PDA

View Full Version : Formular 1 coming to Moscow



Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 10:01
Bernie Ecclestone is meeting today to sign a deal to bring formula one to Moscow.
Anybody know where the circuit will be? I heard there was going to be one built just outside the city near the river then i heard the garden ring will be used.
Certainly good news for Moscow, in my opinion.

Gypsy
14-10-2010, 10:46
To be economically viable I would think a circuit is best.

From a racing point of view a city circuit with the cars coming up from Bolotnaya and over the Kremlin Bridge then sharp right towards Lubyanka would be amazing - that bit over the bridge and the right is just like Eau Rouge.

Rhubard Geoff
14-10-2010, 10:59
I guess one of the major obstacles to this happening earlier has now been removed thus reducing the entry cost for F1

18947

BoZz
14-10-2010, 11:03
I will not be surprised if Putin soon goes for a photo opp in a F1 car :)

Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 11:27
...........i forgot to mention in my original post that the deal is for 2014 season so still plenty of time yet.
It would surely be sheduled for sometime in the summer. Moscow needs a big sporting attraction.

Rhubard Geoff
14-10-2010, 11:35
But I hear now that it's Sochi, not Moscow.

Someone has to help fill up all those new hotels?

Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 12:05
But I hear now that it's Sochi, not Moscow.

Someone has to help fill up all those new hotels?

Where did you hear that?
Sochi makes sense as well, although it's going to take some persuation to make the crowds come.

IGIT
14-10-2010, 12:20
Lets see how things roll out...

Rhubard Geoff
14-10-2010, 12:22
Where did you hear that?
Sochi makes sense as well, although it's going to take some persuation to make the crowds come.

Bloomberg

Putin Wins Grand Prix for Sochi as Ecclestone Agrees to Formula One Accord
By Ilya Arkhipov - Oct 14, 2010 12:00 AM GMT+0400 Tweet (16)LinkedIn Share
Business Exchange Buzz up! Digg Print Email Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone plans to sign an agreement today for Russia to host a Grand Prix from 2014 to 2020, in a ceremony that may be attended by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The talks on the proposed contract were held at the Black Sea resort of Sochi yesterday, the government’s press service said. Russia plans to build a racetrack in Sochi, host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics, according to the proposed contract, which allows the arrangement to be extended for five years.

Ecclestone said in April that he aimed to bring the motor- racing series to Russia by 2012. Formula One currently has 19 races, with more countries vying for a spot on the series. Staging a Grand Prix puts race hosts “on the map,” Ecclestone said in a Bloomberg TV interview in March.

Putin is trying to polish Russia’s image and boost its prestige abroad by attracting major sporting events such as the Olympics and Formula One. He has also spearheaded a bid to host the 2018 soccer World Cup.

Putin agreed to sponsor Formula One’s first Russian driver, Vitaly Petrov, who drives for the Renault SA team. In a March 1 meeting with Renault Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn, Putin said the French carmaker’s “symbolic step” in hiring a Russian driver would stimulate its cooperation with Russian companies.

Renault owns a 25 percent stake in OAO AvtoVAZ, Russia’s largest carmaker. Christian Esteve, head of Renault’s Avtoframos factory in Moscow, said on Aug. 25 that Russia is a priority market for the carmaker. Renault, Nissan and AvtoVAZ plan to control 40 percent of the Russian market by 2015, he said.

Yearly Fee

Ecclestone told Kommersant last week that Russia will pay a yearly fee of about $40 million for the right to hold a Grand Prix race. Building a racetrack may cost Russia as much as $200 million, the Moscow-based newspaper said.

Construction of facilities for the 2014 Olympics should cost 185 billion rubles ($6.1 billion), according to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak’s office. Forty percent of construction for the games will be completed on schedule this year, RIA Novosti reported yesterday, citing Taimuraz Bolloyev, head of Olimpstroi, the state corporation in charge of preparations.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ilya Arkhipov in Sochi at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Willy Morris at wmorris@bloomberg.net

Ulyana.de.fine
14-10-2010, 12:28
Yip, they are going to build it in Olympic park (Imeretenskaya valley) in Sochi.
:zoom:

Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 12:54
Bloomberg

Putin Wins Grand Prix for Sochi as Ecclestone Agrees to Formula One Accord
By Ilya Arkhipov - Oct 14, 2010 12:00 AM GMT+0400 Tweet (16)LinkedIn Share
Business Exchange Buzz up! Digg Print Email Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone plans to sign an agreement today for Russia to host a Grand Prix from 2014 to 2020, in a ceremony that may be attended by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

The talks on the proposed contract were held at the Black Sea resort of Sochi yesterday, the government’s press service said. Russia plans to build a racetrack in Sochi, host city of the 2014 Winter Olympics, according to the proposed contract, which allows the arrangement to be extended for five years.

Ecclestone said in April that he aimed to bring the motor- racing series to Russia by 2012. Formula One currently has 19 races, with more countries vying for a spot on the series. Staging a Grand Prix puts race hosts “on the map,” Ecclestone said in a Bloomberg TV interview in March.

Putin is trying to polish Russia’s image and boost its prestige abroad by attracting major sporting events such as the Olympics and Formula One. He has also spearheaded a bid to host the 2018 soccer World Cup.

Putin agreed to sponsor Formula One’s first Russian driver, Vitaly Petrov, who drives for the Renault SA team. In a March 1 meeting with Renault Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn, Putin said the French carmaker’s “symbolic step” in hiring a Russian driver would stimulate its cooperation with Russian companies.

Renault owns a 25 percent stake in OAO AvtoVAZ, Russia’s largest carmaker. Christian Esteve, head of Renault’s Avtoframos factory in Moscow, said on Aug. 25 that Russia is a priority market for the carmaker. Renault, Nissan and AvtoVAZ plan to control 40 percent of the Russian market by 2015, he said.

Yearly Fee

Ecclestone told Kommersant last week that Russia will pay a yearly fee of about $40 million for the right to hold a Grand Prix race. Building a racetrack may cost Russia as much as $200 million, the Moscow-based newspaper said.

Construction of facilities for the 2014 Olympics should cost 185 billion rubles ($6.1 billion), according to Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak’s office. Forty percent of construction for the games will be completed on schedule this year, RIA Novosti reported yesterday, citing Taimuraz Bolloyev, head of Olimpstroi, the state corporation in charge of preparations.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ilya Arkhipov in Sochi at iarkhipov@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Willy Morris at wmorris@bloomberg.net


Cheers. I've been watching Bloomberg but must have missed that.

After the winter olympics the infrastructure should be in place. I can see Sochi begining to take off as an international tourist destination if it all happens.
They still need to streamline the visa process but definately good news for the region.

Gypsy
14-10-2010, 13:51
It is on the Russian news at lunchtime - Sochi.

What a terrible waste of money.

Pay $500m to build the track then pay Bernie $40m a year for the rights to stage the race.

And all to fill up the hotels that will be empty after the equally ludicrous Winter Olympics.

Why not just pay the hotel owners the $40m and save all the other money?

Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 14:35
It is on the Russian news at lunchtime - Sochi.

What a terrible waste of money.

Pay $500m to build the track then pay Bernie $40m a year for the rights to stage the race.

And all to fill up the hotels that will be empty after the equally ludicrous Winter Olympics.

Why not just pay the hotel owners the $40m and save all the other money?

C'mon, that's pretty shortsighted. Something like F1 will generate an enormous amount of interest. It might take a little time but it could eventually draw a lot of people and publicity for Sochi and help propel the area into an international tourist destination.
If that happens it would be money well spent.

Gypsy
14-10-2010, 15:34
Not at all. Having a GP circuit is irrelevant. The place will still be Sochi afterwards.

What is ludicrous is wasting billions on the Olympics and then throwing good money after bad with this scheme. Investment - if you can grace the funding of huge boondoggles with that term - in sporting events and facilities on this sort of scale is economically destructive and self=defeating.

The money would be much better spent on hospitals, schools and roads in the area and a serious attempt made to create decent beaches there.

TolkoRaz
14-10-2010, 15:38
I hope they hold it towards the end of the F1 Season; I would love to see them on snow & ice! :D

Nobbynumbnuts
14-10-2010, 15:56
Not at all. Having a GP circuit is irrelevant. The place will still be Sochi afterwards.

What is ludicrous is wasting billions on the Olympics and then throwing good money after bad with this scheme. Investment - if you can grace the funding of huge boondoggles with that term - in sporting events and facilities on this sort of scale is economically destructive and self=defeating.

The money would be much better spent on hospitals, schools and roads in the area and a serious attempt made to create decent beaches there.

Large sporting events like the Formula 1 attract inward investment, which in turn creates jobs. Government receipts from a growing economy pays for hospitals, roads and schools. This expenditure stream is then self supporting.
In your model the government is continually financing front line services without generating any revenue to pay for it. Do people really want a hand out or a hand up?
It's basically what brought the Soviet Union down in the first place. ;)

And why would anyone go down that path? A region like Sochi has so much to offer, year round. Winter sports and summer vacation destination. It's also on the doorstep of Europe one of the wealthiest areas in the world. The region just needs a jump start.

As for the beaches, Both Brighton and Nice have stony beaches as well. Doesn't seem to hold them back much.

Sure it's a lot of investment but it's one off and something the country needs to do to promote growth. One of the difficulties facing Russia is spreading the opportunities round the country. Moscow region enjoys high growth but how does the government bring the same type of growth to other areas, like Sochi? Your solution doesn't answer that fundamental problem.

sashadidi
14-10-2010, 21:50
Large sporting events like the Formula 1 attract inward investment, which in turn creates jobs. Government receipts from a growing economy pays for hospitals, roads and schools. This expenditure stream is then self supporting.
In your model the government is continually financing front line services without generating any revenue to pay for it. Do people really want a hand out or a hand up?
It's basically what brought the Soviet Union down in the first place. ;)

And why would anyone go down that path? A region like Sochi has so much to offer, year round. Winter sports and summer vacation destination. It's also on the doorstep of Europe one of the wealthiest areas in the world. The region just needs a jump start.

As for the beaches, Both Brighton and Nice have stony beaches as well. Doesn't seem to hold them back much.

Sure it's a lot of investment but it's one off and something the country needs to do to promote growth. One of the difficulties facing Russia is spreading the opportunities round the country. Moscow region enjoys high growth but how does the government bring the same type of growth to other areas, like Sochi? Your solution doesn't answer that fundamental problem.

Its not really proven to be a overall winner at all in Australia for example

Melbourne is losing up to 30 or 40 million each year for the Grand Prix from memory
this year was a record loss
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/melbournes-f1-grand-prix-posts-a-loss-of-almost-50m-with-taxpayers-picking-up-the-bill/story-e6frg6nf-1225924833769


Certain people make money once a year but usually ratepayers/tax payers bear some of the cost and the shopkeepers make some money for the short duration of the event and some property guys/wheeler dealers etc etc. Sydney Olympic Stadium is a dead duck and they will paying for many years to come for the right to have staged the event

Gypsy
14-10-2010, 21:58
Large sporting events like the Formula 1 attract inward investment, which in turn creates jobs. Government receipts from a growing economy pays for hospitals, roads and schools. This expenditure stream is then self supporting.
In your model the government is continually financing front line services without generating any revenue to pay for it. Do people really want a hand out or a hand up?
It's basically what brought the Soviet Union down in the first place. ;)

And why would anyone go down that path? A region like Sochi has so much to offer, year round. Winter sports and summer vacation destination. It's also on the doorstep of Europe one of the wealthiest areas in the world. The region just needs a jump start.

As for the beaches, Both Brighton and Nice have stony beaches as well. Doesn't seem to hold them back much.

Sure it's a lot of investment but it's one off and something the country needs to do to promote growth. One of the difficulties facing Russia is spreading the opportunities round the country. Moscow region enjoys high growth but how does the government bring the same type of growth to other areas, like Sochi? Your solution doesn't answer that fundamental problem.

Actually there is no evidence at all that large sporting events provide any economic benefit at all and the only study done shows exactly the opposite - that large investment in sporting facilities, stadiums etc in fact cost jobs and drain local economies.

"Economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys produced some chasteningly tangible work on the subject. A few years ago, these US academics undertook a major study into whether sports-led urban redevelopment spurred local economies – and their overwhelming conclusion was that it doesn't. Analysing data from 37 major US cities, they found that "the net economic impact of professional sports in [the 37 cities] that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area." In a report which could have been subheaded Everything You Thought You Knew Was Wrong, the pair found that pro-sports facilities had a negative impact on the retail sector of a local economy, caused an average net loss of jobs."

Further a Freedom of Information request in London revealed that the Olympic park had created 115 jobs, but had forced the closure or relocation of businesses employing 1,245 staff.

People spout this stuff about it creating jobs without ever showing a single stat to prove it. All the stats prove that it does the opposite.

Nobbynumbnuts
15-10-2010, 05:58
Actually there is no evidence at all that large sporting events provide any economic benefit at all and the only study done shows exactly the opposite - that large investment in sporting facilities, stadiums etc in fact cost jobs and drain local economies.

"Economists Dennis Coates and Brad Humphreys produced some chasteningly tangible work on the subject. A few years ago, these US academics undertook a major study into whether sports-led urban redevelopment spurred local economies – and their overwhelming conclusion was that it doesn't. Analysing data from 37 major US cities, they found that "the net economic impact of professional sports in [the 37 cities] that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area." In a report which could have been subheaded Everything You Thought You Knew Was Wrong, the pair found that pro-sports facilities had a negative impact on the retail sector of a local economy, caused an average net loss of jobs."

Further a Freedom of Information request in London revealed that the Olympic park had created 115 jobs, but had forced the closure or relocation of businesses employing 1,245 staff.

People spout this stuff about it creating jobs without ever showing a single stat to prove it. All the stats prove that it does the opposite.

People who wish to be negative can always find someone to agree with their point of view. Someone, somewhere has done a 'survey' to prove their point.

Sochi has a lot going for it, i've been there, but it suffers internationally from negative publicity regarding Russia. The best way to change that is to attract visitors to see for themselves.
I'm not sure how much 'bang for the buck' there is in staging the winter Olympics that's why i didn't mention it but i certainly don't agree that's it harmful.
I noticed all the news media i looked at yesterday were reporting Formula 1 is now headed for Sochi, Russia. I can imagine millions of people world wide Googling Sochi to find out where the hell Sochi is. That's a good start.

These surveys could very well be missing the point of longer term job creation. As i said, once Sochi has gained recognition through hosting a sporting event such as Formula 1 and crowds start arriving in serious numbers, can anyone doubt the jobs created in the leisure sector and all the support industries?
Please explain how building a race track as part of the already constructed winter olympic site will destroy jobs in a place like Sochi where work is already hard to find.
A survey in the states regarding the impact of creating a large sporting event in an already wealthy urban area is pretty irrelevant to Sochi.

You have said that spending money to improve the beaches would be a better way of utilizing money. In Sochi center they have already improved the waterfront with an entertainment area and promenade. All along the coast for several kilometers as you leave the city it was looking pretty good from what i could see. A lot of those improvements have resulted in recent private investment like the Radisson development.
As for the beach it's self i can only imagine the howls of laughter that would greet any announcement made that the local authorities were to import sand from the middle east as other countries have done.
People would be digging up surveys to prove how it's a total waste of money as the sand gets washed away over time.
One survey i would probably agree with. ;)

Gypsy
15-10-2010, 11:00
People who wish to be negative can always find someone to agree with their point of view. Someone, somewhere has done a 'survey' to prove their point. If you believe that, then you should provide the equivalent report showing the benefits. Not a forecast, but historical data. And what evidence have you that the two American academics wanted this result? How do you know that they didn't go into it expecting to evaluate the benefits and were surprised by the results?


Sochi has a lot going for it, i've been there, So have I - a few times. It is dire.

but it suffers internationally from negative publicity regarding Russia. The best way to change that is to attract visitors to see for themselves. No, it suffers from negative publicity because the beaches are dreadful - that is nothing to do with lack of sand, simply the massive concrete and rusting steel monstrosities in every bay. Shockingly bad.


I'm not sure how much 'bang for the buck' there is in staging the winter Olympics None.


that's why i didn't mention it but i certainly don't agree that's it harmful. Then you should do a little research. I would be amazed if you found any positive effect. IN the city I live in I am still paying a tax supplement 42 years later for our winter olympics.



These surveys could very well be missing the point of longer term job creation. Wrong - exactly the opposite.


As i said, once Sochi has gained recognition through hosting a sporting event such as Formula 1 and crowds start arriving in serious numbers, can anyone doubt the jobs created in the leisure sector and all the support industries? For a few days before the race. Wow.


Please explain how building a race track as part of the already constructed winter olympic site will destroy jobs in a place like Sochi where work is already hard to find. Why should I?


A survey in the states regarding the impact of creating a large sporting event in an already wealthy urban area is pretty irrelevant to Sochi. Did the report I mentioned only deal with wealthy areas?


You have said that spending money to improve the beaches would be a better way of utilizing money. In Sochi center they have already improved the waterfront with an entertainment area and promenade. I have spent considerable time in it and for what it is it is OK - but it is very expensive, a family could not afford to go there every day. And what remains are terrible beaches.


All along the coast for several kilometers as you leave the city it was looking pretty good from what i could see. A lot of those improvements have resulted in recent private investment like the Radisson development.
As for the beach it's self i can only imagine the howls of laughter that would greet any announcement made that the local authorities were to import sand from the middle east as other countries have done. Why do you keep going on about sand? I haven't mentioned it at all. If you had spent any time on these beaches - and I have - you would know what you are talking about.

People would be digging up surveys to prove how it's a total waste of money as the sand gets washed away over time.
One survey i would probably agree with. ;) Ridiculous.

Nobbynumbnuts
15-10-2010, 12:32
If you believe that, then you should provide the equivalent report showing the benefits. Not a forecast, but historical data. And what evidence have you that the two American academics wanted this result? How do you know that they didn't go into it expecting to evaluate the benefits and were surprised by the results?
So have I - a few times. It is dire.
No, it suffers from negative publicity because the beaches are dreadful - that is nothing to do with lack of sand, simply the massive concrete and rusting steel monstrosities in every bay. Shockingly bad.
None.

Then you should do a little research. I would be amazed if you found any positive effect. IN the city I live in I am still paying a tax supplement 42 years later for our winter olympics.

Wrong - exactly the opposite.

For a few days before the race. Wow.
Why should I?
Did the report I mentioned only deal with wealthy areas?
I have spent considerable time in it and for what it is it is OK - but it is very expensive, a family could not afford to go there every day. And what remains are terrible beaches.

Why do you keep going on about sand? I haven't mentioned it at all. If you had spent any time on these beaches - and I have - you would know what you are talking about.
Ridiculous.

Oh dear, someone got out of bed the wrong side this morning! :D

Nobbynumbnuts
15-10-2010, 21:31
If you believe that, then you should provide the equivalent report showing the benefits. Not a forecast, but historical data. And what evidence have you that the two American academics wanted this result? How do you know that they didn't go into it expecting to evaluate the benefits and were surprised by the results?
So have I - a few times. It is dire.
No, it suffers from negative publicity because the beaches are dreadful - that is nothing to do with lack of sand, simply the massive concrete and rusting steel monstrosities in every bay. Shockingly bad.
None.

Then you should do a little research. I would be amazed if you found any positive effect. IN the city I live in I am still paying a tax supplement 42 years later for our winter olympics.

Wrong - exactly the opposite.

For a few days before the race. Wow.
Why should I?
Did the report I mentioned only deal with wealthy areas?
I have spent considerable time in it and for what it is it is OK - but it is very expensive, a family could not afford to go there every day. And what remains are terrible beaches.

Why do you keep going on about sand? I haven't mentioned it at all. If you had spent any time on these beaches - and I have - you would know what you are talking about.
Ridiculous.

I've just knocked off work and had time time to look at a survey by the 'experts' you quoted. Now unless there's another one i've missed this survey is about large sporting franchises and subsidies in the states.
Their effects on rich urban areas, just like i said. ;)
Nothing about the effects of large sporting events on developing economies like Sochi.

Now, unless you can come up with another survey, you're talking sh*te. ;)

http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v5y2008i3p294-315.html

Gypsy
16-10-2010, 15:27
The summary of the report is: - "The evidence reveals a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates."

How this is irrelevant escapes me. Public money being spent on sporting facilities for professional support does NOT create jobs, the report is very clear on that.

Nobbynumbnuts
16-10-2010, 19:09
The summary of the report is: - "The evidence reveals a great deal of consistency among economists doing research in this area. That evidence is that sports subsidies cannot be justified on the grounds of local economic development, income growth or job creation, those arguments most frequently used by subsidy advocates."

How this is irrelevant escapes me. Public money being spent on sporting facilities for professional support does NOT create jobs, the report is very clear on that.

Now try and be consistent in your argument.
The basis of that survey is on wealthy cities in the US isn't it?. Just as i predicted it was (and i hadn't even read it! :D) something you strenuously denied. You were wrong about the meaning and content of the very survey you were quoting.

Comparing wealthy cities in the US and undeveloped regions is not rational. You realised that, that's why you tried to claim in was a world-wide survey, it isn't. Unlucky for you i decided to check it! :D
You have to compare like for like............remember? ;)

Gypsy
17-10-2010, 01:26
Now try and be consistent in your argument.
The basis of that survey is on wealthy cities in the US isn't it?. Just as i predicted it was (and i hadn't even read it! :D) something you strenuously denied. You were wrong about the meaning and content of the very survey you were quoting.

Comparing wealthy cities in the US and undeveloped regions is not rational. You realised that, that's why you tried to claim in was a world-wide survey, it isn't. Unlucky for you i decided to check it! :D
That is quite simply a lie. This is what I said the report was " Analysing data from 37 major US cities, they found that "the net economic impact of professional sports in [the 37 cities] that hosted professional sports teams over nearly 30 years, was a reduction in real per capita income over the entire metropolitan area


You have to compare like for like............remember? ;) Fatuous and redundant.

I never said it was a worldwide survey, that is a lie. And show me where it says it is a survey of wealthy cities. Many US stadiums are in the poorer parts of towns. And irrespective of that the rationale for the decision is exactly the same - major investment by the taxpayer in sporting infrastructure is justified by the economic benefits it brings to an area - except that all the evidence shows the opposite.

So we have a report from the US saying that taxpayers should not be paying for major sporting investments, and the evidence from London which is currently showing a net loss of 1130 jobs as a result of the Olympic Park.


Look up the results for Montreal, I bet they say the same, and as I said my home city views the investment as a disaster: we are still paying for it and the accomodation has had to be renovated twice in the intervening period.

One tenth of the proposed spend in Sochi if spent on the beaches would deliver massively more - and the remaining investment would come from private business because the place would be an attractive destination.

These big projects are ego trips for politicians, nothing else.