190 replies to this topic

[MrSlow]

Apart from making bodily harm to the smoker, I believe that tobacco has also caused cancer for F1.
For years now, Bernie have been making life difficult for GP's that does not allow tobacco ads. Spa managed to bounce back, but I would not be surprised if it will be dropped again. Silverstone has been on the ropes for so long that I doubt that they have the power to get up again before Bernie has counted to ten. As it seems, the French GP is in the line of fire again.

F1 is powered by tobacco. It is as simple as that. The tobacco companies is investing huge amounts of money and they are no charity organizations. They will want their money back. Is there a coincidence that the closer we get to the tobacco ad ban in EU, the faster tracks pops up outside EU? It is only natural, no one will sponsor an event without being able to somehow show that they are sponsoring. I feel sad about Turkey, they seem to be set to both have a GP and enter EU... I very much doubt that they can have both...

F1 is leaving Europe now. Maybe we will have a couple of races on the calendar, Monaco and Hockenheim perhaps, but the main part will be run in tobacco liberal countries. I can imagine that whoever buys Jaguar will have their base somewhere in Asia rather then outside London. Same goes for any "new" team in F1.

Right or wrong?

I can not say, I just feel a bit sad and nostalgic about it since it feels like they are basically dismantling F1 as I know it. Roots is important, but also quickly forgotten if the new environment proves successfull. Will the new, more eastern oriented, F1 be successful?

[repcobrabham]

smoking kills, it is addictive and its money made F1 what it is in the first place

what do they say about living by the sword?

[jondoe955]

Another foot in the grave for F1. I hope some of the upcoming series can give us what F1 once did. Not that I have anything against the new tracks, I look forward to seeing them. But I'd like to see a cheaper, fast series with much smaller wings that run on the classic tracks. Something that doesn't need the hourly fix of tobacco money. I wouldn't mind a series that excluded manufacturers. I like my competition on the track - not at the manufacturer's laboratory supercenters!

I was watching the Speed GT series and marveled at the sight of 34 cars on the track. Modern F1 is more like 90 minutes of single car testing. grrrrrr

[alesifan46]

It is SAD to see TOBACCO used as a economic "hitman" throughout the world..BUT lets face it...we've VOTED the "suns-a-bitches" into power that have made these LAWS!!....People blame F1 and Bernie for continuing to suck the teats of the tobacco industry inorder to secure BIG MONEY sponsorship and continued growth within the sport....The GOVERNMENTS that put these bans on tobacco advertising are 2 faced ****s!!...They ban the advertising...but they are TOO AFRAID of outright banning the product because of the HUGE TAX BENEFITS they haul in thru the sale of tobacco!!...It appears that Bernie has the "right" idea in moving into areas that the tobacco companies CAN advertise and in areas where the people have the RIGHT to smoke...albeit..it is probably the ONLY RIGHTS they have...In Canada,with the tobacco advertising ban, arts,music,equestrian,autoracing groups have all been affected by a "LACK OF CASH" from the tobacco companies..So I guess in Europe,you are just "starting" to see what "could/might happen" to venues you have all held in tradition...tradition seems to get ERRODED by special interest groups..now the people in England will be able to see "how funny it is " to have your GP pulled out on you...or at least threatened by it...don't worry...there will be a LAST minute deal to keep it all in place!! Have a great day!!

[MrSlow]

alesifan, do you have any idea of what would happen if the banned the use and sale of tobacco?
I thought not. I leave it up to your imagination for a while.
What EU are trying to do is to reduce the tobacco consumption and to make it a bit more difficult for the tobacco companies to recruit new customers. I see nothing two faced in that.

[jme]

You know... banning tabacco and at the same time still depending on lots of money from taxes, etc.... thats politics, I suppose. You can shout alot about the hyppocrisy of that, but in the end, this is always the result of difficult compromises between people (politicians) with different convictions or agendas.

Anyway, that doesn't mean, that I, personally, am in favor of the tabacco advertising ban. I'm a big F1 fan, but no organization (and certainly not an entertainement business) should parasitize on human health and human lives. The ones who should come around here, certainly is the F1 world!

BTW, I wonder what would happen, if e.g. the European Union would forbid its local television stations to send out events wich show tabacco advertisment, even if these events are situated outside of Europe. This would certainly pose a big problem for Mr. Ecclestone and Co, since they still rely for a large part on European viewers. I imagine that this would cause an enourmously fast change in BE's politics

[Teez]

Smoking kills? So does driving cars. So does alcohol. So does just about everything else. Every age has its own madness, from witch-hunting manias to tulips to holy crusades to the environment to the militant anti-smoking kooks. Buncha know-nothing, brain-dead, Politically Correct 'joiners' with far too much time on their hands.

[jme]

Originally posted by Teez
Smoking kills? So does driving cars. So does alcohol. So does just about everything else. Every age has its own madness, from witch-hunting manias to tulips to holy crusades to the environment to the militant anti-smoking kooks. Buncha know-nothing, brain-dead, Politically Correct 'joiners' with far too much time on their hands.

Wow you big wise man

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by Teez
Smoking kills? So does driving cars. So does alcohol. So does just about everything else. Every age has its own madness, from witch-hunting manias to tulips to holy crusades to the environment to the militant anti-smoking kooks. Buncha know-nothing, brain-dead, Politically Correct 'joiners' with far too much time on their hands.

It must be hard for you, knowing everything, being smarter than anyone else in the world, still you are not The World Dominator. We all have our crosses to carry.

[angst]

This only works because of the half-arsed way that the anti tobacco laws are implemented. Of course the EU is still a target market for F1 and it's sponsors, but they still get all the coverage they need through TV. The EU should extend the law to cover TV broadcasts of events. It's a ludicrous law that stops maybe 50,000 peoplede from seeing tobacco sponsorship on cars 'in the flesh' but yet allows those same companies to stream their messages into millions of homes within their borders every other week.

It shouldn't be difficult to persuade the powers that be that the law should be extended, particulaly when it is pointed out a) that without the TV ban damage is being done to EU companies and regions, and b) that it is possibly costing some member states' governments more money to subsidize events as the price paid is pushed up by the new tobacco friendly (and tobacco sponsored?) races on the calendar.

[Teez]

Originally posted by MrSlow

It must be hard for you, knowing everything, being smarter than anyone else in the world,

I don't know everything nor am I smarter than everyone else in the world; just smarter than the brainless 'joiners' and their idiotic crusades, the vast, vast majority of which know precious little about whatever it is they're saving the world from. (Cf. environmentalists who know nothing about the environment and the real scientific data behind it.)

still you are not The World Dominator.

I couldn't care less. Only a child would think of such a comic book-like 'goal'.

We all have our crosses to carry.

Yeah. Just that some of us are too busy saving the world to carry it.

[jme]

Hey Teez, you seem to be quite a fanatic fanatics basher...

[jonovision_man]

There's these things, they call them "kids". Maybe you've heard of them.

Some of them watch motorsports. Some of them end up smoking.

Is there a connection? A lot of studies suggest there is. It's not intuitive that this is the case, but think a little harder about it... would these companies be pouring all those hundreds of millions into advertising if it didn't work?

jono

[Jaguar2002]

In my opinion, tobacco sponsorship should be banned from F1































...yes I'm serious...

[LeD]

I used to smoke 4 packs a day up to the age of 49, and I swore blind by my god-given right to partake in a habit that damaged myself: oh yes I knew full well the damage I was doing. Try smoking 4 packs a day. I was exercising free will; I was an old-fashioned existentialist.

Then out of curiosity I researched, one idle day, the question as to why some US States had been successful in claiming $128 billion from the tobacco industry. These crazy Americans and their litigation, I thought. But what did I find? In the early seventies, when government controls started, the industry reduced the tar content of their ciggies, which was the health risk on everyone's mind at the time - BUT, they doubled the nicotine content. And I learned that gram for gram, nicotine is maybe more addictive even than heroin. Of course the fix in one ciggie is much less than in your average hypodermic, but you get my drift I am sure. All this is verifiable public record, I am not doing a dodgy dossier thingie like ecclestone's ex-friend.

I was stunned. An existentialist was I? Bollocks, I was a junkie, living under the illusion of free will. And I had been hooked by grey businessmen with profit agendas. People just like ecclestone, in fact.

So. Yes I think the time has come for sport in general and F1 in particular to be divorced from an industry that is basically criminal in its enterprise. Between this and collusion with what is probably the greatest totalitarian regime on earth, I believe bernie and max should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Too much to hope for, of course. I am certain we will have a Pyongyang Grand Prix in the not too distant future.

[BlackCat]

I started to follow F1 when tobacco money had just entered F1. Somehow I started to root for Lotus. Living behind iron curtain, I didn't even know what that "Gold Leaf" meant for some time So, subjectively taken, tobacco money has always been a part of F1 for me. Too big a part lately, no doubt about it. But if tobacco money goes, F1 is once again a notch further from the sport I used to like.
And, yes, I do smoke, knowing quite well that I'm shortening my life span - but, what the hell, I've got my sons through university, they can get on, so there is not very much for me worry about.

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by LeD
I used to smoke 4 packs a day up to the age of 49, and I swore blind by my god-given right to partake in a habit that damaged myself: oh yes I knew full well the damage I was doing. Try smoking 4 packs a day. I was exercising free will; I was an old-fashioned existentialist.

Then out of curiosity I researched, one idle day, the question as to why some US States had been successful in claiming $128 billion from the tobacco industry. These crazy Americans and their litigation, I thought. But what did I find? In the early seventies, when government controls started, the industry reduced the tar content of their ciggies, which was the health risk on everyone's mind at the time - BUT, they doubled the nicotine content. And I learned that gram for gram, nicotine is maybe more addictive even than heroin. Of course the fix in one ciggie is much less than in your average hypodermic, but you get my drift I am sure. All this is verifiable public record, I am not doing a dodgy dossier thingie like ecclestone's ex-friend.

I was stunned. An existentialist was I? Bollocks, I was a junkie, living under the illusion of free will. And I had been hooked by grey businessmen with profit agendas. People just like ecclestone, in fact.

So. Yes I think the time has come for sport in general and F1 in particular to be divorced from an industry that is basically criminal in its enterprise. Between this and collusion with what is probably the greatest totalitarian regime on earth, I believe bernie and max should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Too much to hope for, of course. I am certain we will have a Pyongyang Grand Prix in the not too distant future.

Great post, LeD

[caanan]

Originally posted by BlackCat
And, yes, I do smoke, knowing quite well that I'm shortening my life span - but, what the hell, I've got my sons through university, they can get on, so there is not very much for me worry about.

Well, my smoking parents died in their early 50's both from cigarette related diseases and my non-smoking grandparents are still here enjoying being great grandparents to my son. I guess the nic is worth throwing away some of your best years- what the hell, I got smart kids! As for Tobacco leaving F1, I say good riddance. The dirty money has helped build the sport, but also look where that has got us now.

[Megatron]

I remember when Fed Ex backed Ferrari. All the folks in college had never used any sort of mail carrier before, but a lot started when we all saw that striking Fedex logo on the Ferrari.

We all started doing it. I would start out early to college to "pick up a bite to eat" when in reality I was just dropping off more stuff at Fed Ex. It got out of hand. I'd come home with wrapping tape on my hands and have to wash it off before my parents found out. But everyone was doing it.

Finally, my folks found a couple of packages in my car. I told them I was dropping them off for a friend. They didn't buy it. I was grounded for a month and had to go to Fed Ex reform classes.

It was a tough time. But everyone was doing it, you know? I remember a teacher was late for class one day. She said it was traffic. We knew what it was.

Campus eventually abolished all packages and packing materials from the grounds, but a lot of my friends still do it, they just don't do it in the open. Its tough when you see your favorite drivers like Michael Schumacher or now Juan Montoya wearing the Fed Ex logos. You see them up there on the podium with Fedex on their uniforms and you want a part of that. Its glamerous, having a package in your hand or even having one of their trucks stop at your house so all the neighbors can see it. But its addictive. I was just gonna mail one, and then I couldn't stop.

[metz]

Gee Megatron..
Glad the sponsor wasn't Viagra....

[Megatron]

You should have seen it when they went to NASCAR. I got in big trouble for that.

I don't want to even talk about the Zepter episode.

[ivanalesi]

Originally posted by repcobrabham
smoking kills, it is addictive and its money made F1 what it is in the first place

what do they say about living by the sword?

Exactly, but they had to listen to FW:) anyway, they still got a couple of years to find blue chip or whatever companies...

[alesifan46]

Originally posted by Megatron
I remember when Fed Ex backed Ferrari. All the folks in college had never used any sort of mail carrier before, but a lot started when we all saw that striking Fedex logo on the Ferrari.

We all started doing it. I would start out early to college to "pick up a bite to eat" when in reality I was just dropping off more stuff at Fed Ex. It got out of hand. I'd come home with wrapping tape on my hands and have to wash it off before my parents found out. But everyone was doing it.

Finally, my folks found a couple of packages in my car. I told them I was dropping them off for a friend. They didn't buy it. I was grounded for a month and had to go to Fed Ex reform classes.

It was a tough time. But everyone was doing it, you know? I remember a teacher was late for class one day. She said it was traffic. We knew what it was.

Campus eventually abolished all packages and packing materials from the grounds, but a lot of my friends still do it, they just don't do it in the open. Its tough when you see your favorite drivers like Michael Schumacher or now Juan Montoya wearing the Fed Ex logos. You see them up there on the podium with Fedex on their uniforms and you want a part of that. Its glamerous, having a package in your hand or even having one of their trucks stop at your house. But its addictive. I was just gonna mail one, and then I couldn't stop.

This was PRICELESS !!!!
wink wink nudge nudge know what i mean?? know what i mean?

[alesifan46]

Originally posted by MrSlow
alesifan, do you have any idea of what would happen if the banned the use and sale of tobacco?
I thought not. I leave it up to your imagination for a while.
What EU are trying to do is to reduce the tobacco consumption and to make it a bit more difficult for the tobacco companies to recruit new customers. I see nothing two faced in that.

Okay,make it difficult for tobacco companies to recruit new customers..sure sure no problem...I'm challenging these governments to OUTRIGHT BAN the product!!..and RAISE TAXES to cover what they would lose!! What is the problem with that??..ohhhh I'm gonna hear about contraband and bootlegging of ciggy butts...all the BAD PEOPLE will be selling smokes and the government won't get their fair share of the DIRTY MONEY!!ohhhhh brother...Heroin is BANNED...it is still used...Gov't gets NO TAXES from it...to say that JoePublic is hooked on nicotine is the same as saying the GOVERNMENTS are HOOKED on TOBACCO TAXES...we've been around the HORN with this topic on here before...You and I can agree to disagree...I'll behave!!

[eoin]

F1 wants to reduce cost, yet they go to all this trouble to keep the money in the sport. If they cut what the teams make it will cut what they send, why can't they see that? They are taking the sport away from the fans and giving it to countries and companies that couldn't give a s**t about the sport just so that Bernie can break the $10b barrier

[Vitesse2]

Originally posted by MrSlow
alesifan, do you have any idea of what would happen if the banned the use and sale of tobacco?
I thought not. I leave it up to your imagination for a while.
What EU are trying to do is to reduce the tobacco consumption and to make it a bit more difficult for the tobacco companies to recruit new customers. I see nothing two faced in that.

The two-faced ones are the companies. They'll tell you that they don't advertise to recruit new customers, but that advertising is there to enable smokers to make an informed choice of brand.

Here in the UK, TV advertising for cigarettes has been banned for forty years, press advertising for about ten, billboards about the same. New regulations are about to come in which will mean that the total advertising area at point of sale (the gantry in the shop) must not exceed the size of a sheet of A4 paper. In Ireland I believe it's already banned at point of sale and I've seen plans there for gantries which do not display anything other than the name of the brand (not in the brand style) and the health warning on the pack. In Australia it appears that they are about to go "dark" and that cigarettes will be sold only from under the counter.

So why can't Bernie see that he's ultimately on a loser? EU and other developed nations' governments are clamping down on all forms of tobacco advertising: it will only take (for example) on evangelistic Health Commissioner to push through a regulation banning any form of TV advertising, whatever its source, and the whole F1 TV empire will collapse like a house of cards ... I'm pretty certain there's not enough advertising revenue available from China, India etc to sustain F1.

[Lazarus II]

Originally posted by jonovision_man
There's these things, they call them "kids". Maybe you've heard of them.

Some of them watch motorsports. Some of them end up smoking.

Is there a connection? A lot of studies suggest there is. It's not intuitive that this is the case, but think a little harder about it... would these companies be pouring all those hundreds of millions into advertising if it didn't work?

jono

There's these things, they call them "PARENTS". Maybe you've heard of them.

Some of them give a damn about their kids lives and they actually take the time to involve themselves in those same lives. Some of those kids end up listening and learning. Those kids can also draw upon the extended family for support too.

Is there a connection? A lot of studies suggest there is. It's not intuitive that this is the case, but think a little harder about it... would these families be pouring all their time into their kids lives if it didn't work?

[idrumond]

Originally posted by Megatron
I remember when Fed Ex backed Ferrari. All the folks in college had never used any sort of mail carrier before, but a lot started when we all saw that striking Fedex logo on the Ferrari.

We all started doing it. I would start out early to college to "pick up a bite to eat" when in reality I was just dropping off more stuff at Fed Ex. It got out of hand. I'd come home with wrapping tape on my hands and have to wash it off before my parents found out. But everyone was doing it.

Finally, my folks found a couple of packages in my car. I told them I was dropping them off for a friend. They didn't buy it. I was grounded for a month and had to go to Fed Ex reform classes.

It was a tough time. But everyone was doing it, you know? I remember a teacher was late for class one day. She said it was traffic. We knew what it was.

Campus eventually abolished all packages and packing materials from the grounds, but a lot of my friends still do it, they just don't do it in the open. Its tough when you see your favorite drivers like Michael Schumacher or now Juan Montoya wearing the Fed Ex logos. You see them up there on the podium with Fedex on their uniforms and you want a part of that. Its glamerous, having a package in your hand or even having one of their trucks stop at your house so all the neighbors can see it. But its addictive. I was just gonna mail one, and then I couldn't stop.

I agree with Teez too.

People are just so paranoic nowadays that, if things continue to develop like this, we'll see warning signs even in a church!

Education people, that's the only solution. Opression only creates volcano-like reactions.

[MrSlow]

There is obviously a lot of people here that does not believe that advertising works. That's ok, maybe it does not work on them. But that is irrelevant. The tobacco companies believes that it works. They pump money into F1, and a lot of other events, because they believe they will get new customers and with new customers they will earn money. Since they believe that it is important to display the cigarette logos everywhere they will are not happy when the teams they sponsor appears without their brand logo on the racetracks.

F1 is depending on the tobacco money and the tobacco companies is depening on visibility. They can not get that at Silverstone, Magny Cours, Spa and before long, nowhere in Europe or US.
Sure, they can live with a couple of races in a tobacco ban area if that means that the sport will gain more followers that will see the brands on TV another race, but Europe is getting difficult so they kindly "advice" F1 to look elsewhere to race. F1, Bernie, obeys.

[HP]

Sure does advertising work on the majority of people. It seems to me that most of the huge advertising is done for stuff that are not really necessities, but "wants". Smoking was (and is) often associated with becoming adult. Racing in general is about "real" men. So the match between smoking and racing is obvious. If you really want to succeed with the smoking issue, then find a way to disassociate smoking with the idea of becoming an adult. And funnily enough that IMO would start with doing away with restrictions on smoking, added with a better eduction.

I do think it is better for F1 - as sport - if they loose tobacco money asap. That'll shrink size budgets, and there is no pressure from the tobacco sponsors where to race.

[jme]

Originally posted by idrumond




I agree with Teez too.

People are just so paranoic nowadays that, if things continue to develop like this, we'll see warning signs even in a church!

Education people, that's the only solution. Opression only creates volcano-like reactions.

Warning signs in a church. Seems a very sensible thing to do. Religion: opium for the people...

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by MrSlow
alesifan, do you have any idea of what would happen if the banned the use and sale of tobacco?
I thought not. I leave it up to your imagination for a while.
What EU are trying to do is to reduce the tobacco consumption and to make it a bit more difficult for the tobacco companies to recruit new customers. I see nothing two faced in that.

What governments should do is only allow non addictive tobacco. However, that would require the tobacco companies to make such products, which I doubt is possable considering their track record.

Government incomes from tobacco are probably revenue neutral, because of the health and productivity costs due to tobacco consumption.

[skylark68]

I wish governments would either ban smoking or jump off the wagon.

Smoking is a convenient political "we are helping the average citizen" when we have such other crucial health matter to worry about;

- Junk food and hydrogenated oils. Every car racing (in America mostly) that advertizes **** made from hydrogenated oils is just as crooked as the tobacco. Look how fat americans and canadians are --- all they eat is **** promoted from their "upstanding corporate citizens." A 30 year vet in retail told me size 40, 42 and 44 is becoming the hotest waist sizes now. It used to be 36 to 40.
- Soaps that pollute
- Booze

And on it goes.

There are so many worries and issues that who cares about tobacco anyway. Look around, fat people abound, munching away in their favourite drivers (in the U.S. anyway) junk food.

Get rid of the **** or leave it alone and screw off.

[MrSlow]

Skylark, they are working and researching all those areas you mention, but don't you think "they" have to start somewhere? What would it be waking up one monday an find that they have banned everything that you are using everyday?

[skylark68]

Originally posted by MrSlow
Skylark, they are working and researching all those areas you mention, but don't you think "they" have to start somewhere? What would it be waking up one monday an find that they have banned everything that you are using everyday?

That's the odd thing - I probably wouldn't mind, but I can imagine the furor with twinkies eliminated I would love a cookie without those oils -- when I see "home made" recipe on the box I cringe. I grabbed a bag of "clodhoppers" made just like the guys grandmother used to make them ----- I would bet a bundle she never had hydorgenated oils when she made these in the 60's. I was stunned, absolutely stunned.

But, I have jumped off the tobacco bandwagon somewhat amd am slowly coming to realize it is for the better.

Let's just hope we get to the truth about these foods and sponsors at some point.

[MrSlow]

Anyway, it is not the question of banning or not, not even the question if banning the ads is good or not, that I wanted to discuss. Rather the simple matter of having the tobacco companies running F1.
Without tobacco money the budgets of, for instance, Ferrari, BAR and McLaren would drop significantly and altough it is fully possible to raise those sums for a team even without tobacco in a short term I doubt that any sponsor could motivate it in the long run.

[skinnylizard]

smoking kill so does driving extremely fast..

its money. teams need money. tobacco has helped grow the sport and enable opportunities to create super teams (Prost-Senna-McLaren).
so i dont have any qualms with ciggie dosh. im 25 grew up on racing and most of my mates too and none of them smoke.

i think its my fault if i smoke, get sick and then bitch about it.

regardless of the moral qualms i think ciggie money has been very important to the sport and should continue to fund it. unless there are other sponsors who are willing to step in and drop the $ i dont see why the lifeline of the sport should be cut away.

best way to go if you dont want ciggie money is create a drop off in costs - then the sponsorworld will become bigger.

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by MrSlow
Anyway, it is not the question of banning or not, not even the question if banning the ads is good or not, that I wanted to discuss. Rather the simple matter of having the tobacco companies running F1.
Without tobacco money the budgets of, for instance, Ferrari, BAR and McLaren would drop significantly and altough it is fully possible to raise those sums for a team even without tobacco in a short term I doubt that any sponsor could motivate it in the long run.

why dont you do a cost analysis of how much they spend and then try and see who are the alternative companies that will drop similar money and let us hear your thoughts on the commercial aspect of it. we all know smoking kills id rather it not kill F1

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
we all know smoking kills id rather it not kill F1

Some believe that tobacco is in fact killing F1 at this very moment. Me myself is undecided, but unless the tobacco companies decides to spread their money more evenly among the teams, I lean strongly towards "kick them tobacco gangsters out".

If, for some obscure reason, the F1 involvment does not sell more cigarettes, if they are just doing it out of genuine interest of the sport (no, I don't believe that), they should give more money to Minardi and less to Ferrari. If they where smart they would do just that anyway, that would make sure that F1 could NEVER get rid of them.

PS. Think about the last years "cost cutting" dilemma, is it McLaren and Ferrari that needs that? No, it is the teams that does not have American tobacco companies behind them.

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by MrSlow

Some believe that tobacco is in fact killing F1 at this very moment. Me myself is undecided, but unless the tobacco companies decides to spread their money more evenly among the teams, I lean strongly towards "kick them tobacco gangsters out".

If, for some obscure reason, the F1 involvment does not sell more cigarettes, if they are just doing it out of genuine interest of the sport (no, I don't believe that), they should give more money to Minardi and less to Ferrari. If they where smart they would do just that anyway, that would make sure that F1 could NEVER get rid of them.

PS. Think about the last years "cost cutting" dilemma, is it McLaren and Ferrari that needs that? No, it is the teams that does not have American tobacco companies behind them.

i dont get it. why should there be a more even distribution? the Red Army isnt running F1. the strongest teams get the biggest sponsors. besides say end of the day when the tobacco ban is enforced (if it is) then Ferrari has to plug a $45-$100 million hole. pretty big risk IMO

we all know its got nothing to do with the love of the sport. thats PR. of course its about selling their brand.

i think you need to understand that its a commercial enterprise and they will do whats the best for them. Going to Minardi wont help them so why should they?

Marlboro could buy Minardi twice for the amount they are spending on Ferrari. but its not commercially advantageous is it to buy a backender?

everyone needs the cost cutting. the method of cost cutting will eat into competetive advantages - which is the major reason for lack of initiative on that front.

[ScudBoy]

Originally posted by Teez
Smoking kills? So does driving cars. So does alcohol. So does just about everything else. Every age has its own madness, from witch-hunting manias to tulips to holy crusades to the environment to the militant anti-smoking kooks. Buncha know-nothing, brain-dead, Politically Correct 'joiners' with far too much time on their hands.

Word

[ndsask]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Government incomes from tobacco are probably revenue neutral, because of the health and productivity costs due to tobacco consumption.

I would be surprised if they were revenue neutral; consider the situation here in Canada, for example:

Tobacco use also generates a significant financial burden on the economy. To begin with, it is a drain on medicare. In 1991, smoking cost our health care system about $3.5 billion. I invite hon. members to think of the health priorities in their communities which could have been addressed with that money.

But where did the money go? It paid for 3.1 million extra visits to doctors and the four million days that people were in hospitals for smoking related reasons. It also covered the cost of the 1.4 million drug prescriptions that were required to treat smoking related illnesses.

Smoking costs the economy in other ways as well. Canadian smokers are absent from work for 28 million days a year because of tobacco related causes. Lost productivity arising from smoking related deaths amount to $10.6 billion in 1991.

The simple reality is that the harmful effects of tobacco use are not restricted to smokers alone, despite the rhetoric that we might hear about smoking being a matter of individual choice. Smoking costs Canadians approximately $15 billion a year, a staggering figure.

[jonovision_man]

Originally posted by Lazarus II

There's these things, they call them "PARENTS". Maybe you've heard of them.

Some of them give a damn about their kids lives and they actually take the time to involve themselves in those same lives. Some of those kids end up listening and learning. Those kids can also draw upon the extended family for support too.

Is there a connection? A lot of studies suggest there is. It's not intuitive that this is the case, but think a little harder about it... would these families be pouring all their time into their kids lives if it didn't work?

Boy, I wish I was lucky enough to live in your country where all kids had "PARENTS" who gave a damn! Must be a wonderful place.

Where I live, many don't... parenting can't be relied on alone.

jono

[MrSlow]

Originally posted by skinnylizard
i dont get it. why should there be a more even distribution? the Red Army isnt running F1. the strongest teams get the biggest sponsors. besides say end of the day when the tobacco ban is enforced (if it is) then Ferrari has to plug a $45-$100 million hole. pretty big risk IMO

It is only F1 that can decide to ban tobacco from F1. As it now, the tobacco money is causing big problems for some teams, simply because they do not have them. The teams that does not see any F1 money is likely to want them go. $50 million lost for a competitor is almost as valuable as $20 millions won for the one team. By spreading the money more evenly, F1 is likely to be a more interesting sport and gather more viewers, more customers, that will watch the races.

i think you need to understand that its a commercial enterprise and they will do whats the best for them. Going to Minardi wont help them so why should they?

I understand perfectly. But look at next season. If Jaguar, Jordan and Minardi is gone F1 will be devalued, their investments will be less worth. So it might very well be a good investment to keep F1 feeling reasonably well while at the same time keeping them addicted.

[skinnylizard]

Originally posted by MrSlow


It is only F1 that can decide to ban tobacco from F1. As it now, the tobacco money is causing big problems for some teams, simply because they do not have them. The teams that does not see any F1 money is likely to want them go. $50 million lost for a competitor is almost as valuable as $20 millions won for the one team. By spreading the money more evenly, F1 is likely to be a more interesting sport and gather more viewers, more customers, that will watch the races.

I understand perfectly. But look at next season. If Jaguar, Jordan and Minardi is gone F1 will be devalued, their investments will be less worth. So it might very well be a good investment to keep F1 feeling reasonably well while at the same time keeping them addicted.

i completely understand your angle. but i think that aspect can and i think will be addressed by BE and teams remaking the Concorde agreement. (which should give them an additional $35-$40million a year if divvied up equally)

the Ciggie companies are here to advertise. how will you make them spend their money evenly on teams they arent interested in?

Marlboro sponsor Ferrari and Minardi?? or just Minardi. if it came to that they might as well withdraw.

[skinnylizard]

another thing. i think all teams that have ciggie money will be able to replace them as sponsors (with difficulty) but their probablity of finding a sponsor would be far greater then the smaller teams. so in the end they WILL meet their budgets.

i think what F1 could do is i dunnow - try a thing where there is a F1 series sponsor of sorts. say drop $50million a year and get a spot on all cars (dunnow if teams would agree) but like each team recieving a share..

[alesifan46]

GoodLuck to the teams finding sponsors having as much AVAILABLE CASH as a tobacco company!! for race funding!!! Things won't be so easy for the teams ADDICTED to TOBACCO REVENUES..it's gonna take a whole new approach for them to attract sponsors other than tobacco giants.....and I'm afraid it's gonna involve KNEEPADS and a few pails of KY jelly

[HP]

Originally posted by MrSlow
PS. Think about the last years "cost cutting" dilemma, is it McLaren and Ferrari that needs that? No, it is the teams that does not have American tobacco companies behind them.

Does Benson & Hedges ring a bell with you? Witout them Jordan wouldn't be around anymore, so it's not soo easy. Ferrari, McLaren can do without them, but Jordan?

[Jaguar2002]

Originally posted by HP
Does Benson & Hedges ring a bell with you? Witout them Jordan wouldn't be around anymore, so it's not soo easy. Ferrari, McLaren can do without them, but Jordan?

...I was also thinking about that... Let us say Ferrari still has Vodafone, Mclaren could sign with HSBC (there were rumours)... But Jordan would certainly have problems staying in F1 if he hadn't have BE ON EDGE backing him... All-german driver line-up could bring back DHL or Deutsche post... At least I hope it could... BAR would be gone from F1, Honda could take over... And there is still Renault and their Mild Seven...eh...Telefonica could be their main sponsor...

:woke up from dreaming: :yawn:

[skinnylizard]

i dont recall Williams having a very hard time replacing Winfield..