hairy_scotsman wrote:The Comptroller's projections also [...]
You know what? That's fair. I often lose sight of the "bigger picture" like that because it usually flies in the face of my own spending habits. My expenditures for the USGP would be as follows: fuel, ticket, parking. And that's it. I went to a couple of concerts this week and bought a few $9 beers, which was very much out of character for me, but it also served as a great reminder of why I'm so frugal at "events."
WhiteBlue wrote:We have discussed the history and figures of the USGP in this thread [...]
I know. And I don't exactly agree with many of its conclusions. (Shocking, right?)
But, there's enough said on the subject on this page for now. The race was viable until FOM increased its fee. Private enterprises in America don't often lend themselves to engage in merely "break even" propositions. (In fact, that's why programs like the METF exist in the first place.) Nevertheless, as you've stated, other businesses and governments will happily break even or lose money on F1, so Ecclestone had no problem being shown the door. He had a sheik on the other line anyway.
(As big of a fan of F1 as I am, I quite honestly can't wait for the day when Ecclestone's business practices finally strangle F1 to death. It will be worth it just to see the looks on the faces of everyone who was complicit in FOM's relentless pursuit of short-term profits.)
I guess the reason why I interjected myself here is that I'm just tired of seeing preached as fact the dubious notion that public subsidies are justified for sporting events because of the so-called "economic impact" such events have on the areas hosting them. It's one of the biggest lies ever told. Even the Olympics, when
all things are considered, rarely recoup the initial expenditures.
At any rate, I'll get off my soapbox. Carry on.