Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Formula 1


MHFC-FAN
 Share

Recommended Posts

Meh,

My current position on F1 is I'll watch it on TV when it's on and I have nothing else to do and I'll got to the Melbourne GP on years where circumstances allow, but I can't follow it closely knowing what it once was, and how it's been ruined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melbourne GP corporation (State Gov statuatory body) has just agreed to terms with the FIA to continue hosting the race in Melb until 2020. The gov wont release the figures but the estimates are the race costs $50m a year all from the taxpayers purse through the tourism budget. Rather steep IMO when you consider that the entire annual Tourism Victoria budget is only $120m.

 

That said, I like the sport and like having it in Melbourne but just don't think its worth the price even when considering the impact on the hospitality and advertising industries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I like the sport and like having it in Melbourne but just don't think its worth the price even when considering the impact on the hospitality and advertising industries.

Exactly how I feel.

Disagree, even though it's not what it once used to be, hosting a GP really puts a city "on the map" (in b4 simpsons monorail). $50m is nothing for the marketing it provides Melbourne, especially considering we have such a scenic track.

Don't really follow F1 as closely any more as I used to, but $50m sounds like a decent deal compared to what others pay, probably because Melbourne is such a revered GP, especially in this era of plastic Hermann Tilke designed tracks with miles of run off room etc., nothing beats a street circuit :up:

Also, if $50m is what's being paid to host it, then you also have to factor in the revenue that is recouped from advertisements and tickets etc. A better figure to look at would be the loss/subsidy the government covers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That said, I like the sport and like having it in Melbourne but just don't think its worth the price even when considering the impact on the hospitality and advertising industries.

Exactly how I feel.

 

Disagree, even though it's not what it once used to be, hosting a GP really puts a city "on the map" (in b4 simpsons monorail). $50m is nothing for the marketing it provides Melbourne, especially considering we have such a scenic track.

Don't really follow F1 as closely any more as I used to, but $50m sounds like a decent deal compared to what others pay, probably because Melbourne is such a revered GP, especially in this era of plastic Hermann Tilke designed tracks with miles of run off room etc., nothing beats a street circuit :up:

Also, if $50m is what's being paid to host it, then you also have to factor in the revenue that is recouped from advertisements and tickets etc. A better figure to look at would be the loss/subsidy the government covers.

 

Yep agreed, but I know you well enough to know that you dont deal in sentiment (most of the time, anyway) and the numbers dont add up. The figure given to 'branding' and conventional advertising income combined with the trickle down benefits for the Hotel and hospitality industry apparently don't equate to the $50m figure but it is impossible for a layman to know as the GP Corporation was incorporated for the very purpose of not having to release either the figures for its tender bids or over all costings. Apparently due to the timing issues regarding the broadcast even with the amended twilight timeslot, the Melb GP is in the bottom three for TV ratings worldwide and bottom two in F1's biggest TV market: Europe. The figures of 16m worldwide are apparently generous too. 

 

Seeming though it is a public event and a contentious budgeting issue for the government of the day(either side) why would they not release the figures if they could substantiate the break-even or profitmaking financial reality of the event? It would be politically retarded to not combat the criticism of the GP moneypit with hard figures refuting those claims. Thus logically, the event is a dud (financially) but it keeps certain interest and business groups happy. 

 

I've been to the GP five or six times now. I'm neither anti-GP nor anti-major public events that lose money but the raise profile of my city and public sentiment amongst its inhabitants. I just think the GP in 2014 fails to achieve much in terms of financial benefit or the aforementioned less tangible outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I like the sport and like having it in Melbourne but just don't think its worth the price even when considering the impact on the hospitality and advertising industries.

Exactly how I feel.

Disagree, even though it's not what it once used to be, hosting a GP really puts a city "on the map" (in b4 simpsons monorail). $50m is nothing for the marketing it provides Melbourne, especially considering we have such a scenic track.

Don't really follow F1 as closely any more as I used to, but $50m sounds like a decent deal compared to what others pay, probably because Melbourne is such a revered GP, especially in this era of plastic Hermann Tilke designed tracks with miles of run off room etc., nothing beats a street circuit :up:

Also, if $50m is what's being paid to host it, then you also have to factor in the revenue that is recouped from advertisements and tickets etc. A better figure to look at would be the loss/subsidy the government covers.

Yep agreed, but I know you well enough to know that you dont deal in sentiment (most of the time, anyway) and the numbers dont add up. The figure given to 'branding' and conventional advertising income combined with the trickle down benefits for the Hotel and hospitality industry apparently don't equate to the $50m figure but it is impossible for a layman to know as the GP Corporation was incorporated for the very purpose of not having to release either the figures for its tender bids or over all costings. Apparently due to the timing issues regarding the broadcast even with the amended twilight timeslot, the Melb GP is in the bottom three for TV ratings worldwide and bottom two in F1's biggest TV market: Europe. The figures of 16m worldwide are apparently generous too. 

 

Seeming though it is a public event and a contentious budgeting issue for the government of the day(either side) why would they not release the figures if they could substantiate the break-even or profitmaking financial reality of the event? It would be politically retarded to not combat the criticism of the GP moneypit with hard figures refuting those claims. Thus logically, the event is a dud (financially) but it keeps certain interest and business groups happy. 

 

I've been to the GP five or six times now. I'm neither anti-GP nor anti-major public events that lose money but the raise profile of my city and public sentiment amongst its inhabitants. I just think the GP in 2014 fails to achieve much in terms of financial benefit or the aforementioned less tangible outcomes.

The issue is that the benefits the government is paying for are quite intangible and hard to put a figure on. While I'm an advocate of government transparency and they should make the figures public, all it will result in is a headline of "$xx million lost a year on car race".

My point is, Victoria's economy is worth $350bn, say the loss on the GP was $35m (like I said, if $50m is the cost of hosting the event, then it obviously doesn't equate to the loss on the event), that's 0.01% in the grand scheme of the Victorian economy. What's always made F1 so great, and more than just a sport, is the prestige and riches that surround it, and spending 0.01% of the value of our economy to have Melbourne in the exclusive club of cities that host a GP, is a small price to pay. It provides global exposure, which translates to more tourist $$$ and more business $$$.

If only it was easy to put a $ figure on these benefits, then a debate wouldn't be necessary. But I believe they would exceed even $50m if that was the loss. $50m is just such a small figure when we are talking tourism and international business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the question about taxpayers' money that should always asked is not related to the amount involved, rather, whatever the amount, can it be better spent elsewhere?

 

In a city choking to death on cars and in desperate need of new infrastructure I say the answer to that question is "yes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO the question about taxpayers' money that should always asked is not related to the amount involved, rather, whatever the amount, can it be better spent elsewhere?

 

In a city choking to death on cars and in desperate need of new infrastructure I say the answer to that question is "yes."

 

Make Melbourne a boring city to live in and you won't need to worry about building new roads or infrastructure for an expanding population.

 

You might not like the Grand Pricks being here, but its the same Government attitude that brings other great things to the city such as AAMI Park for example. 

Edited by hedaik
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it was just because I was younger and was more interested in F1, but I definately think the F1 brand is weaker compared to 10 years ago. I remember the hype surrounding Webber early days when he was in a Minardi being a load more than what it is at the moment with Riccardo who's actually competitive.

I work close to Albert Park and this year didn't even know the GP was on until I heard them on the Thursday. Bugger all media attention, promotion etc. compared to previous years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if it was just because I was younger and was more interested in F1, but I definately think the F1 brand is weaker compared to 10 years ago. I remember the hype surrounding Webber early days when he was in a Minardi being a load more than what it is at the moment with Riccardo who's actually competitive.

I work close to Albert Park and this year didn't even know the GP was on until I heard them on the Thursday. Bugger all media attention, promotion etc. compared to previous years.

I feel the same, but, as I've said a few times already, that might just be because I don't follow it as much any more. I do know I'm not the only one that has become disillusioned with all the "cost cutting" measures, "safety" measures, and standardisation.

Edited by Tesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually read an article on the matter, the $50m is an estimate (based on last year) of the loss/subsidy rather than the cost of the event, which I thought might be the case. Either way, doesn't really change anything I've said. Napthine making assertions that this new deal is a better one, and it ensures the Melbourne GP is the first of the season (a big plus IMO). I'm guessing this is why they think it's a better deal:

 

Melbourne won a number of concessions in the race contract allowing the Albert Park race to be run differently to other nations’ GPs.

This includes Melbourne branding being displayed prominently, support categories such as V8 Supercars being staged in conjunction with the F1 program, and proceeds from corporate hospitality going to the Australian Grand Prix Corporation rather than F1 management in London.

Edited by Tesla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely worth it at a glance/on paper, in my opinion. Regardless whether F1 is or isn't what it used to be, it's still a global circuit event and a massive sport/sport media event, having it here is a massive plus for the city.

 

Don't really know the economic logistics of how it affects the State economy but doing Sport Media last semester really helped me learn how big the sport is (I always knew it was well followed and a global event, but didn't know how big it was in an economic sense) in terms of it's economic power and audience draw. The subject also made me realize what kind of the level the sport is, as a global circuit it falls only behind events like the Olympics or the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMO the question about taxpayers' money that should always asked is not related to the amount involved, rather, whatever the amount, can it be better spent elsewhere?

 

In a city choking to death on cars and in desperate need of new infrastructure I say the answer to that question is "yes."

 

Make Melbourne a boring city to live in and you won't need to worry about building new roads or infrastructure for an expanding population.

 

You might not like the Grand Pricks being here, but its the same Government attitude that brings other great things to the city such as AAMI Park for example. 

 

This.

 

If people don't want their "Taxpayers Money" spent they can go and live in Perth and see all the city has to offer in under a day because all the governments ever formed there are so scared of spending money on anything due to their largely conservative Electorate.

(FFS in the 1970's they even closed the Fremantle to Perth Trainline to save cash).

 

Melbourne has been blessed since the early 90's to have governments from both sides of parliament who have had the courage to continue to spend that money that has seen our city constantly evolve from the Industrial Falling Apart Stiff City of the late 80's that closed at 5pm to the world famous Entertainment Capital that it is today.

 

These days I often meet people in Sydney who flat out tell me they think Melbourne is the better city of the two, which is bloody amazing considering that no Sydneysider would ever had said such a statement back in 1993.

Edited by cadete
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The economics of events like this are very hard to quantify.  The book "soccernomics" has got a good section on this kind of thing.  A key question to ask from a purely economic perspective is "is hosting the grand prix the most efficient way of achieving an economic benefit if we are committed to spending x million on something?" 

 

I'd be surprised if the answer was yes.

 

So the question really is more along the lines of "is this the sort of event we need to give our city a particular status"?  To me this is where the debate should really be held.

 

 (I can't answer it, mainly because I have a strong inherent bias against anything involving motor racing.  I just don't think anything that uses a motor is a sport and on top of that I just find car racing a cure for insomnia.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO the question about taxpayers' money that should always asked is not related to the amount involved, rather, whatever the amount, can it be better spent elsewhere?

 

In a city choking to death on cars and in desperate need of new infrastructure I say the answer to that question is "yes."

 

Make Melbourne a boring city to live in and you won't need to worry about building new roads or infrastructure for an expanding population.

 

You might not like the Grand Pricks being here, but its the same Government attitude that brings other great things to the city such as AAMI Park for example. 

 

This.

 

If people don't want their "Taxpayers Money" spent they can go and live in Perth and see all the city has to offer in under a day because all the governments ever formed there are so scared of spending money on anything due to their largely conservative Electorate.

(FFS in the 1970's they even closed the Fremantle to Perth Trainline to save cash).

 

Melbourne has been blessed since the early 90's to have governments from both sides of parliament who have had the courage to continue to spend that money that has seen our city constantly evolve from the Industrial Falling Apart Stiff City of the late 80's that closed at 5pm to the world famous Entertainment Capital that it is today.

 

These days I often meet people in Sydney who flat out tell me they think Melbourne is the better city of the two, which is bloody amazing considering that no Sydneysider would ever had said such a statement back in 1993.

 

Cadete, you do do Melbourne a bit of a disservice.  When i first set foot in this city in the late 80s I was stunned how alive and cosmopolitan it was.  (My frame of reference though was  Brisbane of the mid -late 80s, city streets empty after 6pm on a weeknight!)

 

Having said that though, Melbourne might have had more bars, more bands and things happening after 5pm, but the people in the city, were, by and large, incredibly conservative.  That rampant conservatism seems largely absent now and most (all?) Melbournians seem a lot more worldly than they did back then (when many seemed to think the world ended at the Dandenongs).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...