How the "disastrous" loss of the British GP was avoided

Just two weeks ago, Silverstone's future on the Formula 1 calendar appeared to be under considerable threat.

That was thanks to the growing desire, some might say blind determination, to pull off a grand prix on the streets of London. And yet, following the news that the British Grand Prix's fate has been secured and Silverstone will host the race for the next five years, it is difficult not to believe this has been an inevitability since last year.

The 2018 British GP, then badged as potentially the penultimate F1 race at Silverstone, was an entertaining race. Home hero Lewis Hamilton qualified on pole in stunning fashion, then charged from the back to second after being nerfed around at the start by Kimi Raikkonen. Sebastian Vettel won after a late reshuffle caused by a safety car, and good time was had by pretty much all.

Yet, since then, Silverstone has edged closer and closer towards its 'last' F1 race in 2019 as it had activated a break clause two years ago to extract itself from a financially devastating long-term contract secure under F1's previous ownership. But as the race is usually so good, surely it was unthinkable that F1 would drop it?

It is naive, bordering on ridiculous, to even contemplate the argument that F1 would keep a race on the calendar through goodwill and the vague notion that 'a good time was had by all'. Business is about numbers, right?

From F1's perspective, Silverstone had already agreed once to some pretty tasty fees. So, the importance of hosting Britain's only F1 race must be vital to Silverstone's business model and future. That implies the circuit needed F1 a lot more than F1 needed Silverstone.

Not quite. In fact, F1's own cold, hard facts made it very clear last December that it needed Silverstone at least as much. Maybe even more.

In-depth research conducted by F1 at 16 of last year's races drew conclusions overwhelmingly in Silverstone's favour. The circuit came out on top for weekend crowds (340,000), race-day attendances (140,500) and fan satisfaction (90% of spectators judged the British GP to be 'very enjoyable'). Silverstone was also among the top five races to produce the "sharpest increase in spectator satisfaction", although exact totals were not disclosed.

Reading that must have had the circuit's bosses grinning from ear to ear, and led to a few puffed-out chests come the next round of negotiations with Liberty Media. The sheer value of those numbers make it little wonder Red Bull team boss Christian Horner described losing the British Grand Prix, "and particularly to lose it from Silverstone", as a "disastrous" prospect - a stance also taken by John Grant, chairman of the Silverstone-owning British Racing Drivers Club.

Combine that with what Silverstone provides as a historical venue, the home race of seven teams and a favourite amongst drivers, and it makes a compelling case for a British GP at Silverstone being a must-have for F1.

Just as Silverstone's true value to F1 was crystallising, Silverstone's need for the grand prix was reducing

Two crucial factors have been established in Silverstone's favour over the last year. Chiefly, the value of the British GP to F1 was expressed in raw numbers for perhaps the first time. As Silverstone managing director Stuart Pringle puts it: "Frankly, we add significant value to the championship." He also holds the view that losing the race would have been "devastating for everyone in the sport".

There was no hiding that the success of the race would make it very difficult for F1 to justify walking away from Silverstone, when new or less-established (and evidently less popular) venues are being offered cheap deals or incentives to sign up.

In five-time world champion Lewis Hamilton's words: "Silverstone is such an awesome track, such an awesome place. It's one of the biggest turnouts of the whole season. You can't turn your back on that."

The second factor is that Silverstone has worked extremely hard to wean itself off F1. That is not to say the owner ever wants to lose the grand prix. Far from it. This new deal will be the crown jewel of Silverstone's season. However, take a look at the growth of Silverstone's portfolio since it announced it was activating its break clauses and you will see a business pulling no punches.

F1 was too expensive and suffocating Silverstone, and Silverstone was not willing to gasp for every last breath - it looked for an alternative oxygen supply.

In came a festival based around the World Rallycross Championship, new terms to be the home of MotoGP in Britain, and the establishment of Silverstone Experiences, designed to give the circuit consistent, year-round income. There is also the construction of a new hotel to make better use of the impressive Wing facility that right now goes quite underused from a business perspective.

So, just as Silverstone's true value to F1 was crystallising, Silverstone's need for the grand prix was reducing. But to believe Silverstone could truly thrive without a grand prix might be as naive as thinking F1 would just 'let' Silverstone be on the calendar for nothing. It is difficult to say with certainty as it is a dangerously flexible hypothetical scenario.

Grant says: "Silverstone is stronger with Formula 1. We absolutely wanted to be able to secure the race here as long as it was on sensible economic terms for us. I'm pleased to say that we got to that solution with good co-operation on both sides.

"Would Silverstone have worked without Formula 1? It's a bit of an academic question. We've got a lot of things going on, Silverstone would be able to sustain itself with or without the grand prix. But we're stronger with it and we're delighted to have to this deal."

Crucially, Silverstone had at least managed to satisfy the golden rule of negotiations: being willing to walk away.

Arguably, F1 had lost ground with the same position. As it works to pursue new venues to add to next year's race in Vietnam, the pressure is on F1 to honour its word to protect the championship's heartlands. The return of the Dutch GP at Zandvoort goes some way to fulfilling that commitment to tradition, but it would have looked very poor had arguably the most historically significant race on the calendar dropped off - after cementing its position as the most successful race of the year.

That makes it easy to believe F1 CEO Chase Carey when he says, in response to Autosport's question about whether Silverstone's figures last year made it undroppable: "This is one of our signature races. It was clear our goal was to renew this race, an important race. We still have to get an agreement that works for both of us, and we did.

"I make no qualms about it, this is one of our races that is the foundation of Formula 1 so it's our goal all along to get to an agreement."

None of this means F1 should have accepted, or did accept, any terms Silverstone demanded. There must have been concessions on either side.

But how the prospect of a London race fits into this is a curious and important factor. On the one hand, Silverstone can ill-afford an historic capital city grand prix that would likely take place a few weeks either side of the British GP, just 90 minutes south. On the other hand, any London F1 race is surely years away - so why should F1 not expect Silverstone to sign to certain terms now, and renegotiate as required should a London GP materialise?

Avoiding the "disastrous" loss of the British GP must be chalked up as a rare win-win for F1

This may remain a thorny issue for weeks and months to come, but it has clearly not been the obstacle to a fresh Silverstone/British GP deal as had been made out. The issue has either been shelved for the time being or Silverstone's fears were swiftly allayed.

None of this is to say that a London race does not have its own merits. Crucially though, the risk F1 has avoided by steering clear of a 'Silverstone vs London' fight for F1 in the UK is the threatening of the medium/long-term future of the British GP. Were Silverstone to disappear, and either excel as a non-F1 venue or shrink its operations to compensate, F1 would be left with a city-based grand prix that would probably be completely at the whim of politicians or private backers (most likely both).

This would have been a poor trade for 'turning its back' on Silverstone, to borrow Hamilton's phrasing. Horner also puts it well: "As long as it didn't take away the event from Silverstone, seeing a Formula 1 car running around the streets of London would be impressive."

Fortunately, the long-running saga of the British GP's future, that lingering threat of the event being taken away from Silverstone, has finally come to an end.

Perhaps it was always 'undroppable'. Perhaps the supposed twists and turns were just part of the narrative and the drama, another sideshow in the F1 circus.

Inevitability or not, avoiding the "disastrous" loss of the British GP must be chalked up as a rare win-win for F1.

Silverstone's bold move to get a more attractive agreement has paid off, certainly. But in securing the future of allegedly the best grand prix of the season - one that Carey calls "integral" to the championship's long-term vision - Liberty has hardly come out as the losing side.