GP, Reanault pull out, no German GP, Mercedes pull out, no Italian GP.....Ferrari pull out.........Dreams eh, don't you love em.
Then no British GP and he'll have two Saubers left on the grid.
Advertisement
Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:21
It's about time circuits formed their own association so they couldn't be bullied away one after another.
Posted 23 August 2015 - 11:44
Repeating the leprechaun himself, "Don't be naughty" to the OP.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 09:43
Autosport: F1 chief Bernie Ecclestone pessimistic over Italian GP and Monza
Asked whether he felt a deal was unlikely, Ecclestone said: "At the moment I'd probably say yes, based on the fact they don't want to pay.
"They had a very good deal which went back years before and they'd like to continue, but maybe it doesn't suit certain people.
"Maybe something they've enjoyed in the past they won't be enjoying [in the future]."
Posted 04 September 2015 - 09:56
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
I know many fans want the Italian GP to stay at Monza, and I do as well... but from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense for the management of F1 to stick to a venue that pays substantially less.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:02
Maybe if F1 was run more as a sport than a business it wouldn't be in terminal decline. Just a thought.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:03
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
To me Monza almost shouldn't have to pay. Monza gives more to F1 than F1 gives to Monza
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:12
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
I know many fans want the Italian GP to stay at Monza, and I do as well... but from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense for the management of F1 to stick to a venue that pays substantially less.
The problem is that it is not necessarily that Monza is paying too little, but that other Grands Prix are paying too much.
If the amount of money is all that counts towards whether a country should hold a Grand Prix or not then there will likely not be any GPs in Europe in the very near future, because governments in other parts of the world are willing to pay stupid amounts of money to get their names up in lights.
And as each traditional venue closes in favour of a "new market" venue the variety of circuit is lost too. Monza gone and it won't be too long before Spa and Silverstone are gone too. Then we will be left, largely, with mid-speed Tilkedromes and no high speed circuits.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:21
So is seems like the common census is that old and historically significant tracks shouldn't have to pay (or they should have to only pay a small fee).
If F1 was run more like the above.. what would the implication be on F1 though?
1) If Italy should get of 'lightly', would other classic venues also get the same treatment (current and legacy?)
2) Would this mean the return of more GPs in these classic venues?
3) Due to time/resource constraints, and the return of some of these races in classic venues, it would mean fewer races in regions of the world that have a higher population growth. (Europe is the only continent that is expected to have a decrease in population in the coming decades)
4) Would a lack of F1 in some of these growing markets affect sponsorship? I am sure it would... the likes of Petronas, Sahara etc may not want to renew their partnerships if they can't better target these growing markets.
5) How long could these classic venues go on with paying a lesser amount?
6) Over time, some of the more modern tracks would be classed as classic. Would these also get the same treatment as you would want for Italy, relative to the newer tracks that will come through in the future?
7) Although some of these tracks may make for better entertainment when watching on the TV, it would also mean that it could be more difficult for someone outside of Europe to attend a GP depending on their location.
8) What are the effects on F1 as a business if they are making less money from these events?
Those are just some of the things I could think of on the top of my head whilst I am working ; ) but am sure there are many more..
I understand the reasoning of keeping classic tracks such as Monza, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
Edited by McLaren, 04 September 2015 - 10:22.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:23
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
I know many fans want the Italian GP to stay at Monza, and I do as well... but from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense for the management of F1 to stick to a venue that pays substantially less.
They plainly think it does make sense in the case of Monte Carlo who pay a race fee of approximately zero pounds and zero pence to host their race so yeah, there is plainly room for other considerations.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:42
Bernie really needs to go, his business sense is just not looking at the long term. He is chasing the short term dollar at the expense of a more viable long term product. The move from free to air to pay channels got him big bucks but had a big impact on the viewership. This makes it harder for the teams to get commercial sponsors as the numbers that get to see the mobile billboards are so much smaller. As such, the teams become more reliant on the revenue from the sport which is coming from the tracks themselves who have to pay. So he raises the price for tracks who then can no longer afford it and they drop off the calendar, but that is OK because we go to new venues that Bernie seems to think that the fans want, but the reality is that the fans mean nothing to Bernie. We are no longer part of his business model. The new venues are mostly shortlived and the loss of the big historical races leads to yet another drop in viewership and look very bad on TV as the grandstands are empty.
I was annoyed at the loss of the French GP, then the German and now if Monza goes I will be pissed. I dont understand how the idiots in charge dont realise that its not just the teams that make F1, but also some of the key tracks. I would say that Monaco, Silverstone, Monza should never be allowed to drop off, then there needs to be a German and French GP (dont care about the venues, just get it back on the calendar). They should have much lower fees to pay as they were in from the outset and should benefit from this. Let the new tracks pay the stupid money - given most of them are government backed they can afford it. Or even better, stop going off to find cookie cutter tilkedromes in countries who dont care about F1 and jsut bring back other more relevant venues like Imola for the San Marino GP!
Rant over.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 11:49
So is seems like the common census is that old and historically significant tracks shouldn't have to pay (or they should have to only pay a small fee).
If F1 was run more like the above.. what would the implication be on F1 though?
1) If Italy should get of 'lightly', would other classic venues also get the same treatment (current and legacy?)
2) Would this mean the return of more GPs in these classic venues?
3) Due to time/resource constraints, and the return of some of these races in classic venues, it would mean fewer races in regions of the world that have a higher population growth. (Europe is the only continent that is expected to have a decrease in population in the coming decades)
4) Would a lack of F1 in some of these growing markets affect sponsorship? I am sure it would... the likes of Petronas, Sahara etc may not want to renew their partnerships if they can't better target these growing markets.
5) How long could these classic venues go on with paying a lesser amount?
6) Over time, some of the more modern tracks would be classed as classic. Would these also get the same treatment as you would want for Italy, relative to the newer tracks that will come through in the future?
7) Although some of these tracks may make for better entertainment when watching on the TV, it would also mean that it could be more difficult for someone outside of Europe to attend a GP depending on their location.
8) What are the effects on F1 as a business if they are making less money from these events?
Those are just some of the things I could think of on the top of my head whilst I am working ; ) but am sure there are many more..
I understand the reasoning of keeping classic tracks such as Monza, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
I think there should be a measure of 'classic' circuit - e.g. it has to have been present in over 50% of F1 WDC seasons and been present at least once a decade since 1950. Thus Monza, Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and the Nurburgring should be eligible for 'classic' status, and minimal fees.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:13
The whole payment system is backwards anyway, Bernie should be the one paying to rent time at the circuits not the other way round.
If the circuits could make any money from the races then they would be able to upgrade their facilities far more often, instead of going through big redevelopments every 15-20 years.
As it is right now all the circuits have no money to invest and we have situations like in Shanghai and Hungary this year where some of the grandstands are so poorly maintained that they are deemed unfit for use.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:23
Greed is so ugly.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:32
I think there should be a measure of 'classic' circuit - e.g. it has to have been present in over 50% of F1 WDC seasons and been present at least once a decade since 1950. Thus Monza, Monaco, Silverstone, Spa and the Nurburgring should be eligible for 'classic' status, and minimal fees.
And minimum fees should be equal to whatever the lowest hosting fee by any track in the past 10 years (adjusted for inflation). I like the general idea, but what about newer classic tracks? Interlagos and Montreal, spring to mind. Any rule to make tracks classic would just mean that Bernie would make sure the contracts prevent any new race from reaching Classic status. Which means that an agreement like this would give a death sentence to Interlagos, Montreal, Suzuka, etc.
And what about protecting historic Grands Prix? Even if no single track achieves classic status, surely the French GP (even with its recent absence) qualifies as a classic race. there have been 46 Canadian Grands Prix, and 45 Spanish Grands Prix. Surely those are both close to classic status.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:33
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
I know many fans want the Italian GP to stay at Monza, and I do as well... but from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense for the management of F1 to stick to a venue that pays substantially less.
Monaco doesn't have to pay a thing. Yet there's never any doubt as to whether that race will be on the calendar or not.
Funny that, isn't it?
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:41
Posted 04 September 2015 - 12:56
Formula 1 needs to die a lot quicker, so a new formula can rise from its ashes. Axing Monza would help that along so I'm for it.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 13:05
And minimum fees should be equal to whatever the lowest hosting fee by any track in the past 10 years (adjusted for inflation). I like the general idea, but what about newer classic tracks? Interlagos and Montreal, spring to mind. Any rule to make tracks classic would just mean that Bernie would make sure the contracts prevent any new race from reaching Classic status. Which means that an agreement like this would give a death sentence to Interlagos, Montreal, Suzuka, etc.
And what about protecting historic Grands Prix? Even if no single track achieves classic status, surely the French GP (even with its recent absence) qualifies as a classic race. there have been 46 Canadian Grands Prix, and 45 Spanish Grands Prix. Surely those are both close to classic status.
Well I was tihnking of individual circuits rather than grand prix fixtures in general - I mean its one thing to save the Italian Grand Prix, but maybe they'll then host it at some boring Tilkedrome somewhere. Thats why individual circuits should have the protection.
But overall you make very good points; I'd certainly like a mechanism to see the likes to Interlagos, Montreal, etc. preserved.
At the end of the day the big problem is the money CVC are taking out of the sport - if this was not happening, then circuits wouldn't need to be charged exorbitant fees.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 13:06
So is seems like the common census is that old and historically significant tracks shouldn't have to pay (or they should have to only pay a small fee).
If F1 was run more like the above.. what would the implication be on F1 though?
1) If Italy should get of 'lightly', would other classic venues also get the same treatment (current and legacy?)
2) Would this mean the return of more GPs in these classic venues?
3) Due to time/resource constraints, and the return of some of these races in classic venues, it would mean fewer races in regions of the world that have a higher population growth. (Europe is the only continent that is expected to have a decrease in population in the coming decades)
4) Would a lack of F1 in some of these growing markets affect sponsorship? I am sure it would... the likes of Petronas, Sahara etc may not want to renew their partnerships if they can't better target these growing markets.
5) How long could these classic venues go on with paying a lesser amount?
6) Over time, some of the more modern tracks would be classed as classic. Would these also get the same treatment as you would want for Italy, relative to the newer tracks that will come through in the future?
7) Although some of these tracks may make for better entertainment when watching on the TV, it would also mean that it could be more difficult for someone outside of Europe to attend a GP depending on their location.
8) What are the effects on F1 as a business if they are making less money from these events?
Those are just some of the things I could think of on the top of my head whilst I am working ; ) but am sure there are many more..
I understand the reasoning of keeping classic tracks such as Monza, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.
I think the real reason Bernie continues to chase money is not for the teams, but for the current commercial rights lease holders - CVC partners.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 13:11
And minimum fees should be equal to whatever the lowest hosting fee by any track in the past 10 years (adjusted for inflation). I like the general idea, but what about newer classic tracks? Interlagos and Montreal, spring to mind. Any rule to make tracks classic would just mean that Bernie would make sure the contracts prevent any new race from reaching Classic status. Which means that an agreement like this would give a death sentence to Interlagos, Montreal, Suzuka, etc.
And what about protecting historic Grands Prix? Even if no single track achieves classic status, surely the French GP (even with its recent absence) qualifies as a classic race. there have been 46 Canadian Grands Prix, and 45 Spanish Grands Prix. Surely those are both close to classic status.
In my view Monaco, Silverstone, Spa, Monza and Suzuka should all be given some form of classic status to reflect their historic importance to the sport and ensure that those tracks cannot be removed from the calendar.
In addition it should be set in stone that there should be GPs in the other classic or key markets of France, Germany, Spain, Canada, America, Brazil, Australia and Singapore, not necessarily at a particular circuit, although in a few cases the venue goes without saying.
If Bernie then wants to add more races he can do, but it should not be at the expense of any classic circuit.
Advertisement
Posted 04 September 2015 - 15:26
Ferrari stays strikingly quiet in the matter.
If Monza gets dropped, it's symbolic and accents the sign of the time: no place anymore for passion and history in Grand Prix racing. Very sad.
A LOT more disturbing than how the cars look and how much noise they make.
Edited by Turboflame, 04 September 2015 - 15:45.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 15:29
Hosting F1 races is simply not financially viable for any private enterprise. Becoming entirely reliant on government funding doesn't seem like a particularly sensible business strategy for the sport.
Edited by ThisIsMischaW, 04 September 2015 - 15:29.
Posted 04 September 2015 - 16:26
It's curious that certain teams get extra money for their 'legacy' contribution to the sport but that the same consideration does not apply to circuits.
Apart from Monaco of course, the exception that apparently proves the rule.
Posted 05 September 2015 - 08:28
For me circuits like Spa, Silverstone or Monza shouldn't pay anything. If Bernie needs more money he can rip it from his friends in Azerbaidjan, Russia, Abu Dhabi etc...
Posted 05 September 2015 - 09:46
We're going to Azerbadjan!!
Posted 05 September 2015 - 11:29
I think Bernie has realised that it's not too long before he will die. Probably his thinking is that he built F1 and so he will take it with him when he goes. Right now he seems to be doing everything he can to limit its future.
Posted 06 September 2015 - 11:27
There are fears that the famous race at Monza – a staple of the championship since its inception – will not get a new deal beyond next season.
Both Button and Hamilton believe losing Monza would be unthinkable. “There are a few circuits that should never be off the calendar, and this is definitely one of them,” Button said.“Last year I did 220mph in the race wheel to wheel. It’s madness. It’s so important for the sport.”Hamilton added: “It should be here for the rest of Formula One’s life. When you go to a new circuit, Ayrton Senna didn’t drive there, Juan Manuel Fangio didn’t drive there.”
From http://www.telegraph...-next-year.html
Monza, Monaco and Spa can add to the list of F1 greats the Grand Prix greats between the wars. Nuvolari, Caracciola and Rosemeyer.
Posted 06 September 2015 - 11:33
To be fair, why should the Italian GP stay at Monza if they are unwilling to pay a fee that is suitable to that of something in the 21st Century. I haven't looked at any of the figures, but just because the GP is at a historic venue, doesn't mean that they should get away with paying substantially less than what others do.
I know many fans want the Italian GP to stay at Monza, and I do as well... but from a business point of view, it doesn't make sense for the management of F1 to stick to a venue that pays substantially less.
Posted 06 September 2015 - 14:22
Monza being on the claendar adds value to F1.
Without it, F1 is worth less. And I'd say the 10m difference is worth that.
Posted 06 September 2015 - 18:14
I think Bernie has realised that it's not too long before he will die. Probably his thinking is that he built F1 and so he will take it with him when he goes. Right now he seems to be doing everything he can to limit its future.
While that's quite blunt, it does feel as though Bernie feels the future is other people's business.
Posted 06 September 2015 - 18:44