Skip navigation
 
Aug 19 2008

More racing means more money

Although, 10 or so years ago, Bernie Ecclestone said he would, “Never, ever, ever, put on more than 16 World Championship Grands Prix in a season”, that has been ignored for a long time now, and in 2009 there will be 19 races on the Formula 1 schedule, followed by…

You can read this in full if you log in, or you can register for FREE.

By Nigel Roebuck

Filed under: Exclusive content, Nigel Roebuck's newsletter

11 Responses to “More racing means more money”

  1. Steven Roy, August 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    We must get to a stage where Bernie's bank balance is not the overriding factor in every decision taken about F1.

  2. Bruce Allan, August 19th, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    Hello Nigel
    While I agree that a significant reduction in private, audience-free testing would have a positive effect on cost cutting, I do not agree with a purely 2 day GP meeting.
    Not being a jaded scribe who has been on the road all year, the annual 3 days of live F1 are very precious to me. The present schedule in which Friday IS a test day, with paying customers (virtually a full house here in Montreal each year) should be encouraged. This income for the sainted organisers is one of the few sources of revenue remaining to them.
    The attitude that costs should be cut by reducing opportunities to see F1 live, whether by further limiting track time or event length is regrettable and contrary to the concept of presenting a sporting entertainment.

  3. Ed Waalewijn, August 19th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

    Nigel,
    Reading the article and seeing this picture of the mechanics of McLaren it struck me: shouldn't the number of mechanics per car be curtailed to say 6, which is still outragous. This would also reduce the cost of running a team and would make rotation of mechanics a lot easier.

    Ed Waalewijn (amateur FF racer and my own mechanic),
    Delft, The Netherlands

  4. George T Coller, August 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Bernie is no longer doing what is best for Grand Prix racing. He is now only doing what is best for his financial interests.

    Sad, but there it is.

    As Frank Williams said, F1 is only a sport for 2 hours on Sunday afternoon…it is getting to the point where even that is not true.

  5. Bob Graham, August 19th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

    I've always felt it was better to be left wanting more of something than to feel you've had too much of it. That sentiment applies well to F1; to expand the schedule to the horrific dimensions of NASCAR's is an odious notion, IMHO.

    Thanks Nigel for your excellent reporting and insights. With DSJ gone you are now definitely (as we say here across The Pond) da man!

    Bob Graham

  6. Claudio Navonne, August 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm

    I think 16 races are a good balance, but I think it may get the lost of the "tradional" GP´s for the "new rich" ones , too. In facts only those country which could pay for them, so the real fans could lost their GP and only see them on TV.
    There are not more Argentina, South Africa, Sweden or Austrian GP, which´s the next with only 16 races?
    Regards, Claudio.

  7. Tom, August 20th, 2008 at 9:16 am

    Made me think of your recent reference in the magazine to Martin Brundle's immortal line about some people in F1 being “ill” with their money… with more races, it’s more likely fans will pick and choose, "miss" the odd race (like Brundle himself in Hungary!), and maybe discover they're not missing F1 at all - down go the precious viewing figures.

    I'm looking forward to the new Valencia race more than any GP for quite a while (with Spa and Monza to follow) and I'm sure the 3-week break adds to the anticipation.

  8. Tony Geran, August 20th, 2008 at 9:41 am

    The trouble with more races is that the promoters won't necessarily make more money, quite the reverse. As Silverstone and Melbourne can demonstrate, hosting F1 races is a good way to lose money. F1 can only attract so many naive governments. Surely the day will come when the number of races available will implode.

  9. Nigel Averill, August 20th, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    How much money does a 76 yr old need to screw out of the rest of the world? It’s as though he wants to bleed the world of motor racing dry before he expires. What does he add? What does he remove? About 50% of all monies one way or another. This has a knock on effect draining other areas of the sport.

  10. Neil Stretton, August 20th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

    Maybe it won't be long before it becomes apparent to circuits (or their governments ) that it's just plain daft to PAY for the privelege of holding an F1 Grand Prix. In which other business or entertainment does this happen? Mind you, the whole financial "culture" of F1 is odd…e.g. the public PAYING to advertise sponsors when they buy T-shirts, hats, etc at breathtaking prices…surely shouldn't sponsors be handing these out FREE? I'm clearly missing something!

  11. Mike, August 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm

    I'd like to see the team personnel given a fair go,in any way possible, especially where families are concerned. However I do not agree that more races (say 20 in a season) will reduce audience enthusiasm. Surely fans of one Soccer club watch more matches than that per season and they probably watch the other teams in the Premier league on TV too. Motor racing heaven for me would be a GP every fortnight, filled in with GP2, F3, BTCC, AVESCO, NASCAR and IRL, (not written in any order of priority) -a Hamilton/Dixon/J.Reid/W. Cunningham/B.Hartley fan

Leave a Reply