i bet they goof around for the 30 or so days they have left in session, and have to go to a special session to pass the budget.........oh well
Do they have the funding or not. If its not approved it never existed to begin with. In theory they have it. Next question is its a recurring obligation. Thats not long term funding planning at all. The race would be year to year based on the fee owed to Bernie and crew being available. Very very shaky at best. I know its early but this is still on the surface, very tenuous. I find the purpose built venue idea superb. Its a weakness in USA F1 but now it might not be. I do hope for the best but too many financial questions remain and the lack of openess about them do not inspire confidence. Tavo is an advisor to Carlos. On what. Tavo still comes across as a big money beggar not a big money player. Not a confidence inspiring impression.
Yes, they have it now.....as it stands, they're trying to take it away. Even if they take money away from the Formula 1 obligations, they'd have to defund the events trust fund all together to get it back in the states budget, don't see that happening, either...... The State provided $30million to host the Superbowl earlier this year, no one seemed to complain about that.....LULZ......
Only in the dollar amount of the gov't incentives. You could probably make the case actually, that F1 would bring in more revenue than the Superbowl. But yes, I am quite aware of the varying public opinions of the two events.... :-/
Even I understand that. There are sporting events and there are sporting EVENTs. Anywhere in the US (particularly so in Texas) its a lot easier to get public funding for a cultural/sports institution than for F1. The parallel is meaningless.
And they gave almost $5 million last year to host an alcoholics anonymous convention...... Pretty sure they go on the level of economic impact, rather than the public opinion of the event being hosted. I don't ever see a private company footing the entire bill for Formula 1. Don't think someone could ever make a race profitable without someone picking up the tab for Bernie's fee.
Now you're comparing it to AA? What next, funding for hospitals? AA like the SuperBowl has a number of different widely based constituencies. In Texas F1 doesn't have near that kind of support. I do agree with the second half of your post and that is why so many of us are dubious. How much is the great state of Texas, in these tight economic times, willing to subsidize Bernie? And more importantly, in these politically volatile times, are the elected officials willing to be seen giving big money to him?
Here is the real reason Austin should support this race: http://impactnews.com/southwest-austin/424-entertainment/9123-formula-1-races-could-have-more-economic-impact-than-ut-football-sxsw-combined Grand Prix events in 2008 generated approximately $221 million in Malaysia and $394 million in Bahrain. The Texas Comptroller’s office projects an economic impact of around $300 million annually if the race were to be held in Austin—a larger windfall than that of South by Southwest and an entire season of The University of Texas football home games combined. A ten fold ROI on the local economy. Something Indianapolis never understood but Montreal learned quickly enough.
These types of numbers are rolled out every time someone comes looking for public funded sports facilities. They never stand up to scrutiny and ROI is never what was projected.
I am not trying to make direct comparisions here. Just trying to highlight the fact that The Event trust fund monies are kept seperate and distinct from the state budget, to avoid politicalizing something that is a fiduciary decision. Which seems to be what they're trying to do here. Just because it became a big deal, doesn't mean the public at large doesn't want to do it. It means a vocal minority is trying to find something to throw stones at. Back when they first announced it, there was public support, now with the budget sort fall...........*sigh*
It's impossible to depoliticize these things. When public money (no matter how its labeled) is being spent someone will always be dissatisfied and vocal. There's no free lunch. You take public funds you enter into the world of politics.
True, but if they're going to say the gov't is handing out money to bring a silly race to America, then they need to take it all the way, and defund the event trust fund program, and get all the money back into the budget... Too bad the figure of $250 million really makes for some good headlines.... Tavo and company need to make up some more jackets, and spend some $$ or PR and lobbyists
I agree and having gone to one of the aforementioned races I don't believe those numbers. The Race I attended had a lot of empty seats and I think Turkey's experience and giving F1 the boot speaks for itself. We shall see...
Agree, how much revenue does an EMPTY seat generate? And the crowd at Indy was OK then diminished annually, you think TX will do differently? If this would make money or ROI, I think the folks in Speedway IN would be on it.
If the populace got hold of the $25M being spent in racing, I wouldn't bet anything . Otherwise, it probably makes business sense for the state in general (at least initially, while the venture gets traction), but the better question is if the TAX revenue associated with track activities would be enough to cover the $25M 'investment'. My guess is part of it would always be a subsidy, but could be wrong. At any rate, if that 'subsidy' was so crucial for the project's survival, why the hell start before it's approved? Crazy.
Well, the idea being, the $25M incentive is renewed annually, so I guess the state could only be on the hook for $25M if they don't generate enough tax revenue to cover it, they default on their agreement, and no incentive the next year.....
That's a great point. Indy would "only" have to pay $25mm a year for the race. Texas has to pay that *and* spend $400mm to build the track. For a 10-year contract, that is $40mm a year (huge oversimplification, I know). If the answer is "yes, but the *other* stuff at the track will justify it's existence and render it profitable", then F1 is a loss leader, and a profitable venue could exist in the absence of F1, then someone would have built one in Texas.
