planetf1.com

Bernie's greed caused him to raise the hosting fee to an amount that proved too much and the event was ultimately dropped.
Now the organizers wish to bring it back but were relying on the government to pitch in to help with the costs. The government
however, denied the motion and it is now up to the organizers to raise the capital themselves privately if there is ever to be another
Turkish Grand Prix.

http://f1pulse.com/news/2012120712/turk ... grand-prix

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

Why should the government contribute towards it?

Anyway, doesn't Bernie actually part own the track? If so, what's stopping him lowering the hosting fee to help out?

_________________
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of animals that Chuck Norris allows to live.

Perhaps Bernie himself thinks its too Expensive / poor Return:Investment ratio : P

Bernie help out? He owns Paul Ricard and yet there's still no French GP there. I know the Socialist government would prefer Magny Cours, but it's FOM that makes the decision.

You could say if he lowered the fee he'd still get something and something's better than nothing. Bernie won't want to look weak though, he needs to impress his rich friends.

_________________
"We can not drive slower, just to make the races more exciting." Alain Prost

Bernie loves the government money, and why shouldn't he? It might as well be free. However, it seems that nations that put up government money seem to be less and less interested. So, either Bernie starts going down on the fees (what is the average? 30 Million?) or the calendar won't consist much longer with traditional grands prix.

Personally, I don't think governments should pay.

_________________
I'd rather die than be overtaken.

Bernie lowering the hosting fee to help out? The words "lowering" and "help" don't exist in Bernie's dictionnary.

_________________
I'm a racing driver. Always was, always will be.

Why should they? What benefit do they receive other than some increased tax revenues? The marginal increase in income probably does not offset the increased cost of the extra police required for general security.

If they want it then the organizers should pay. In all actuality it should be Bernie paying, because without races you don't have fans, without fans sponsors don't advertise, and without sponsors all but probably 5 teams would survive and then who would watch and where would they race?

Why should they? What benefit do they receive other than some increased tax revenues? The marginal increase in income probably does not offset the increased cost of the extra police required for general security.

If they want it then the organizers should pay. In all actuality it should be Bernie paying, because without races you don't have fans, without fans sponsors don't advertise, and without sponsors all but probably 5 teams would survive and then who would watch and where would they race?

Oh, I don't think governments should spend a dime on putting on entertainment events of any sort. I was just hopeful to have Turkey back on the calendar. How they get it done is none of my business, but I would like to have it back. It's a great track that's fast and challenging and hat turn 8… wow!

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

And why would anyone pay for an event that has always made huge losses? There is zero return on investment.

_________________
Apparently religious people didn't like my signature, hah! Don't read it if you are so offended by it.

When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion. - Robert Pirsig

A government might believe the benefit to the local economy would far outweigh the initial expenditure. Although that's the justification my government used to spend many billions on that olympic bullshit, and the sort of businesses it was meant to boost reported a drop in revenue. Also hard to make that case in Turkey when hardly anyone goes to the race.

Still, the theory is sound. Sort of. What irritates me is that a race like Silverstone clearly creates more money for the country than it costs to host, but the government would lose it before paying for it on the grounds that F1 is a rich sport so they shouldn't have to pay for it with public money. But the people they'd be directly helping (the promoters and owners who currently make a loss) aren't fabulously wealthy just because Bernie is. And the people it helps indirectly (hoteliers, restaurants etc.) are just normal people. We pay for or subsidise virtually all sports in this country, one way or another. But because motorsport is deemed a rich mans game the public wouldn't stand for it, so the politicians stay clear.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus

I think the problem is that originally it might have made sense for a Govt to subside a Grand Prix on the excuse that it would benefit the local economy...

...but Bernie has escalated the fee to the stage that at best the benefit gained would only be equivalent to the fee paid by any Govt - and of course the Govt isn't seeing any direct benefit from that itself. It just has to write down that cost and hope it recoups some of it through any increased tax revenues it might see (which are hard to distinguish and specific as being due to the F1 race)

The real issue is that Bernie's excessive greed saw to it that the cost to host the race was doubled "just because" and THAT is what killed its ability to be
profitable enough to justify paying to host a race. I mean really… it was too costly already and to then double the price was just ridonculous and an insult.
The way I see it there should be a specific base fee set in stone for hosting an F1 race regardless of location and turn-out and then the profits should be split up 3 ways with some going to the organizers, some back to F1 and some to the venue. Either way there would be millions of dollars had by all, but this way the race would actually pay for itself and the returns gained by the profits would incentive to and would facilitate the return of the event each successive year.

As well, it's a HUGE conflict of interest for the greedy little troll to own any of the circuits/venues that host F1 races because ultimately he will simply negotiate deals to benefit his pockets as the promotor as opposed to benefitting the sport's and the fans' best interests and that means negotiating as high a price as possible, so he gets paid as much as possible up front, but that figure has proven to be too much a few times already. At this point his greed is just hurting the sport and he needs to go sooner rather than later and it seems the old fart will pay off the grim reaper so the teams and the FIA needs to force him to retire.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

I essentially agree with what you and Incubus are saying, certainly that the hosting fee is the problem. And that the indirectness of the economic benefits make them harder to identify.

But Silverstone's deal isn't as stupid as some, I think figures bandied about were 17 million with a pretty hefty rise each year. It creates at least that much in indirect revenue with over 100 thousand people eating out, staying in hotels, filling their cars with petrol to get there etc., then there's the tax on the ridicuoulsy expensive (thanks to Bernie, not the BRDC) tickets, the extra (albeit temporary) employment (just read they take on 5,600 extra staff for GP week, equivolent to over 100 full time permanent jobs) and arguably the biggest value of all: investment in an important sector. Motorsport employs anything upwards of 40,000 people in the UK and rakes in massive tax revenue, revenue the government has done little to stimulate or protect. Without a British GP the next generation of innovators and employers may not have the spark that enthused their predecessors.

In short I can see why they haven't subsidised a GP. The fact we have one anyway demonstrates they didn't need to, and the general public are unable or unwilling to disassociate megarich Bernie from the hotdog vendors and hoteliers the subsidy would actually be helping. But in principle, a government funding a GP could make sense if it was popular. This is exactly what governments should be spending money on: projects whose benefits are so complicated and spread so thin across so many sctors, that only a government would have the understanding and 'personal' interest to take them on.

_________________
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
-Epicurus

But the exorbitant hosting Fees and annual increases that Bernie pulls from his rather old pickle make it so mathematically there is little reward/gain from the initial investment which leads people to question "Is it worth all the hassle? And once that question is asked, it's pretty tough to think otherwise.

Like I said, get rid of the crypt keeper and be done with the ridiculously overinflated fees and watch how much more inclined governments will be to spend the money to host such events. It's said that Turkey has less than excellent turnouts at the races but I have never seen an empty grand stand there so i don't know how they come to that conclusion.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!