Distrust is one thing. I don't mind healthy skepticism (and you know that I value your opinion...this isn't directed towards you so much as some of the other posters). But I, as an observer of the sport, feel I have lost nothing if I have rooted and cheered for this effort and it fails. Sure, one could make the argument that it is further hurting the American opinion of F1. But is that really the case? I know I don't exactly live in the most progressive place on the planet, but very few people in my social circles follow F1. Such a "sideshow" wouldn't even be a blip on their radar. Bottom line, the integrity of the sport (stop laughing ) is not married to this one project in my mind.
No sense on wasting time on the nay sayers. If the Austin GP happens, then I'll be sitting in the stands enjoying the race while they can move on to complaining about something else. So what if the USF1 team was a failure, I didn't make a monetary or emotional investment in it, as much as I would have liked it to have succeeded And I'm not going to run around and yell 'the sky is fall', just because someone else has the balls to attempt to to bring F1 back to the US. Maybe the track is not in the ideal location for some, but I don't see anyone on this site making an attempt to bring it to somewhere else. Yes, Indianapois was out of my way, but that didn't stop me from attending the races there. And I didn't whine about it like some two year old that mommy wouldn't let wear his big boy pants. And if the Austin track does fail, unless you were there during yesterday's press conference, i doubt you have a monetary investment in the project. Ok, I'm done, think I'll check out cheap flights to Austin this weekend, go check out the progress on the track and enjoy the view from the Oasis.
I have to say this is the best written post in this thread. Could not agree more......in a city of 320,000 people I have only ran into 3 other people that care enough about F1 to watch on a regular basis. Bottom line is that not many in this country care. My pals love my enthusiasm but think I am crazy!
When sports meets politics meets finance meets regional pride the passions will rise You are absolutely correct that in the end none of this matters in any meaningful way to the fan. But isn't one role of spectator sports to allow a vicarious outlet? If so I begrudge no one his passions and in the end I take none of it seriously. Still its interesting to follow and fun to debate.
No 'tude on my part; just an observation. In this day and age of media importance, a kid who's wearing grubby jeans and an old shirt, standing on a podium with his hands jammed in his pockets like he's hangin' down at the feed store just doesn't cut it. Any top notch driver/rider woulda/coulda/shoulda been trained for public exposure, cuz that's a big part of what the sponsors want. He actually looked like he'd never been in front of a public speaking crowd or a TV camera. Kinda surprising, actually, which is why that caught my eye. Kid just needs some basic public/media training is all, along with a decent wardrobe. I don't have anything for/against MotoGP; it doesn't register w/me, as my main interest is F1, which was the reason for this broadcast.
Don't forget the baby seal rehab center, or the puppy hugging room, or the unicorn riding corral. ...what other buzzwords, I mean businesses might dupe someone into investing, I mean be attractive to local investors.... may as well build a green testing center for electric cars while they are at it. Or perhaps they should focus on actually building a race track when they are months and tens (or hundreds) of millions behind, and forget trauma centers, bike trails and music concerts. I haven't been this amused in a long time
I explained my view on this. Tavo gets the deal... he scouts around to line up some financing. Red comes on board and gets a significant chunk of the business in exchange for a seed capital investment. Tavo needed someone to bring credibility and help attract other investors. Red saw the opportunity to make a lot of money. Let's say Tavo cuts him in for 50% ownership for $20mm invested (totally hypothetical numbers). The money is spend on purchasing the land, moving forward with Tilke, PR, engineering, design, etc, etc. What does not existing is the remaining $230mm-380mm to build the track. The reason this is clear is obvious - if the money was there, a couple of orders of magnitude more would would be happening on site. It isn't, because they don't have the $$ yet. I have no doubt that if you are a serious money guy and talk to the AustinGP people, there are plenty of "investment opportunities" available... aka... they don't have the $$ yet. That they tried to raise money and it flopped is very telling. Doesn't matter what company it was performed under, the bottom line is that it foretells the larger picture and proves there is a gap in $$ (the size of which we can debate). As for Red being involved... anyone who knows a very rich man with a very well known name knows that his status is such that he doesn't need to put his own money in this deal to make a lot of money. No different than a guy like Richard Branson. This was an opportunity for Red to make some (more) big money and he took it. Those who are unfamiliar with the concept should read up on the term "lead investor".
Funny what you can actually make out of your posts Mike. You said it all yourself Seriously though, what you say is as big of a joke (because it's so hypothetical) as USF1. Ever gone into the toaster business?
Excellent post and the reason why I'm not sold on this project. That said, every time I get an update from the "Tavo people" I'm a believer again. I really can't get my head around this and for the time being remain sitting on the fence in the middle.
Eww, that was ugly. Still on foreign time. Life sucks... but could be worse, I could have invested my life savings in the Austin GP!
Oh, c'mon, puleaze: - Both projects are about F1 in the US - Both projects depend hugely on financial support from investors - Both projects long term profitability depends on the F1 fanbase - Both projects are sponsored by similar if not downright identical companies advertising their products - Both projects cost about the same (over 200 mio) - Both projects were on similar timelines (about 18 months to deadline) - Both projects were covered by Speed TV - Both are uphill battles (read highly risky) in a country that doesn't care about F1 There are so many similarities that it becomes obvious that the failure of one of them negatively affected/tainted the investors/market for the other.
Picket fence? Sounds painful. In the end it won't matter what we think or what we say here. It will happen or it won't.
No doubt that USF1 queered the pitch for any F1 related enterprise in the U.S. Fair or not, the few American race fans that follow F1 (as opposed to American F1 fans) equate F1 with "Toaster-gate".
Agree with you partly on that. USF1 was solely about F1. Circuit of the Americas (COTA) is not. Any project in America is going to depend on investors. About as close to gov't support for it, you're going to get, they already have, from the Texas Events Trust fund (or whatever its called): loan against future tax revenues to help attract projects Again, F1 isn't the only sole source of revenue for this project......Don't see why everyone is making jokes about puppy hugging rooms and what not. Do you really think a facility would get built by private investors that would only have 1 event a year.......NO WAY it'd make money. Not very familiar with the USF1 fiasco, so can't comment here...... COTA is actually going to cost more.......... The revenue model seems entirely different. I assume F1 teams main revenue is from sponsorship. USF1 seemed to have an uphill battle from the start, even in a good economy. COTA however, has presented a very thoughtful business model, that goes way beyond F1.....
You describe their business model as being thoughtful. I take it then that you're familiar with its specifics. Please share some examples.
Not privy to any inside information, but being from the area, i can tell you it does seem to address issues of things we need here.
That doesn't seem much to hang your hat on. Your previous post made conclusions based on a plan that you don't seem to know as much about as you implied.
No, i said 'thoughtful' business model, as in, i watched the news conference on Speed's website, and thought, 'hmm, that sounds like it might work.' I didn't call it a 'sound' or 'solid' business model, that would imply a certain amount of specific knowledge on my part. Written communications have never been my strong suit, my apologies for any confusion
