US GP in Austin Discussion and Speculation...

I highlighted the 30 days on my calendar....

But I never saw the reprimand written up, can they doctor your employee file without my signature of acknowledgement???

I guess they can....

 

Can they?
Is the Pope German?

 

If tickets are only $250 ea (average), that's not $25MM. A sizable chunk (10% at least) of the $250 would be taxes. In any case, the majority of the income is in the form of concessions, hotel charges, local economic impact (clothing stores, bars, etc.). Similarly for any sports arena. That's the only reason it even makes sense for TX to fund it out of taxpayer money.

My point is, you're looking at the profitability angle completely the wrong way.

The only revenue the track itself sees is the ticket sales (minus taxes), concession fees, parking fees, etc. I'd say look at $400MM over 20 years to gauge that.

Yes, Bernie gets all of that.

But since this is pitched as a multi-use facility, it's only the F1 part that Bernie gets a take from.

 

I don't think the original point of my post came across correctly. I apologize, written communications have never been my strong suit.

The point I was trying to get across, is the Bernie fee takes away any profit a race weekend would ever see. If the bill goes through the legislature, and they loose the tax incentives, all the revenues from ticket sales goes away (to pay bernie), and they're trying to recoup their massive sunken costs off overpriced drinks, hot dogs, and parking spots. A very difficult thing to do, I would assume.

If hosting an F1 race is a profitable endeavor, it wouldn't have left Indy, Australia wouldn't being reconsidering hosting one.....

I'm for this 100%, and am one of the few around here, who actually thinks its going to be built, but I would be delusional to even remotely think an F1 race is ever profitable for the actual facility hosting it

 

I got your point, and disagree. It's only correct if you look solely at ticket and other direct revenue.

But most of the profit is around the fans spending money in town. Almost all F1 races (barring maybe 1 or 2, can't recall which ones) are guaranteed by a government. All additions to the F1 calendar for the past few years and going forward are required to be guaranteed by the government; Bernie won't even accept private guarantees -- private entities can simply go under and default on payment (even if they actually hold the race) or stretch it out. It actually makes sense for the local government to pay (not just guarantee the payment) since it is expected to get most of the profit.

It's just like how it's common for local municipalities or states to grant large corporations tax breaks; the amount of the benefit is outweighed by the local taxes paid by employees as well as the spending that the employees do around town, housing market (=property tax) increases, etc.

It's why cities pay for sports stadiums even though the teams get the direct revenues.

 

I get the point you're trying to make on the way a tax incentive benefits a community. Texas is very good about these things. Even in the past year, we've gotten Facebook to build a facility, eBay is expanding theirs, and Samsung is putting in a new billion dollar plant. All of these facilities were given tax incentives to help the cause of them coming to Texas......

What I was trying to say, and I don't know if you're familiar with this, is SB 1 currently trying to be passed in the Texas Senate right now, would kill the tax incentives for the facility. This would greatly affect the ability of the facility to make a profit.......

 

Agreed ... if the track (any track) has to pay the FOM fee itself, it's pretty difficult to turn any profit.

 

Which begs the question Why would anyone invest in a F1 track?
Running the race loses money.
Designing a track to Bernie's specs adds costs.
Dealing with Ecclestone on an ongoing basis is always perilous financially. Ask the BRDC.
The "Glamour" of F1 is lost on most US and Texas fans so the halo effect is minimal.

If there is a sufficient revenue stream from non-F1 events why open that Pandora's box needlessly?

 

Because if you get the tax incentives, you can make money on the race. an extra $25MM a year goes far in recouping the sunken costs there. You're getting quite the discount in building the facilities then. And you're left with 11 months of the year with a world class facility that can (and will) be used for other events.........

Sure the glamour is lost on a lot of the US fans, but who knows, we get excited about soccer every four years, could happen here. Mexico has interest in F1 from what I here.....

If this doesn't happen, I don't think we're ever gonna get a race, barring a massive restructure in the F1 organization; not because Tavo would have ruined the idea for everyone, but rather, the conditions to allow even the possibility of a profitable venture won't present themselves.....

Bored billionares don't build F1 tracks, they buy teams. From the get go, they had been at this to make $$, They wouldn't be progressing this far, had they not believed they can be profitable.......

 

Surely the 'profit' for the original few comes when the project is perceived to be functional, the land values rise because of zoning? They take a quick sell out and run leaving the next suckers err, investors holding the bag. Meanwhile the initial newness wears off, etc., etc..

 

You build an X00 Mil dollar facility to get 25 mil in tax breaks? Tax breaks that may or may not exist year to year?
No wonder they can't find "investors".

 

Woo-hoo!.....

40,000 thread views!......

It seems that, at least in our tiny corner of cyberspace, folk do care.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The poll is in:

F-Chat cares about the US GP more than gay drivers in F1, but less than US F1 team

 

No. the government offers them as incentives to private enterprise. No one said they were looking for investors.....

 

Don't be disingenuous. The fact that they've been looking for funding has been discussed here and elsewhere for quite some time.
I think that its also time for you to identify yourself and state clearly what relationship you have with this project.

 

Consider this... Ben is active on moped forums...

 

The answer to 1 to 3 is "mixed merchandise": Look at Indy, they lost money on the F1 deal but made a killing (I'm guessing) on the IRL and NASCAR and could claim to host the trifecta of motorsports. Adds to overall clout of a track. As well to its owner's clout.

As for 4: Austin gets to put its name on the global map. I'm pretty sure outside of the Texas and/or the US nobody has heard of that town. Have a USGP there and it becomes world famous overnight. Which again adds to the city's clout but more importantly brings in tourist revenue.

I'm not saying running a F1 race is a way to become rich (well, unless you're Bernie) but if the whole concept fits together, it can work. It does so for Canada and it almost did for Indy (they were about 6 million apart, which really ticks me off come to think of it, that gap could have been bridged so easily with a temporary race weekend tax).

Whether the USGP at Austin will happen or not is another question. But if the city and the organizers work together, this can actually end without financial loss. Yeah, I know, that's not the greatest sales pitch ever...but wealthy people with a vision and a deep passion for motorsport can do it. Just look at Jim and his noble endeavour.

 

Tis true.......I got a 1982 Suzuki FA50.........currently being restored.....

Used to own an Express SR50

Any other questions, my constituents?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I don't agree with your assessments (Montreal is a world class city with existing facilities and even it had to play economic chicken with Bernie to make it even remotely viable economically) and even if I did it makes no case for investors.
Jim is in it for personal reasons and is not looking to turn anything approaching a profit.

 

First answer the one on the table

 

I have no professional relationship with this project. I think that is what you are getting at. Dude, I register for this site back in 2005, long before this site was ever announced.

I only try to counterbalance the condemnation on here by other's.

You say its not funded.........you know anybody in this project?
You say they aren't building......dig around on the internet, you can very quickly find the building permits relating to this project (lots of diagrams too)

Instead of spending time here talking about how it's not going to work, look around for a little while, dig past the alphabet soup of holding companies, you can find lots of fun stuff.....

Do we really have to go through this?

 

I didn't ask who you weren't

 

and who are you mr. david north of boston??? at least my profile has a full name

 

You are determined not to answer?
Quit with the deflections.

 

No, it's just a rather vague question. What do you wanna know?