Doe money really influence careers

[racingdick]

I know this is already been partially covered but does money play that important role...

take for example 2 drivers

Luke Hines + Tom Sisley

Both have fathers who are incredibly sucessfull in there jobs.
Martin Hines a world class karter and owner of the zip enterprise.
Bill Sisley the owner of Buckmore Park... nuff said

Money would not really have been an issue for either of them. More so luke, however.

Though through no disrespect Luke has turned to BTCC and Tom is again calpaigning FR

Question to team owners or management...>

If a driver with a proven track record comes to you with a shortfall on budget verses a driver who will guarantee a budget though will run mid field... which would be taken on?

[ukracing]

In todays economic environment, both would be taken on. If you couldn't take both, then it would come down to money.

[ukracing]

There's no point having a good driver but not be able to put tyres on the car or fuel in the car!

[Alx]

Yeah, I guess you'd try to take both.

An example (and there are many) are Manor;s first F3 championship season in 1999. Marc Hynes and Tor Sriachavanon (Graves). No disrespect to Tor, but he did seem to have more backing from Thailand than what he achieved in results. Marc on the other hand, you would have to say the opposite.

[Super Tourer]

Pretty much as above, a team needs cash to pay the bills, it also needs results to attract drivers for the following year.

Therefore you take a fully budgeted driver who may not be a front runner but will cover a large precentage of the running costs and you take a front runner on a 'cheap' subsidised deal ( which may be costs covering only). The front runner becomes the advert of what your team can do no the track.

Taking two fully funded, but mid -field at best drivers, is beneficial only in the very short term as it keeps you in business for 'this' year, but doesn't neccesarily mean you will attract funded drivers for the following season.

Tom Sisley is (I believe) on a heavily subsidised deal this year as Eurotek want to make their name as a team, as is Danny Buxton in the Clio's with Boulevard racing.

From a teams business point of view it's risk v reward, sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't.

[No 4]

The root problem is that motorsport (other than perhaps the real top end series) is not attractive enough as a spectacle, which combined with poor facilities at most tracks means that it suffers by comparison to other mass spectator sports. As a result it doesn't attract big enough gates, nor high viewing figures on TV, which in turn means commercial sponsors are not interested.

The relevance of all this to the thread is that low spectator viewer figures mean teams get no share of gate receipts or TV rights; whereas the difficulty in attracting sponsors means prizes/financial support of any real value are virtually non-existant, all of which means in teams primarily having to rely on drivers to keep them alive. The result a situation dominated by money, expediency and short termism. It's a miracle it works at all!!

[Super Tourer]

It's also worth looking at the top of the tree factor as well. Motorsport must be one of the few sports where you can buy success, yet fail despite having great skills.

For example, you couldn't buy a place in the Manchester United football squad, or any other Prem league side for that matter. Or pay for a place at Wimbledon tennis tournament, yet if you have enough cash and the barest of 'qualifications' you can buy a drive in F1 (Yoong, Mezzacane, etc,etc)

Conversely, very few teams (McLaren aside) invest in new talent and fund it through the ranks. As a driver you have to fund your own way throught the formulae in order to put yourself in a position to be spotted, and only then very few drivers get selected by the top teams.

Yet in football the Prem league teams may have a squad of 30 to 40 players to select from, most run academey's where they pick up young kids at an early age, put them under contract and fund their development. In addition to buying in top players from other teams.

In fact Motorsport is barely a sport at all, in comparison to others. A talented kid can hone his football skills by kicking a ball up a wall for free, and by playing in the local team for free. Whilst a young driver can't really turn a worthwhile wheel for less than £100K and the costs rise sharply from there.

In motorsport virtually everything is against you, it's amazing any drivers make it all if you look at all the factors involved.

Being in the right car with the right engine
Being in the right team at the right time
Reliability of your machinery
Factors totally outside your control like the weather
Avoiding on track incidents
Funding it
Keeping motivated

You need all these factors to click into place to make it through a season as a winner. You then need to repeat this for the next few years to get anywhere at all, with many of the factors increasing in importance each time.

Hard isn't it !

[sgrok]

Originally posted by No 4
The root problem is that motorsport (other than perhaps the real top end series) is not attractive enough as a spectacle

Eh?

Powerful, finely engineered machines driving daring feats round well respected circuits, driven by young brave and super talented kids? And watching 22 overpaid arses kick a football round the pitch for 90 mins is more thrilling?

Motor racing is a spectacle. It amazes and moves everyone who watches it. But it's very badly promoted in the UK, in terms of media coverage, track facilities and event management. That is the problem.

[DSM]

A while ago I would have agreed with No4. Now I'm not so sure and think that sgrok has a very valid point.
We only race in F Honda at club level, Most of our meetings attract 2 or 3 thousand at best. (Probably the gate at Mallory when the F Zips were there too, No.4?)
3 weeks ago at Combe, on a Bank Holiday when there are lots of alternatives, the crowd was huge (well relatively!). I'm not sure but would have put it at over 10K.
The only reason I can see for the difference is that Combe is noticeably better organised than the other tracks we visit and the meeting was locally well publicised. Little tricks like signs held over grid positions, a lap of honour on the ciruit pick up, well organised paddock, relative spectator freedom all combined to make the day seem special to spectators and entrants.
Why can't they all be like this?

[No 4]

Eh?

Powerful, finely engineered machines driving daring feats round well respected circuits, driven by young brave and super talented kids? And watching 22 overpaid arses kick a football round the pitch for 90 mins is more thrilling?
__________________________________________________________

Sgrok

The figures speak for themselves, regardless of what we all think of Beckham et al, the fact is more people choose to go to/watch football than do the same viz motorsport. Unarguable.

The reason I said motorsport is not a good spectacle is because at most tracks absolutely nothing is done to enable spectators to see whats going on right around the track and therefore they see only a small percentage of a race. The result, skill factor etc, that you rightly talk about and which I agree is exciting, is mostly not seen and hence not appreciated.

Screens around the courses (+ sound systems that one can actually hear) would help, as would more purpose built tracks. Witness the popularity of oval racing in the US, people can see what's going on in it's entirity and therefore they get involved. In short, a better spectacle requires better visibilty. Not rocket science!

Another key point is that for any sport to be successful in a mass market context, the spectators have to be able to identify with the 'sportsmen' as people. Very difficult in motorsport where all drivers look the same when their driving and (other than F1 etc), they get very little exposure as individuals to the general public.

I think Super Tourer makes some good points, but until the basics are sorted out, the teams will never be in a position to marginalise the money factor in favour of genuine talent, nor afford to invest in developing young talent and as a result motorsport will always remain an enthusiast supported sport, rather than one with genuine mass market appeal.

[No 4]

DSM - I agree about Castle Coombe. Ok they can't afford to put up screens, etc, but they do what they can to involve the crowd and make the races easier to understand/relate to as a spectacle. As you rightly say, why can't all the tracks be like this?

[sgrok]

Another key point is that for any sport to be successful in a mass market context, the spectators have to be able to identify with the 'sportsmen' as people. Very difficult in motorsport where all drivers look the same when their driving and (other than F1 etc), they get very little exposure as individuals to the general public.

Completely agree, I've always thought that the F3 and BTC results should be as widely reported in the media as the local division football, cricket,tennis and athletics are.

People overlook the amount of british involvement in the the sport - not just the drivers and teams, but the manufacturers, circuits, etc etc.

I think a big part of the problem is that Autosport and MN have cornered the motorsport press market so much that other media groups are unwilling to get involved, and Autosport + MN, for all they report the news and exclusives etc, profiling the actual drivers as sportsmen and 'celebrities' is not their main objective.

Another problem is the organisers and associations at the helm of british motorsport seem to be very old school gentleman's club style and not very interested in the media, marketing and promotion side of it.

[Mr Jinxx]

It didn't cost much to go and watch the racing at Oulton Park when I was young. And the cars would turn up on trailers on the backs of their owners' cars, and you go round the paddock and it was open and friendly, you mechanic your own car or have a mate to do it, get a great day's racing in .... But things - life - moved on, and the days of being able to be competitive with a FF on the back of your trailer became numbered, not least by the dawn of the computer telemetry. Costs went up for this "must-have-to-be-competitive" equipment, and the teams got motorhomes and charged more, cars became more refined (even FFs) and to save weight, parts got lighter and therefore had to be replaced more often; general levels of personal wealth were on the increase; the top teams charged more and more, and made themselves out to be more glamorous, got better press and PR, so the teams higher up the racing ladder tended to be aware only of that class and not other equally valid for talent classes, and the upward spiral raced on. Yes you need money if you want to go "up" the racing ladder. You cannot do it these days without it.

[Jensen]

I read your points, and believe me I know how hard it can be to get into top formula's on a budget but one thing will always serve you well, TALENT. Not just being able to lob a race car round a track but pure, unconditional, blind Talent, never say never, you have to give it everything and a bit more, drivers like this are rare, too many are caught up in the hype and image but look at Plato, he totally refused the idea that he would not make it. Complete Schumacher / senna style belief is the only way you will make it today without a huge cheque book.

You have to work harder than the next guy or he will beat you, you need to put yourself in the face of team owners and sponsors, it is there for the taking you just need the balls and the determination to go for it, live it.

[No 4]

Jensen - I agree completely, as does my best friend!

[racingdick]

whos ya friend??

[Mr Jinxx]

Normally it would be Willy

[Mak]

Jensen, What a load of absolute cods walap', Grow up and stop perpetuating the lie. Its bad enough having the press spew their nieve **** with out someone who's supposed to be on the inside?

[No 4]

Mak - I tjhink your observations about Jensen's comments are harsh. He acknowledges how hard it is to get into the top formula's, the central point of this thread, but also makes the the supplememntary point that talent combined with 110% determination will get young drivers noticed. What's wrong with that?

The fact is this forum works because it allows people to express their personal views and by definition sometimes these find favour, sometimes not. That's the nature of debate. You therefore demean yourself by introducing personalised comments such as 'grow up'. Indeed, I think by doing so you've scored something of an own goal! Ironic really!!

[Bob Pearson]

Someone tell me which formula has a championship in which a driver will shine enough to be noticed by a team which will give him a free drive when said driver has about £100 a week to spend on his racing. A driver in the lower echelons of the sport who hopes to succeed must be trying at about 18 at the latest, so he can't possibly have spare money to spend in excess of about £100 a week unless Dad is rich. Then we are back to the crux of the matter. No matter how many Chuchillian speach Jensen comes out with you cannot progress unless Dad is rich!!

[Jensen]

Sounds like the voice of a defeatist, nothing is impossible, to all the drivers who "blame the system" for their failure I say this, Did you try hard enough ?, were you up at 6am every morning training ?, did you refuse to leave until you met the team owner or company director ?, did you beg steal and borrow ?, Ask Mansell or Plato !.

You need an ammount of money to practice your sport I agree, but the ££££ depends on the formula, but it can be done.

How much do you think it costs to run a Formula Renault team these days ? with the cars, the equipment, the truck and awning, crew motorhome, insurances, wages, Workshop costs, consumables, transportation costs ?, any idea what a season costs me to run the team ?, when I started out in club sport I earned £120 a week, but it was my ambition and I did and do whatever it took to get there, against financial odds and predudice. We still have a way to go but we will reach our goals.

My point, it depends how bad you want it.

[Bob Pearson]

Jensen,
You didn't answer my question. Another question, will you be at Oulton on the 28th June checking out the talent in the BARC Renault series to see if any of the front runners are worth taking on regardless of no budget available. If so, please come and introduce yourself, we could have a good conversation about it all.

[No 4]

What I find depressing about this discussion is the implied acceptance of the 'it takes money to succeed in motorsport' maxim (though I do agree with Jensen that if someone wants something badly enough, they'll do anything to make it happen).

As I said in a similar thread, things will never change until there is a radical overall of the way motorsport is presented to the public.

The fact is that car racing is competing against many other sports and liesure activities for a share of peoples time and money. Therefore, until the way motorsport is 'packaged'and sold to the public is significantly improved; the championship structure is simplified so the public (not the enthusiasts)understand how drivers progress; and track facilities are impoved to make going racing a pleasurable experience, it will never generate (outside the top formula) big crowds or high TV viewing figures.

As a consequence, the sport will never attract significant commercial sponsorship or profit from TV coverage or produce substantial gate receipts. In short, motorsport will continue to be cash starved and therefore we're back to the current 'hand to mouth' situation where the drivers have to either 'buy' drives or drop out of the sport. Crazy or what?

[DSM]

Jensen, you've got me puzzled. If I'm reading your implications correctly you're running drivers on the basis of 'talent' and not because they're paying you.
I find that very difficult to believe on the basis that at least one of your drivers would be way down on the list of both talent and experience in the UK, and just HAS to be paying for the drive!
Until, as no.4 says, the whole sport changes to, in itself, attract the interest of widespread marketing money, the days of 'talent spotted' drivers are gone and it will be those who, by family or other connections, can find cash to pay for drives.
Some months ago, on another thread I challenged anyone to name a driver being sponsored at national level as part of a genuine, unconnected (i.e. Family etc.) marketing programme. I expected only a few takers but there were actually none!
Anyone know any now?
No4, you're right again, it is depressing that we, in general, accept the situation. I include myself amongst the resigned ones! How can things be changed though, when the governing bodies seem to believe all is well and happy to continue as long as cash comes form somewhere?

[No 4]

DSM - re your last para. I suspect only when someone with real vision (and clout) at one of the organising bodies or lobbying groups, picks up the challenge and does a 'Bob Geldorf'. Until then, I'm afraid inertia will prevail!

However, I've a mind to write to a sample of key people to see how they reaction to the issues we've been discussing. I'll keep you posted if I do!