Results 31 to 40 of 46
-
8th July 2010, 18:51 #31
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Posts
- 5,522
- Like
- 0
- Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I agree that racing is expensive and if you can't afford it get out.
but
Can the IRL stand a total rebuild if the sponsor situation doesn't improve significantly?
-
8th July 2010, 19:13 #32
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,845
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior
Hint: do you think that the budget they allot to the sponsorship is more or less than 3% of their profits?The overall technical objective in racing is the achievement of a vehicle configuration, acceptable within the practical interpretation of the rules, which can traverse a given course in a minimum time. -Milliken
-
8th July 2010, 19:30 #33Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
The TV package doesn't work. OK, why doesn't it work and what are they going to do about it? Seriously. Why are the ratings, mainly for Indy, down so much year-to-year? That's not a question for you or me, Mark. We can speculate, but we don't REALLY know. That's a question that any meaningful sponsor is going to ask when approached, and I'm not sure that anyone within the IRL or its teams has a believable answer to it.
I'm not doom & gloom. I just watch the races when it's convenient. And after that, on the track or off, what happens happens. I don't have a dog in the fight. But like with any business that has fundamental issues, the economy isn't going to "fix" the IRL's problems, because the state of the economy isn't the root cause of the IRL's problems, IMO."Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
-
8th July 2010, 20:37 #34Originally Posted by chuck34
A 3% increase or decrease in MARGINAL tax rates would not affect profits by 3%. But I do understand your point just the same. A "meaningful" increase or decrease in net profits is likely going to affect decisions made on costs. True. And as has been said, sponsorships are costs/expenses related to advertising and marketing. We can look at Dupont. When sales fell dramatically, they had to sharply decrease their marketing costs last fiscal year, to the point that Jeff Gordon even offered to take a salary cut. A lot of other companies did the same. So yes, they were looking at costs. But they were also looking at the returns on whatever dollars they were still spending. For probably a quarter of what they spent in NASCAR, they could have easily had a fully funded IRL team (or maybe two) instead. Why didn't they, or any of the other major NASCAR sponsors make that move?
Would a 3% +/- adjustment in the marginal tax rate affect SOME racing sponsorships? Maybe... possibly in some marginal cases. I doubt that it would mean anything off the margin, but I don't know that for a fact. What I do know is that if one series typically and consistently offers a higher ROI than another series, no matter what the marginal tax rates are, that series will have fewer issues finding sponsorships. The demographics for the sponsor that Kev and DeLana got WOULD have been ideal for open wheel... years ago. Now, who knows what the demographics for open wheel even look like? I have no idea. About all that's being discussed is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. So answer me this, did IRL sponsorships suddenly go through the roof when those cuts were enacted and have they remained at some high level, or has sponsorship basically followed the same downtrending line as the ratings and viewership??? I think the correlation (and also the causation) relates more to that than the marginal tax rates.
Also, I think back to when McLaren-Mercedes got tagged with that $100 million fine a couple of years back. On a board where I used to post, some fans speculated that McLaren and/or Mercedes would/should come to Champ Car. For $100 million, they could have bought CCWS a few times over, right? They meant well. But as fans often do, they were thinking with their hearts and not their heads. McLaren-Mercedes had no more intention of coming to CCWS than Dupont does of coming to the IRL... or than I do of scampering off to Arizona to look at a bunch of foreclosed houses that are probably still selling for more than they'll be worth in 6 months. The government can cut my tax rate in half, but a bad investment is still a bad investment, and I'm not going to do it. And neither is any CEO who enjoys being employed."Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
-
8th July 2010, 21:25 #35
- Join Date
- Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,845
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I get your point about ROI. And yes the ROI on the IRL isn't as good as it should be right now. We all see that. But the ROI isn't going to increase by much in the next few years, no matter what anyone does. A new TV deal won't help that (besides the TV deal itself is a factor of the ROI), TG being run off didn't help that, unification didn't help that, and cost cutting hasn't helped that. So we are where we are. Therefore a 3% increase in taxes (yes I know what marginal tax rates mean, I worded that badly last time although the point is still valid) will only HURT sponsorship on IRL cars.
So the question really is how do we increase the ROI of the series? I would suggest, looking at the evidence, that we should stop with all the "cost cutting" measures, allow anyone who wants to make a chassis, engine, or any other widget to make them. Sure it will hurt in the short term by driving up costs a bit (maybe), but it's the long-term health of the series that we need to look at. Facts are facts, fans are more and more turning off "spec" series. Look no further than NASCAR's decline in TV and attendance. F1 is very popular worldwide, and the ALMS seems to still have a pretty good following despite amazingly low car counts.The overall technical objective in racing is the achievement of a vehicle configuration, acceptable within the practical interpretation of the rules, which can traverse a given course in a minimum time. -Milliken
-
8th July 2010, 23:31 #36
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
- Posts
- 661
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I'd love to say that to Vasser. Its 100% the truth.
All Vasser has done in 2010, is take a lot of very good cars with very good equipment and tear it all to hell because he took 3 driver's BIG checks (all over 5 million dollars) instead of doing what professional race owners are SUPPOSED to be able to do...find the money for YOUR team and hire the drivers (instead of the other way around).
Vasser has a horse-**** team now and he and Kalkhoven are the ones that have to take the blame for it.
-
8th July 2010, 23:57 #37
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Posts
- 5,522
- Like
- 0
- Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Scotty G.
Just like all the NASCAR teams...........Oh.......Sorry.
-
9th July 2010, 01:48 #38Originally Posted by chuck34
I don't know why NASCAR's numbers are down. The COT is quite ugly, IMO. But at the same time, one driver and team has been completely dominating the series. F1's TV numbers fell off the longer Schumacher dominated that series. So while there may be a correlation to spec racing and falling popularity, I don't know that there is causation.
As for what the IRL can do to increase ROI, since I have no idea at this point, I'll just agree with whatever ideas you may have. My idea of enlisting some Zetas to kidnap high profile NASCAR drivers' family members, forcing them to race part time in the IRL and at the Indy 500 might be considered a bit radical. Short of that, I am a believer in the power of prayer. So I'll suggest that too."Every generation's memory is exactly as long as its own experience." --John Kenneth Galbraith
-
9th July 2010, 08:06 #39
- Join Date
- Apr 2003
- Posts
- 14,547
- Like
- 0
- Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Scotty G.
I aint saying you are wrong in ride buyers being a problem, but it isn't a problem if you pick the ones with talent as opposed to just money. on THAT, Vasser and KK are idiots because I could have told them both Sato was out to lunch and Viso was a loser.
The sad part is though Scott, and here is where you theory falls apart, is a guy like RHR isn't getting the support from Corporate America outside of IZOD and THAT wasn't supposed to be what it is turning into. PT, the most marketable name from CART's era and the CCWS cannot get funding from anyone in America for a full time ride, yet gives some of the best press interviews and is likely the best guy to have creating press for the circuit. Corporate America, which gives millions to idiot basketball players who barely can speak the language wont give it up for a Canadian who is as brash and entertaining as any American. What is more, they wont give it up for a talented young guy like Reay or Rahal. Don't tell me they haven't tried looking either.....If the companies wont back the drivers, and they wont back the teams...it leads us back to they wont back the series."Water for my horses, beer for my men and mud for my turtle".
-
9th July 2010, 11:47 #40
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Posts
- 295
- Like
- 0
- Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scotty G.
I hate to say, but I agree.
2024 - Race 6 Miami