FIA Confirms 2011 F1 Schedule

[ESPImperium]

There are Monaco which is not paying and Monza which is very close to non paying.

Monza is to start paying from 2013 or 2014 seemingly. But is still arround 50% less than what Silverstone are to pay.

As ive said in other threads, i see many posibilitys for the callender, longer and shorter races, rounds dropped for "better ones", basically chances to get F1 back to nations we havnt been to for a good long while and new venues all together.

But F1 needs tracks that make good profits to make the sport better in terms of track design, for this id make it a standard levvy for every track for hosting a race, reason for this is they invest this in track design and facilities, not to mention grass roots motorsport where the stars of tomorrows seasons will some from. But F1 is just one of many money and results driven sports now, and the next 10-15 years will be the most difficult for sport, getting the ballance of debt to investment right. But thats another argument entirely.

[Confused_Andy]

next season might have 20 races but the cars have no tyres to race with...

[raceman]

next season might have 20 races but the cars have no tyres to race with...

+1

[WhiteBlue]

Bernie hasn't made a deal yet but you can bet your last T-shirt that he will. So I am not concerned with the lack of a tyre deal but the potential of a tyre war which could be disastrous for those who jump to the wrong side.

[andrew]

Bernie hasn't made a deal yet but you can bet your last T-shirt that he will. So I am not concerned with the lack of a tyre deal but the potential of a tyre war which could be disastrous for those who jump to the wrong side.

Your faith in Bernie Ecclestone is admirable.

I still think this is just Bridgestone playing hardball.

[toto1041]

Not exactly a testimony to your competence in economic questions.

Not exactly a testimony to your competence in literary comprehension. I did not make a statement on monetary value. Think first, act second.

[toto1041]

Without these races we will not have a US race or some of the non paying European races.

With these races there is no US GP. Funny how that works, huh?

[WhiteBlue]

Not exactly a testimony to your competence in economic questions.

Not exactly a testimony to your competence in literary comprehension. I did not make a statement on monetary value. Think first, act second.

Lol, confusion reigns in your vocabulary. Nobody was talking about monetary value. I was just stating the obvious deficit in economic understanding. I will elaborate on this.

Without these races we will not have a US race or some of the non paying European races.

With these races there is no US GP. Funny how that works, huh?

The revenues from race fees substantially feed FOM/FOA's balance sheet. They are certainly growing stronger than the TV fees in the last years. There are two main uses for the income and they are both governed by a long term contractual situation. More than half of the money goes to the teams according to the 2009 Concord agreement formula. A third goes into the huge long term debt interest and the rest is used to reduce the gearing (pay back of debt) if there is enough.

With that structure in mind we look at any new races and their additional fees. The teams only agree to new races if they get their usual cut. But they also sometimes agree to new races when their wishes for particulary "bad paying venues" are considered. Such venues are Monaco, Monza, the US, Spa, Germany, France and Britain in the order as seen here.

On the other side there are "high paying races" like Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Malaysia, Singapore and so on. Bernie lately does his game such that he teams up low payers with high payers. That means when he goes to the teams for additional races he is usually prepared to do another low revenue venue (like the US) if they give him a new money spinner on top. Some races are unanimous (like India) because all parties see huge market growth (Bernie TV and the teams sponsors).

I hope I have made the economic mechanism a bit clearer. The revenues of the existing races are all committed so any new commitment to a low paying race like the US must be balanced by a money spinner.

[toto1041]

Nobody was talking about monetary value. I was just stating the obvious deficit in economic understanding.

My friend, there is no hope for you. At no point was I ever making an economic statement. Ever. Funny you say you're not talking about "monetary value", but then you go on to write a huge paragraph about exactly economics. Your preamble directly contradicts what you write about. Just don't talk about economics anymore if you want to have a conversation with me.

What I want to talk about is the perceived importance of a particular GP in relation to the quantity of GP's on the calendar. I know F1 followers that don't watch early races on boring tracks with no atmosphere and thinly populated grandstands like Malaysia or Bahrain simply because they have deemed them to not be important. I know they are, but that's because I am an F1 fanatic, not just a follower / general audience. But I happen to agree with their philosophy somewhat. Imagine if there were only three races (stay with me on this hypothesis). Each race would thus have undeniably huge implications towards the results of a championship, much like a neck-and-neck F1 season that is decided in the last two races. More people would definitely watch that. The tension would be greater. The show would be bigger, etc. Get it?

[WhiteBlue]

Tony goes to China
April 20, 2010 by joesaward
The appearance – albeit a relatively low profile one – of former Indianapolis Motor Speedway boss Tony George at the Chinese Grand Prix in Shanghai at the weekend, turned a few heads. George has seen his situation change dramatically since Formula 1 last visited Indiana in 2007. At the end of June last year he was removed from his various roles by other members of the Hulman-George family, unhappy that the businesses involved were not making enough money. The F1 experiment was costly, but nothing compared to the IndyCar Series which George had been funding since 1996. This was costing at least $20m a year. Initially he stayed on the boards of the various companies but in January found that too frustrating and quit. His goal was to run his own Vision Racing team, but not long after that decision Vision suspended operations, leaving Tony with nothing to do.

George has long enjoyed a good relationship with Bernie Ecclestone and back in 2003 he did a very smart deal and acquired the rights to host any event called “The United States Grand Prix at…” from Ecclestone. At the time this was to protect his investment in a US Grand Prix at Indianapolis, but since then it seems it has given him a new option for a business.

For the moment there is no hint as to where this might be but it is clear that Ecclestone is very keen on a race in the New York area. He is under pressure to get into the United States as quickly possible, but he is not going to give the race away.

George would say only that he was “on holiday”, although this was not a very credible explanation as he was accompanied by a group of sponsors, who may be planning to get involved.

It was clear that George and Bernie Ecclestone had business to do… also involved is wheeler-dealer Zak Brown, of the JMI company, seen here with Ecclestone and George.

Interesting information that Tony George owns the right to stage a US GP. I did not know that. Saward also confirms that Bernie is being pressured to agree to a US GP at a low price. It confirms my information that new races are agreed by the teams together with a junctim on low paying deals like the US.

[WhiteBlue]

What I want to talk about is the perceived importance of a particular GP in relation to the quantity of GP's on the calendar. I know F1 followers that don't watch early races on boring tracks with no atmosphere and thinly populated grandstands like Malaysia or Bahrain simply because they have deemed them to not be important. I know they are, but that's because I am an F1 fanatic, not just a follower / general audience. But I happen to agree with their philosophy somewhat. Imagine if there were only three races (stay with me on this hypothesis). Each race would thus have undeniably huge implications towards the results of a championship, much like a neck-and-neck F1 season that is decided in the last two races. More people would definitely watch that. The tension would be greater. The show would be bigger, etc. Get it?

I do not share the view that races with empty grand stands have no value per se. It is nonsense. China obviously has over capacity which isn't such a big surprise considering they have a capacity of 200.000. The race has been thrilling for the last two years and the TV viewers are not so much concerned with the stage of the grand stands anyway. It is a problem for the race organizers. Same with the Turkish GP. It runs on a fantastic new track with elevation changes second only to Spa and the races usually are nice to watch. The venue is also fit for very late or early races which gives some additional value. Races can be run in the European off season.

These are my considerations from a fan point of view. Since I'm also an economic animal I do consider the money aspect important when I talk about the future of races. It prevents wishfull thinking to see the fan and the money side of things.

[WhiteBlue]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/28052010/ ... sh-gp.html?

With a record-equalling 19 races at present and India due to enter next year before the United States returns to the calendar in 2012 with a race in Austin, Texas, the calendar could expand into the 20s.
France and Russia are hoping to figure in future while an African race has also been mooted.
Williams chief executive Adam Parr told reporters earlier that 24 races had been suggested as a possibility in discussions with teams.
Asked about a return to Mexico, which last hosted a grand prix in 1992, Ecclestone said: "I doubt it. You never know but it's not on the horizon at the moment."

I see 24 races as a real possibility in the near future. Bernie wants to add Austin, Rome and India, a second US venue, France, Russia and Africa which would bring the tally up to 26. If France and Rome alternate with other European races like Valencia 24 would be realistic.

The fact that he has now pretty much excluded Mexico indicates that Austin is meant to team back to back with Brazil.

[D'Leh]

I don't really care if it's 18, 20 or 24. Anything 18+ is fine with me. But I wonder if the number of new engines (currently should be adapted accordingly.

[WhiteBlue]

I wonder if the number of new engines (currently should be adapted accordingly.

Not such a good idea IMO. The cost is supposed to go further down. So if there are more races the design life of the engine must increase which isn't hard to do.

[andrew]

I don't really care if it's 18, 20 or 24. Anything 18+ is fine with me. But I wonder if the number of new engines (currently should be adapted accordingly.

Te engine restrcitions should be lifted. I want to see proper racing, not economy drives.