Originally Posted by Assa2:
“Silverstone is expensive for 2 reasons.
1. It's one of if not the most popular race in the calendar. It's invariable sold out months ahead and could easily sell three or four times as many tickets. There aren't many races where you get 30K people attending the Friday and 50K+ the Saturday. Hence they can pretty much charge what they want.
2. Silverstone has to make money to survive and the GP is it's main earner. Unlike a lot of other GPs these days the circuit isn't run and financed by the government who use the GP as a massive international advertisement.
Silverstone obviously looks 2nd rate next to the new purpose built circuits cropping up around the world. But do they have the atmosphere, the history, the strong home support? Which is really more important for an F1 circuit? Somewhere where the spectators can see most of the circuit, have comfortable grandstands and get into and away form the place easily, or somewhere where the racing is good?
Think of the circuits which have fallen off the calendar to be replaced by these sanitised new builds... Paul Ricard, Imola, Hockenheim (old circuit), Osterichring (old circuit). Silverstone and Spa have been under threat for years. What do they all have in common? They're all great drivers' circuits, all high speed with plenty of chances for over-taking but none are very profitable for Bernie. So he demands they be cut from the calendar or butchered in the name of safety.”
If they can sell a lot more seats, then you would think they would have the common sense to build more/bigger stands to get more people in. Apart from the new stand, have much have they increased the capacity compared to say three years ago?
Silverstone has several events during the year, I believe. Whilst F1 will be its biggest earner. So they have to maximise their profits. However as a paying customer, I have to think for the same money you pay to get into Silverstone, what you can pay to get to other circuits.
I would imagine most tracks would have a good atmosphere. As far as history goes that doesnt mean much, when you are on one of the uncovered banks and it starts to pi$s it down or are stuck in traffic for a couple of hours. Not surprising that there is big home support since there are several drivers from the UK on the grid. Its no different from racing in Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan etc...that is not something unique to Silverstone. Remember the scene a few years ago, when it rained and people were stick in the field? That must have been embarrassing not only for Bernie but for F1.
Bernie charges a fee from each circuit. The circuit then make money from paying fans etc. They hope the money generated would cover Bernies fee. So to say, that the circuits dont generate money for Bernie is not quite correct. The circuits dont generate money for Bernie, they generate money for the circuit owners. If Bernie wants £x, but the circuit can only afford half that....then the circuit wont want to host a race. Thus circuits that you mention, whilst maybe great for drivers, they just dont generate the money that they would need. You could argue that Bernie, should reduce the fees - and keep them on the calendar. However its money that talks at the end of the day. There is only a finite number of races a year, so F1 has to maximise its profits. You ask the teams to take a smaller cut of the money, but they can race at Imola, Spa etc - and you can bet they will say no way, lets go to Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, India etc. So blaming it all on Bernie is not correct at all.
What Bernie is concerned about is having state of the art, new racing facilities to show case F1. When the F1 circus turns up the facilities are first class.Hence why he threatened Silverstone. A great move by him, as there is now a new stand at Silverstone. Without Bernies threats we would have been no new stand.
It may seem I am a big Fan of Bernie, I am not...but there is something he has done that are good for the sport, and quite a few that arent.