FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Formula One related discussion.
User avatar
By EwanM
#112567
F1 belongs in a number of countries because of the contributions these countries have made over the years. Italy, Germany, France and Britain should NEVER at any stage be absent from the calender. It's completely insane for me to think that France, who invented Grand Prix racing and Britain which is the home of F1, can be without F1 races.


Indeed, but its all about money and contradiction. I mean Brazil for example has very poor facilities, but the race organiser is good friends with Bernie.

I agree, Italy, Germany France and Britain (as well as Monaco) are main stays on the calendar. It should have remained that way.
User avatar
By EwanM
#112631
Back to Silverstone then :thumbup:

I said in the previous thread to remain positive, as I believed the cash flow problem may have been overcome. However with no planning permission Donington looks set to collapse, and well I doubt Silverstone will be able to step in.
User avatar
By EwanM
#112645
Couldn't Silverston just be developed or are there other issues


Simple case of money, and well Bernie hates the circuit owners. The BRDC.
User avatar
By MAD MAX
#112647
Couldn't Silverston just be developed or are there other issues


Simple case of money, and well Bernie hates the circuit owners. The BRDC.


Thanks I've just read this BBC article, interesting comment re Bernie "This is not the first time Ecclestone has taken the race away from Silverstone. In 2000, the venue lost the contract to Brands Hatch, but the move never happened as development plans fell foul of planning permission laws."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 489662.stm
User avatar
By EwanM
#112648
Couldn't Silverston just be developed or are there other issues


Simple case of money, and well Bernie hates the circuit owners. The BRDC.


Thanks I've just read this BBC article, interesting comment re Bernie "This is not the first time Ecclestone has taken the race away from Silverstone. In 2000, the venue lost the contract to Brands Hatch, but the move never happened as development plans fell foul of planning permission laws."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 489662.stm


Well this has been raised on the previous thread by me, and giles27 on this one.
The difference there is Octagon (who ended up owning Brands) still had a contract to run a race in 2000, so they got the BRDC to lease Silverstone to them so the British GP could be staged there until Brands was ready. The redevelopment of Brands Hatch didn't happen for a number of financial and political issues, and Octagon sold their rights off when it became clear it wasn't affordable.

This time it's different, Donington seemingly has a No Silverstone clause in its contract (persumably inserted there by Bernie.)
User avatar
By EwanM
#112655
So if Donnington goes down, Bernie is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater then. That would be madness not to have a British G.P


Pretty much so, depends on Bernie of course.
#112732
So if Donnington goes down, Bernie is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater then. That would be madness not to have a British G.P


Bernie never even wanted the baby. Bathwater was a smoke screen.
User avatar
By Jensonb
#112755
So if Donnington goes down, Bernie is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater then. That would be madness not to have a British G.P


Bernie never even wanted the baby. Bathwater was a smoke screen.

That's a damn good way to describe it.
#112793
So if Donnington goes down, Bernie is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater then. That would be madness not to have a British G.P


Bernie never even wanted the baby. Bathwater was a smoke screen.


Well, it's not as if BE dropped a bag of RU-486 on Donington now is it? It's Donington that screws themselves, thus no viable pregnancy it seems...
Hello, new member here

Yeah, not very active here, unfortunately. Is it […]

See our F1 related articles too!