Grand Prix Rejects

TheBigJ wrote:'85 was just bathplug up. Bellof was cruising to the title until his death, then Prost took over...

Errr... Bellof? Massive talent (sadly wasted) but "cruising to the title" is a bit of a stretch...

inchworm wrote:

TheBigJ wrote:'85 was just bathplug up. Bellof was cruising to the title until his death, then Prost took over...

Errr... Bellof? Massive talent (sadly wasted) but "cruising to the title" is a bit of a stretch...

Oh, the irony...

Never mind that, I've got another unpopular opinion :


Spa should not be subsidised by the Walloon taxpayer. I find it scandalous that Bernie is being directly paid by the taxpayer to put a show not everybody likes at Spa, and refuses to lower the price of hosting it. He should just stand down or piss off!

TheBigJ wrote:Never mind that, I've got another unpopular opinion :


Spa should not be subsidised by the Walloon taxpayer. I find it scandalous that Bernie is being directly paid by the taxpayer to put a show not everybody likes at Spa, and refuses to lower the price of hosting it. He should just stand down or piss off!

Sir, I have to say I agree with you. Sporting events should never be subsidised by the taxpayer (or, as an alternative, you can let the taxpayer decide if he wants a fraction of his taxes go to sporting events, and which ones he wants to subsidise). Bernie could be a little more lenient with the prices he charges at Spa, since after all we're talking about a historical venue that fans and members from within the sport like very much.

Ah yes in principal, it would seem that taxpayers' money going on a sporting event would be like flushing money down a toilet, but you must bear in minded the 'added value' that the event creates. In the case of the GP at Spa, you have many thousands of spectators in the area, spending money on accommodation, food and drink, souvenirs, even road tolls if there are any in the area. This added economic benefit then has the potential to be further increased through repeat visitors who return, perhaps at another time when the GP isn't even on, and they tell their friends/family/colleagues/etc who then may travel to the area too.

In other words, the increased economic activity caused by holding an F1 race may be more beneficial to the area, even with it subsidised by the state, rather than them not holding it at all and spending the taxes elsewhere. The tipping point as far as the authorities are concerned is when they're paying more for the race than what they're receiving out of it.

I don't know if the regional government gets more from the race than it spends, but we usually get ample publicity not only for the GP but also for the other events all across the year, like the 1000km, the 24 hours, the 6 hours, the Historic F1s and the Legends Boucles de Spa.

Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

tommykl wrote:I don't know if the regional government gets more from the race than it spends, but we usually get ample publicity not only for the GP but also for the other events all across the year, like the 1000km, the 24 hours, the 6 hours, the Historic F1s and the Legends Boucles de Spa.

Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

I believe that, at the moment, the net economic impact of the Belgian GP is positive (i.e. it generates more money than the government has to put into the event) - I believe that they are paying around $20 million at the moment with the net economic impact to the area being around $45 million (though it has the smallest economic benefit of all the races due to the relatively small crowds and relatively low population density of that region).

mario wrote:

tommykl wrote:I don't know if the regional government gets more from the race than it spends, but we usually get ample publicity not only for the GP but also for the other events all across the year, like the 1000km, the 24 hours, the 6 hours, the Historic F1s and the Legends Boucles de Spa.

Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

I believe that, at the moment, the net economic impact of the Belgian GP is positive (i.e. it generates more money than the government has to put into the event) - I believe that they are paying around $20 million at the moment with the net economic impact to the area being around $45 million (though it has the smallest economic benefit of all the races due to the relatively small crowds and relatively low population density of that region).

I'm gonna need a source on that because I find it hard to believe that it generates economic profit. The Olympics in London will apparently add little to no value, and that attracted huge tourism. Do you really think 1 GP a year will suddenly attract millions of people? Most people who go to Spa are either die hard fans or belgian residents or both. The ticket prices are scandalous, and that's what (barely) pays for the GP, not economic growth from a Gp that's been forgotten by the casual viewer. If suddenly there isn't enough demand, the taxpayer foots the bill. Oh, and I doubt all that money goes back into the tax payers pockets anyway...more like the corporate sponsors and Bernard Ecclestone himself.

This is a lose/lose situation for the Belgian taxpayer. Ecclestone must give up this constant demand for more money or just leave Spa.

TheBigJ wrote:I'm gonna need a source on that because I find it hard to believe that it generates economic profit. The Olympics in London will apparently add little to no value, and that attracted huge tourism.

Don't forget that despite, all of Bernie's greed, a F1 race is less expensive than hosting the Olympics (interesting fact: should you have the budget for the Olympics available, you could, if Mario's value is correct, secure any race a place on the F1 calendar for up to 1000 years!) so even if there is less tourism compared to the Olympics, the marge of profit is higher simply because you have reduced costs.

Klon wrote:

TheBigJ wrote:I'm gonna need a source on that because I find it hard to believe that it generates economic profit. The Olympics in London will apparently add little to no value, and that attracted huge tourism.

Don't forget that despite, all of Bernie's greed, a F1 race is less expensive than hosting the Olympics (interesting fact: should you have the budget for the Olympics available, you could, if Mario's value is correct, secure any race a place on the F1 calendar for up to 1000 years!) so even if there is less tourism compared to the Olympics, the marge of profit is higher simply because you have reduced costs.

I know, but if we're talking in brute numbers, Spa barely attracts tourism compared to the Olympics. Yes, the Olympics were costly, and will probably mean no profit at the end, but at least it attracted some form of tourism and investment. Spa simply does not attract people that much sadly, and I doubt people buying burgers pays off the money spent. There's no point comparing it to the Olympics. Its yearly and its a "conoisseurs" race track with not great facilites and yet huge ticket prices.

TheBigJ wrote:I'm gonna need a source on that because I find it hard to believe that it generates economic profit. The Olympics in London will apparently add little to no value, and that attracted huge tourism. Do you really think 1 GP a year will suddenly attract millions of people? Most people who go to Spa are either die hard fans or belgian residents or both.

TheBigJ wrote:There's no point comparing it to the Olympics.

Erm...

Spa and the surrounding area will benefit through an increase in the number of people there through local businesses getting higher profits, staying open for longer and thus boosting local tax revenues, VAT, etc, on top of the activity I mentioned above. In terms of improving the local economy, it's a no-brainer, it's whether it's sustainable economically for the local government to fund it in the long term, and I suspect that if it wasn't then they wouldn't be doing it. We're in pretty tough times in Europe, and pretty much all countries are cutting back and pushing for austerity. Governments won't spend money on anything if they don't have to, so there must be a strong argument for the government in Belgium to consider stumping up £20 million every year for the race.

There's almost no local economy that benefits from Spa, there's not many business around to begin with. Other than perhaps the small cities of Spa, Malmedy and Stavelot. It's really a lowly populated area. Except for Verviers and Liège, but the Belgians aren't smart enough to rename it for example Liège-Francorchamps. A city of 200000 inhabitants with lots of cultural value, and they're not capitalising on that.
And think of the benefits it would have on the waffle-industry!

tommykl wrote:Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

WRONG! The Liefkenshoektunnel in Antwerp is a toll road

This wrote:

tommykl wrote:Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

WRONG! The Liefkenshoektunnel in Antwerp is a toll road

I've barely ever been to Anwterp, how should I know?

tommykl wrote:

This wrote:

tommykl wrote:Oh, and AndreaModa, there are absolutely zero toll roads in Belgium

WRONG! The Liefkenshoektunnel in Antwerp is a toll road

I've barely ever been to Anwterp, how should I know?

You shouldn't, it's mainly used for the port. The other traffic uses the Kennedy-tunnel. But perhaps you heared something on traffic-information on the radio, or saw it mentioned in an article about that controversial bridge they wanted to build. Don't know, you don't miss a lot, it's a boring city

Typical Flemish separatists trying to do everything different...

I've mentioned this before somewhere else on this forum, but surely one big problem with Spa and the cost of running races is the AMOUNT of races they has every year. Grand Prix, Endurance, Le mans, historic, karting, Porsche Cup to name a few. Most of these races don't bring in many spectators yet it's costing the organiser a bucket load per race.

AdrianSutil wrote:I've mentioned this before somewhere else on this forum, but surely one big problem with Spa and the cost of running races is the AMOUNT of races they has every year. Grand Prix, Endurance, Le mans, historic, karting, Porsche Cup to name a few. Most of these races don't bring in many spectators yet it's costing the organiser a bucket load per race.

Renault World Series, 25H beetles, 24h 2CV's... and to think that they dropped some of their national top races (mainly because those championships selfdestructed) like the 12h of Spa. And there are the Ferrari days.
It's indeed quite a lot, and most of these events don't attract any notable audiences.
They should move the F1 to Chimay, instead!

F1RGP2C is/was better than F1CC

eurobrun wrote:F1RGP2C is/was better than F1CC

Very true, but that is a popular opinion here IMO. Swap both, and now that is unpopular, nowadays

FMecha wrote:

eurobrun wrote:F1RGP2C is/was better than F1CC

Very true, but that is a popular opinion here IMO. Swap both, and now that is unpopular, nowadays

Now here's an unpopular opinion:

rFactor alternate F1 is better than F1CC

pasta_maldonado wrote:

FMecha wrote:

eurobrun wrote:F1RGP2C is/was better than F1CC

Very true, but that is a popular opinion here IMO. Swap both, and now that is unpopular, nowadays

Now here's an unpopular opinion:

rFactor alternate F1 is better than F1CC

Your alternate 1979? Still too popular opinion IMO.

Now: SuperAguri's unnamed series is better than F1CC.

FMecha wrote:Now: SuperAguri's unnamed series is better than F1CC.

Actually, I thought that was really good. I think it's a shame SuperAguri is unable to run it for whatever reason.

It would seem like my love for F1CC would be unpopular... Of course my love for it is biased, due to Douglas winning the 1998 title and Pippa getting a podium in the Mastercard Lola, but there you go...

dr-baker wrote:It would seem like my love for F1CC would be unpopular... Of course my love for it is biased, due to Douglas winning the 1998 title and Pippa getting a podium in the Mastercard Lola, but there you go...

My love for the F1CC stems from the fact that it was the only championship where my driver(s) were consistantly competitive.

Plus the fact that we could basically simulate any storyline we wanted, which led to some interesting situations.

F1 needs more one-off drivers. (Or two-offs.)

Grosjean must be disqualified from this year's Belgian GP.

FMecha wrote:Grosjean must be disqualified from this year's Belgian GP.

I don't think it would really make a difference.

darkapprentice77 wrote:

FMecha wrote:Grosjean must be disqualified from this year's Belgian GP.

I don't think it would really make a difference.

It wouldn't. At all.

In all honestey I think the F1RGP2C is great, I really enjoy it.

But nothing can ever beat 2011-2012 F1RWRS.

Monaco should go back to having 20 cars qualify.

If the $45 million dollars mario said the Belgian GP generates is correct, it would mean that 45,000 people attending (I think they are a few more, but not too much) would spend $1,000 each on the area during the GP weekend. Is that possible? It looks like a big number to me, but the GP tickets are quite expensive already...

If I was Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

Ferrim wrote:If the $45 million dollars mario said the Belgian GP generates is correct, it would mean that 45,000 people attending (I think they are a few more, but not too much) would spend $1,000 each on the area during the GP weekend. Is that possible? It looks like a big number to me, but the GP tickets are quite expensive already...

I have been meaning to address this - I apologise for my error, as I had misremembered the original article from Reuters, but in fact the estimated economic impact from the Belgian GP is $25 million, not $45 million. That brings the expenditure per person to closer to $560 per person, which seems like a more reasonable sum when you consider the cost of the tickets, transport, accommodation and other associated costs that comes with attending the race (it also has to be said that some of that money will be spent by those working within the sport too, so that figure is probably a slight overestimate).

LellaLombardi wrote:If I were Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

Grosjean, maybe. But Raikkonen? I would give him a second chance for 2013...

dr-baker wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:If I were Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

Grosjean, maybe. But Raikkonen? I would give him a second chance for 2013...

I'd hang on to both of them, really. Raikkonen's still a solid driver, he's just stymied by Lotus' shite strategists. And Grosjean's pretty rough, but I'd give him another year to work out the kinks. He definately has a ton of raw pace.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:If I were Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

Grosjean, maybe. But Raikkonen? I would give him a second chance for 2013...

I'd hang on to both of them, really. Raikkonen's still a solid driver, he's just stymied by Lotus' shite strategists. And Grosjean's pretty rough, but I'd give him another year to work out the kinks. He definately has a ton of raw pace.

This. If they can sort out the two problems you mentioned (strategy and Grosjean's first-lap OTT driving), Lotus could have a dynamite season next year.

On reflection, if Petrov can have a better second season, then so could Grosjean. Although if Hamilton were to enter the drivers' market, I would replace Romain at the drop of a hat...

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

dr-baker wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:If I were Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

Grosjean, maybe. But Raikkonen? I would give him a second chance for 2013...

I'd hang on to both of them, really. Raikkonen's still a solid driver, he's just stymied by Lotus' shite strategists. And Grosjean's pretty rough, but I'd give him another year to work out the kinks. He definately has a ton of raw pace.

It is not for nothing that Kimi is still in contention for the title this season (and his move on Schumacher in Belgium showed something of the Kimi of old) - as for Grosjean, when he gels with the car he can be blisteringly quick in his own right. At the moment, Grosjean is still, unfortunately, a little too full of the enthusiasm of youth - and the desire to make an impression - but if he can learn to temper that aggression, he has the potential to do very well indeed.

Whether he is willing to temper that aggression, though, is another matter - after all, he rather brusquely and publicly rejected Jackie Stewart's offer of advice earlier this season. It might have been a little presumptuous for Stewart to offer to advise him, but at the same time somebody will need to sit him down and work through his approach to racing given that his talent will be squandered without moderation.

LellaLombardi wrote:If I was Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

This is very unpopular, but on reflection very true. They really have a decent car and the two simply haven't delivered. They need a race victory or they're out of the door. I'm sure Kimi will eventually deliver though...

TheBigJ wrote:

LellaLombardi wrote:If I was Eric Boullier, I wouldn't keep the Lotus driver line up for next year

This is very unpopular, but on reflection very true. They really have a decent car and the two simply haven't delivered. They need a race victory or they're out of the door. I'm sure Kimi will eventually deliver though...

Yes, they haven't won a race, but when you consider Grosjean is in his first full season of F1, and that Raikkonen is in his first after a 2-year hiatus, it actually becomes quite impressive. Anyway, there are some tracks that may suit the Lotus well still to come (Korea, Abby Dabby, Japan) so a victory isn't out of the question yet. They'll be kicking themselves if they don't win a race this year though.