Please show your support for Moto GP in Austin, Texas...

mylexicon said:

That's right. Stamp your name on the petition of stupidity, and then initial it for good measure.



Goatboy is the John Hancock of the mentally deficient.

Click to expand...

I would rather Bernie have it than you spend it on crack & further your delusions.

Done and done even sent a blanket email to all the council members. I may not be from Texas but, I was stationed at Fort Hood and currently am deployed to Afghanistan. I know I would love to see another American circuit land a spot in the premier level of motorsports. Austin I believe is a great place for a circuit to be added it's a very people friendly city.

I can't support a 3rd race in a single country on the MotoGP calendar. Drop one of the other US GP's and I would gladly support it. We don't need just new circuits we need new circuits in new countries. Sorry to the Americans but this is the way I feel.

Mental Anarchist said:

I can't support a 3rd race in a single country on the MotoGP calendar. Drop one of the other US GP's and I would gladly support it. We don't need just new circuits we need new circuits in new countries. Sorry to the Americans but this is the way I feel.

Click to expand...

MotoGP runs 4 rounds in Spain and 5 on the Iberian peninsula. Europe gets 12 rounds to satisfy about 1B Europeans. The 3 USGPs are the only races run in the Americas, and US track owners are the only people who appear willing and able to meet FIM homologation requirements.



Don't apologize, just think it through.

mylexicon said:

MotoGP runs 4 rounds in Spain and 5 on the Iberian peninsula. Europe gets 12 rounds to satisfy about 1B Europeans. The 3 USGPs are the only races run in the Americas, and US track owners are the only people who appear willing and able to meet FIM homologation requirements.



Don't apologize, just think it through.

Click to expand...

I understand that. I have made my disgust well and truly apparent regarding 4 rounds in Spain and we don't need to do the same thing in the US. Looking down the track Dorna signs contracts for many years with circuits (as they should) so locking in 3 US GP's, 4 Spanish GP's, 2 Italian GP's takes up half the calendar. It doesn't leave many spots for new tracks so where is the incentive for countries who have potential to homologate a circuit to do so if they know that there are no spots left on the calendar? Should a country like Australia loose their GP so that a new country could come on board? Or should they have an absolute max of 2 GP's in any given country? I vote yes on max of 2 or at least a max of 2 with long term contracts.



It also worries me that Spain, Italy and the US all have economies on the brink of a second recession at least and complete collapse at worst. I see this as a significant risk to the short to medium term prospects for MotoGP. Another risk that they could do with out.

Mental Anarchist said:

I understand that. I have made my disgust well and truly apparent regarding 4 rounds in Spain and we don't need to do the same thing in the US. Looking down the track Dorna signs contracts for many years with circuits (as they should) so locking in 3 US GP's, 4 Spanish GP's, 2 Italian GP's takes up half the calendar. It doesn't leave many spots for new tracks so where is the incentive for countries who have potential to homologate a circuit to do so if they know that there are no spots left on the calendar? Should a country like Australia loose their GP so that a new country could come on board? Or should they have an absolute max of 2 GP's in any given country? I vote yes on max of 2 or at least a max of 2 with long term contracts.



It also worries me that Spain, Italy and the US all have economies on the brink of a second recession at least and complete collapse at worst. I see this as a significant risk to the short to medium term prospects for MotoGP. Another risk that they could do with out.

Click to expand...

300 million or so in the usa, 25 million in australia, so pro rata they could have 12 gps before we have cause for complaint. Strongly supported races anywhere are a good thing, but I agree with the eggs and baskets thing with the iberian peninsula, particularly given the economic situation there.



There is a good discussion on this matter on david emmett's site. There are a lot of places they would like to go, particularly indonesia where there is a large fan-base, but apparently no suitable circuit nor any government backing to build one or support a race. The same applies to south america where they would like to go to brazil and/or argentina, and in south africa the circuits exist but not the government backing for a race. Are exorbitant sanctioning fees a la bernie necessitating government subsidisation in such countries on top of governments usually needing to be involved in building the circuits part of the problem? Quite possibly. Qatar with very little local fan base but bountiful patronage by Qatar's government/rulers on the other hand apparently has no problem

michaelm said:

300 million or so in the usa, 25 million in australia, so pro rata they could have 12 gps before we have cause for complaint. Strongly supported races anywhere are a good thing, but I agree with the eggs and baskets thing with the iberian peninsula, particularly given the economic situation there.



There is a good discussion on this matter on david emmett's site. There are a lot of places they would like to go, particularly indonesia where there is a large fan-base, but apparently no suitable circuit nor any government backing to build one or support a race. The same applies to south america where they would like to go to brazil and/or argentina, and in south africa the circuits exist but not the government backing for a race. Are exorbitant sanctioning fees a la bernie necessitating government subsidisation in such countries on top of goverments usually needing to be involved to build the circuits part of the problem? Quite possibly.

Click to expand...

So if we have 70,000 turn up to PI do they have 840,000 turn up or even want to turn up to Laguna?



What about land mass. Australia and the US are roughly the same size. Should we then have 3? How many MotoGP TV views are there in the US compared to Australia?



In my opinion none of that matters. I would love to see 18 races spread over 18 countries.



If I had a franchise business and I wanted to open 18 stores. Would the better business model be to open 18 stores in one city or would I be better off opening 1 store in each of 18 cities?



It is easy for Dorna to take the easy road and just go where their is a track and someone willing to pay the fee. But is the easy way going to be successful for the sport. A comparison: for the last decade it was easy to throw all the MotoGP eggs in the Rossi basket. What was the result? Was it successful for the sport? Is MotoGP as a business and a sport the most successful it has ever been because the easy option was taken or would it be better if Dorna fostered the popularity and success of 5 or 10 riders?

Mental Anarchist said:

I understand that. I have made my disgust well and truly apparent regarding 4 rounds in Spain and we don't need to do the same thing in the US. Looking down the track Dorna signs contracts for many years with circuits (as they should) so locking in 3 US GP's, 4 Spanish GP's, 2 Italian GP's takes up half the calendar. It doesn't leave many spots for new tracks so where is the incentive for countries who have potential to homologate a circuit to do so if they know that there are no spots left on the calendar? Should a country like Australia loose their GP so that a new country could come on board? Or should they have an absolute max of 2 GP's in any given country? I vote yes on max of 2 or at least a max of 2 with long term contracts.



It also worries me that Spain, Italy and the US all have economies on the brink of a second recession at least and complete collapse at worst. I see this as a significant risk to the short to medium term prospects for MotoGP. Another risk that they could do with out.

Click to expand...

It is indeed a worry to saturate a trade area with too many events, but the US is large enough, and our federal arrangement is still functional enough, such that certain states can remain economically strong in the event of a double dip recession, Texas in particular.



The US is also one of the 4 powerhouse nations who have a plethora of international motorcycle rider championships (Australia, Britain, and Italy are the others) so it is in Dorna's best interest to maintain US enthusiasm for motorcycle racing. Furthemore, within the United States, Texas and California are powerhouses for developing riders, but who could possibly leave out the Northeast by canceling the Indianapolis round which is the closest FIM homologated track?



Imo, there are many factors at play. Unlike the blatant favoritism for a slumping home market, Dorna's three GPs in the United States are hardly worrisome considering they are the only GPs in all of the Americas, and each event is more than 1,000 miles from another US event. Indy to Monterey is roughly the same distance as Sydney to Perth, and the Indy and Laguna rounds satisfy completely different demographics.



Australia should not lose it's GP, nor do I think it is in danger of happening. If cancellations are necessary to start new rounds, I suspect Dorna will start in Iberia. If Australia loses its round it will happen b/c Oz only has one FIM-legal circuit (AFAIK) which means Dorna has no negotiating leverage.

mylexicon said:

It is indeed a worry to saturate a trade area with too many events, but the US is large enough, and our federal arrangement is still functional enough, such that certain states can remain economically strong in the event of a double dip recession, Texas in particular.



The US is also one of the 4 powerhouse nations who have a plethora of international motorcycle rider championships (Australia, Britain, and Italy are the others) so it is in Dorna's best interest to maintain US enthusiasm for motorcycle racing. Furthemore, within the United States, Texas and California are powerhouses for developing riders, but who could possibly leave out the Northeast by canceling the Indianapolis round which is the closest FIM homologated track?



Imo, there are many factors at play. Unlike the blatant favoritism for a slumping home market, Dorna's three GPs in the United States are hardly worrisome considering they are the only GPs in all of the Americas, and each event is more than 1,000 miles from another US event. Indy to Monterey is roughly the same distance as Sydney to Perth, and the Indy and Laguna rounds satisfy completely different demographics.



Australia should not lose it's GP, nor do I think it is in danger of happening. If cancellations are necessary to start new rounds, I suspect Dorna will start in Iberia. If Australia loses its round it will happen b/c Oz only has one FIM-legal circuit (AFAIK) which means Dorna has no negotiating leverage.

Click to expand...

You make many excellent points and it is difficult to argue against them so I won't especially as I know that you understand my opinion on the euro centric nature of MotoGP.

Mental Anarchist said:

It is easy for Dorna to take the easy road and just go where their is a track and someone willing to pay the fee. But is the easy way going to be successful for the sport. A comparison: for the last decade it was easy to throw all the MotoGP eggs in the Rossi basket. What was the result? Was it successful for the sport? Is MotoGP as a business and a sport the most successful it has ever been because the easy option was taken or would it be better if Dorna fostered the popularity and success of 5 or 10 riders?

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree and this was largely my point; I am hardly a supporter of dorna's policies with motogp over the last decade, and as I have said frequently this is what happens when you sell a sport to accountants and merchant bankers, not that the msma are guiltless for the current state of gp either. For the good of the sport I wholly agree that spreading to new countries etc is a good idea; unfortunately dorna seems to be mainly interested in places willing to pay large sanctioning fees for their own short term financial gain.



If we are going to have "sustainable" motogp, races not totally dependent on government subsidies and springing to some extent from a local bike racing culture are probably not a bad idea though.

mylexicon said:

Australia should not lose it's GP, nor do I think it is in danger of happening. If cancellations are necessary to start new rounds, I suspect Dorna will start in Iberia. If Australia loses its round it will happen b/c Oz only has one FIM-legal circuit (AFAIK) which means Dorna has no negotiating leverage.

Click to expand...

Eastern creek in sydney was previously a venue and presumably could fairly easily be made so again, but is a boring track for bike racing. I don't think a bidding war between rival state governments as occurred in the past is very likely in the near future though, with the value of bernie's show now being widely questioned by politicians in melbourne despite its popularity with the F1 paddock.

michaelm said:

Eastern creek in sydney was previously a venue and presumably could fairly easily be made so again, but is a boring track for bike racing. I don't think a bidding war between rival state goverments as occurred in the past is very likely in the near future though, with the value of bernie's show now being widely questioned by politicians in melbourne despite its popularity with the F1 paddock.

Click to expand...

I wish Texas politicians were more skeptical of the value of Bernie's show. I do not doubt that F1 in Austin, TX will be beneficial to the state but the dirty little secret that no one mentions is that the "extra" tax revenue generated by the event will be comprised mainly of sales taxes shifted from other localities. In other words, people from Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio will travel to Austin for the event, their tax revenues will be counted as extra revenue, but in fact, the revenues have merely been shifted from one locality to another within the state. Other "extra" revenues will come in the form of higher local taxes which hardly count as sustainable policy. The actual economic impact of extra vacationers, retirees who bring federal pension money, and direct investment from outside Texas will never be able to be accurately measured. The dearth of reliable information about the actual economic impact has given rise to the nonsensical economic data which has been posted by my (presumably) fellow Texan who started the thread.



In summary, I agree with what you have said--selling the sport to private equity firms is a precarious business model that endangers the sport. The only excuse Dorna can make is that MotoGP was destabilized by the European courts who forced CVC to sell when the sport was stable and lucratively profitable. The MSMA make few complaints against Dorna for the way they schedule events, but it seems like the current calendar would not really satisfy their commercial ambitions in emerging markets.

Honestly guys who cares where the gp's are? As long as they are adding a track to the schedule and not replacing great tracks with .... tracks. More racing is better! Spain has four rounds and the sell all of them out. So if taking three of them away for the sake of not having more racing in one country is stupid. Why are there more rounds in europe? Because there are more fans in europe. So if austin can do it, then awesome. If two more tracks in spain can too, cool.

mylexicon said:

In summary, I agree with what you have said--selling the sport to private equity firms is a precarious business model that endangers the sport. The only excuse Dorna can make is that MotoGP was destabilized by the European courts who forced CVC to sell when the sport was stable and lucratively profitable.

Click to expand...

I again absolutely agree that many nonsensical things are done in the name of "competition", oddly often by politicians (or laws made by them interpreted by courts) who otherwise espouse left wing positions/socialism in general; perhaps it is true they just don't like people making money and can't leave well enough alone even when nobody is obviously being exploited as was presumably the case before the forced sell-off of gp racing.



I don't think the greed of people like bernie who was originally a car racing guy rather than a bloated plutocrat can be underestimated either though.

So other than us agreeing on the nonsensical nature of Dorna. I am curious to know how things went with the council yesterday....

Mental Anarchist said:

I can't support a 3rd race in a single country on the MotoGP calendar. Drop one of the other US GP's and I would gladly support it. We don't need just new circuits we need new circuits in new countries. Sorry to the Americans but this is the way I feel.

Click to expand...

Well you may get what you want Indy may lose it's contract due to current safety concerns. It's a shame such a historical and great track may lose a great series but, whether or not it gets nixed from the upcoming seasons I still hope to see this new circuit pick up a contract and possibly extend the season for another race.

My link

AaronG87 said:

So other than us agreeing on the nonsensical nature of Dorna. I am curious to know how things went with the council yesterday....

Click to expand...

Everything is probably going to move forward unimpeded. Republican majority in all branches of Texas government who are hellbent (not hyperbole) on making Texas the US's biggest and most powerful economy. By using a blend of low-tax, free-market principles and technocratic, pro-business government oversight (stable legislation not too much corporate welfare), Texas legislators hope to pressure all American states to adopt economic reform in order to compete with Texas.



F1 is one of the crucial pieces of Texas' 21st century push to rebuild the United States with interstate commercial competition. This grand plan is not limited entirely to Texas either, Republican governors throughout the South, particularly Haley in South Carolina and Jindahl in Louisiana, could be considered Rick Perry proteges. I'm worried their noble ambition has blinded them to commercial sensibilities which actually moves them farther from their objective of sustainable US business and backdoor economic reform. At least, I'm worried about it in Texas. If sustainable economics is the goal, what society pays full retail to one of the world's most crooked plutocrats?



I've mentioned the politics of the F1 race so you can appreciate the magnitude of the game that is taking place. This is a game of socio-economic chess, and F1 has been deemed a valuable piece by the Texas legislature. Many pawns will be sacrificed to keep it safe, and its forward progress will not be impeded.