Well, doom has been delayed at least

[chuck34]

The best that I can give you, Chuck, is that anything which affects the overall economy MAY affect IRL sponsorships. So yeah, a company that now says, "No!" may end up saying "Hell no!" if business conditions get worse.

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.

Or a sponsor that says ok now to a little bit, may end up saying no. Or a primary sponsor now may fall to an associate level. Etc. I don't belive that most companies in the IRL will stay at the same funding levels after a tax increase (contract dependent). And that does of course, also factor in ROI issues as you rightly pointed out.

[Jag_Warrior]

Or a sponsor that says ok now to a little bit, may end up saying no. Or a primary sponsor now may fall to an associate level. Etc. I don't belive that most companies in the IRL will stay at the same funding levels after a tax increase (contract dependent). And that does of course, also factor in ROI issues as you rightly pointed out.

Two things (for our discussion) happened in the early to mid 90's: Clinton raised taxes and NASCAR went up, up & away. CART was also still raking in some really nice deals back then too. If the IRL teams could sell their primary sponsorships for what we spent on major associate sponsorships back then, they could declare themselves successful. A tax cut or a tax increase doesn't do much for the IRL's relative value on a team by team basis. That's really what the IRL is fighting here. Tax rates aside, how do you convince a sponsor that he should spend $5 million in the IRL and get a payback of maybe 1/1, when he can invest $15 million in NASCAR Cup and get a 5/1 payback? Even worse, he can go to Nationwide and probably get 3/1 for about what he'd spend in the IRL. Or... he could spend less and probably get the same payback in the truck series.

I can't move around much right now. So I've been amusing myself over the past few days by looking back through hard drive folders with old CART pictures. It is truly amazing how many of the sponsors that were once in CART (and then the IRL) that are now in NASCAR... or somewhere else. I sure do miss the Tecate Girls. Yeppers, I do. mokin:

This is just flat sad. It's going to take a lot more than a tax cut to fix this.

IZOD Indy Car Series Official Sponsors

Give the Zetas some thought before dismissing them. Gordon, Stewart, Montoya, Johnson... ya want Scott Speed and Allmendinger too? The series needs drivers that people do (or can) care about. On that point, I believe that Scotty G. is absolutely correct.

[Mark in Oshawa]

A tax break for sponsoring sport would be the ideal, but it isn't really something that would politically fly.

The IRL just has to soldier on making its product more viable, better on TV, better show in person and more competitive and interesting to the casual fan. If they can trend the curve upwards, then the advertisers and Fortune 500 people will pay more attention.

[Jag_Warrior]

How many teams can afford to basically toss their cars and parts and other sundry equipment in the garbage and buy all new equipment? Many teams today survive by buying used tubs and parts from other teams.

I think that's the $64,000 question. As CCWS found out, moving to a new chassis formula isn't cheap, and involves a lot more than just buying the chassis. But we'll see. I read somewhere that the IRL might allow the current cars to run with the new cars. But that assumes that Honda would be willing to supply and service two totally different engine specs (one turbo and one N.A.).

But you're correct: the antique/used race car market has kept many of these teams on the grid. So it'll be interesting to see how they deal with having to buy new ones (and parts, tooling, etc.). Maybe the IRL will buy a certain number of chassis and lease them back to the teams?

[Bob Riebe]

A tax break for sponsoring sport would be the ideal, but it isn't really something that would politically fly.

The IRL just has to soldier on making its product more viable, better on TV, better show in person and more competitive and interesting to the casual fan. If they can trend the curve upwards, then the advertisers and Fortune 500 people will pay more attention.

You do remember that when sports car racing owners could no longer write off the racing expenses, that is when sports car racing as a mostly non-paying sport, was replaced by sports car racing mostly FOR MONEY.

I do not think that the government, much less THIS ONE, is going to go back the fifties when owners raced because they could write off their racing expenses.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You do remember that when sports car racing owners could no longer write off the racing expenses, that is when sports car racing as a mostly non-paying sport, was replaced by sports car racing mostly FOR MONEY.

I do not think that the government, much less THIS ONE, is going to go back the fifties when owners raced because they could write off their racing expenses.

Exactly what I was thinking when I said it. Politically it wont fly....