Printable View
Also F1 need a tar loop to have a race, great circuits can be built anywhere, rallying needs variety, it also needs its big events like Finland and Sweden, and as the Monte showed the great events can do just fine without the WRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
There are more differences with F1. First of all, WRC needs variety and character in order to maintain its image. It is not just a bunch of circuits and certainly not a bunch of "I paid more" events. WRC without Sweden is a crippled WRC. Can any rally fan imagine a WRC without the mud of Wales, the snow and ice of the mountains of Monte, the fast jumps of Finland, the rough mountain roads of Acropolis, the amazing roads of New Zealand? Personally, I would not even bother to watch it on Youtube.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
The question is: what do the promoter and FIA give to the organizers for such a fee? What is their contribution on the events? Personally, I cannot see how they deserve all that money.
It's easy to criticise the costs, but that money obviously goes somewhere. It's not like the series has dozens of replacement events lined up - and nor are the costs escalating exponentially. So if anything has changed, it's on the organisers' side if things.
I can't stand thus attitude if "it's all the FIA's fault", considering that we don't know what the costs ate, we don't know how the costs have changed, and we don't know where exactly the money goes. But people still see fit to condemnthe FIA for it, because the iorganisers if an event can't do anythingwrong n- even when they run the rally over an event dominated by horrible, fiddly little stages.
Prisoner Monkey, so its the organizers fault that the promoter have doubled the fee and then doubled it again?
For your information Rally Sweden have slimmed it's organization as much as possible.
Since you seem to have access to "The truth", can you tell us where the raised fees are going?