| Author | Message | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1795 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jack, what a brilliant point about single lap qualifying. Never realized, that this of course also helps the sponsors. Darn, that Bernie is always a step ahead. I knew it. Personally I like single lap qualifying as it shows the drivers strenghts and weaknesses. All they need to do is change the rules so that refueling is allowed again. Then it becomes meaningful and exciting again. Also didn't know, that sponsors are getting fed up with NASCAR. What great news! Arthur of course has a good point too about being on the wrong side of the pond. Very true and almost the same regulations as Canada (not exactly as tobacco advertisement is allowed, but restricted, didn't know that myself until some fellow Fchatter explained it to me). | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1291 Registered: 3-2002 |
Andy, actually a lot of American companies are becoming dissatisfied with their NASCAR advertising. Sounds like they're about to revamp their provisional system of qualifying. Anyway, there are a lot of companies that could use the international exposure, just like Budweiser decided to chase. I think the single-lap qualifying helps, but F1 also needs to wrestle away control of the telecast productions so that at every race we see a better representation of all the sponsors, rather than the local TV producer's favorite driver running around by himself. | ||
| Bart Duesler (The_bart)
Member Username: The_bart Post Number: 267 Registered: 1-2003 |
Typical for a country will no bill of rights. Here you would run into a buzz saw. Oh, well. The government knows best. You must listen to them. Ha-ha | ||
| Dr. Erik Nielsen (Judge4re)
Junior Member Username: Judge4re Post Number: 144 Registered: 4-2003 |
Merde! | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Junior Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 220 Registered: 3-2003 |
Horrible, just horrible. No doubt the sport needs non-tobacco sponsorship, but where will it come from? Lots of large US companies are getting their money's worth in NASCAR (not that I enjoy saying that). It seems all the other large companies are already in some kind of sponsorship or another. Bringing the cost down is one way to give the sport longevity and stability but how much can F1 costs come down before it isn't F1 as we know it? Driver salaries don't seem to be the issue (Villeneuve and Schumie excluded). Spec engines and chassis are defintely not desireable and the teams have to travel from one venue to the other. Letting major Manufacturer's invest more deeply into the series doesn't sound like a good idea either. The Montreal event is the only one many of us can and want to go to. To me the US GP isn't an option. This is really devastating news for North American F1 fans. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1285 Registered: 3-2002 |
When the water starts rising you can either hop from one dry spot to another, or you can target the source of the leak. If Bernie continues to run away from tobacco legislation, they'll have to rename it the "Southern Hemisphere World Championship". Instead, he should be focusing his efforts on locating and securing non-tobacco sponsorships for the teams. Keep looking into cost-cutting measures so teams don't need a mid- 9-figure budget just to get a view of the front. Maybe he should consult with his good buddy Tony George for some money-saving ideas! Sorry Art--I couldn't resist. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2328 Registered: 6-2001 |
st remember guys that the US has essentially the same laws on Tobbacco advertising. If Canada goes, and Bernie has a 17 race limit, we're at the wrong end of a long flight, and the teams have difficulty with their sponsors, because of our laws. What's the bet that someone else gets that race? Art | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1773 Registered: 10-2002 |
The thing is Jack, that most F1 teams are funded by tobacco. So the more squeeze tobacco legislation puts on F1 the more Bernie moves it into tobacco friendly countries. No tobacco, no $$$, no F1. Simple as that. That's why I'm hoping somebody like Coca Cola would jump onto the Ferrari bandwagon. They're global, they're non tobacco and they're red. Perfect sponsorship. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
Intermediate Member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 1282 Registered: 3-2002 |
Let's see. Bernie insists the North American market is so important, so he threatens its only good race. This, only a year after he hard-lined the only good track in Europe (Spa, of course) off the schedule. All the while he's dangled a sword over the head of Silverstone. Yeah, F1 is going to have a really great schedule and a huge following in a few years. He needs to accept that he is NOT the mayor of the world, and that he needs us much, much more than we need him. Granted, he's made his billions already... | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1771 Registered: 10-2002 |
Oh wait, on second thought: Maybe the move of the US GP date wasn't to put it back to back with Canada, but to freakin' replace it! After all the F1 teams made it crystal clear that they don't want more than 17 races per season. So if we add Bahrain, Shanghai and Spa for 2005, then something has to give. It might be Canada. The financial/marketing lure comes from the USA, not Canada, so that might be enough in Bernie's mind.  | ||
| DJ (Godfather)
Junior Member Username: Godfather Post Number: 133 Registered: 11-2002 |
This is bad news, i'm sure it will be on schedule for next year though. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 1770 Registered: 10-2002 |
Very bad news indeed. But I think it is the usual power game Bernie is playing with the tobacco industry trying to grant him an exception. They just moved the US GP to make a back to back with the Canadian GP. That kinda tells me they're not too serious about cancelling Montreal. We've also seen Spa thrown off the calendar, but back by popular demand next year (the Enviromentalists lost the elections in Belgium and now the new govt wants the GP back giving it a tobacco excemption). So don't hold your breath just yet. However the trend is towards tobacco friendly countries (see Bahrain and Shanghai coming onto the F1 calendar in 2004/2005). So if Canada doesn't play to Bernie's fiddle, it could be the end of the road. That'd be a loss. Not that the circuit Gilles Villeneuve is that great (I think it is rather boring), but losing Canada as a venue is a loss to the global image of F1. ...if they'd only move it to Mont Tremblant  | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Intermediate Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2325 Registered: 6-2001 |
If true this is a disaster. Will they cancel the US GP also? We've got the same issues. Art | ||
| Dennis (Bighead)
Junior Member Username: Bighead Post Number: 189 Registered: 2-2003 |
ARRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!! Bernie played chicken with Belgium and lost. And it looks like we may lose Canada too. D*mn it!!!! vty, --Dennis __________ http://canada.com/sports/story.html?id=2A6734CD-B436-4B27-9594-B696D3A0FF11 Montreal's Formula One Grand Prix off the 2004 schedule, organizers announce NELSON WYATT Canadian Press Thursday, August 07, 2003 MONTREAL (CP) - Montreal's Formula One Grand Prix has been dropped from the 2004 schedule because of the impact of federal anti-tobacco legislation, a race organizer announced Thursday. Normand Legault said he received the news in a letter from Formula One organizers. The legislation was announced in 1997 and Legault told a news conference the Montreal race has had a seven-year grace period before tobacco sponsors had to be dropped. Legault said organizers made their decision based on the legislation. "It was basically made in light of the Oct. 1 application of Canada and Quebec's anti-tobacco legislation," he told a news conference. "So basically what that means for next June's event is that Michael Schumacher's Ferrari could not sport Marlboro's colours and Jacques Villeneuve's car could not have Lucky Strike on it." He said the decision will hurt the city because the weekend event in June has drawn crowds of more than 300,000. "There's an important economic impact," Legault said. "There will be an important negative impact on Montreal's tourism." Bill Hurley, owner of Hurley's Irish Pub, a popular downtown drinking establishment, said not having a race "certainly is going to be a blow to Montreal." "I think it's a terrible decision," Hurley said in an interview. "Formula One week and weekend is our busiest week and weekend in the summer months. Being an Irish pub, we're busy more in the winter, fall and spring but we always look forward to Formula One. "Not only that, the people who come up here are great, and every year we look forward to seeing the same folks who have been coming up for the years it's been here. "They come up for the Grand Prix. The Grand Prix has a large following, usually of people with quite a large disposable income. "But, obviously, if there's no Grand Prix, they won't be coming up. It really would be a shame." |