The trials of F1's bid to break America

It seems a mite odd that we can establish F1 races in the likes of China, Korea (temporarily maybe) and India but not, seemingly, a permanent one in the US.

It hasn't been for the want of trying. Sebring, Riverside, Watkins Glen, Long Beach, Las Vegas, Detroit, Dallas, Phoenix and Indianapolis have all come and gone over time.

This time next year, of course, we're due in Austin, Texas, for a 10-year stay until 2021. And, only a fortnight ago came confirmation of a new race in New Jersey - across the Hudson River from Manhattan - starting in 2013.

And yet there seems to be much politicking across The Pond. You can't help wonder whether we'll see either race, never mind both.

Recently, there was word that ground works on the Tavo Hellmund/Full Throttle Productions Circuit of the Americas had slowed, although Hermann Tilke said they are on schedule.

Bernie Ecclestone said in India that he didn't believe they were struggling with the work but that there "had been a disagreement inside the company".

Construction of the Austin circuit is on schedule © sutton-images.com

A month ago, the Austin Statesman reported expected changes in the management and promotion of the race.

The Texas state comptroller Susan Combs had been in contact with Bernie about a transfer of ownership rights in the promoter contract.

Hellmund had been asking Combs whether the vital $250m of Texas state subsidies pledged over 10 years would still be forthcoming if the promoter changed. Combs told Ecclestone that they would be.

These subsidies, via the region's Major Events Trust Fund, were always highly controversial and earlier this year there was a Texas lawsuit trying to prevent them.

It was filed in the District Court in Travis County, by Austin teacher Ewa Siwak, school board trustee Richard Franklin and accountant Richard Viktorin, the three represented by Bill Aleshire, a Travis County judge between 1987-'98.

The suit claimed that Texas comptroller Combs had pledged the money illegally and that she was not authorised to do so.

It claimed that to qualify for fund support, the right to host the event must have been won in a "highly competitive selection process" with locations outside Texas, but that City of Austin officials did not learn about any competition until after Bernie announced that Austin had been chosen.

Now, rewind to March. Remember Bernie flying to New York instead of the season-opener in Australia just after Melbourne mayor Robert Doyle had said that perhaps the benefits of the Melbourne race had run its course?

The visit was flagged up by none other than Melbourne promoter Ron Walker, who's always been a big mate of Bernie.

"It doesn't mean to say Bernie's lost interest," Walker said. "It's about business in New York. Mayor Bloomberg is pretty keen to get a race at Staten Island."

The more politically savvy observers didn't take the New York gossip too seriously back then. Wasn't it just Bernie killing two birds with one stone - trying to satisfy the competition criterion for Austin by legitimising oft-discussed New York plans, and simultaneously firing a shot across the Aussies' bows?

Aleshire had been getting seriously stuck into the Austin race subsidies in the Texas press.

"The more we hear about what a financially lucrative business Formula 1 is, the more taxpayers should object to using tax dollars to support it," he said.

Bernie Ecclestone 2011 © LAT

"Watch for politicians who stick one hand out to the F1 promoters for campaign contributions while their other hand is deep into the pocket of the taxpayers to 'reimburse' F1".

The basic plan was to give back to F1 the extra tax revenue generated by such as hotels, restaurants and alcohol sales so that the event was, effectively, 'free' to taxpayers.

Aleshire, at the same time as picking holes in that, also contested the veracity of Combs's revenue projections.

"For example," he said, "the comptroller's estimate of the increase in hotel tax was based on the number of visitors F1 would attract, and estimated that an equal number of hotel rooms would be rented.

"They assumed single occupancy of each room (97,500 visitors = 97,500 hotel rooms) when only multiple occupancy is realistic."

I can vouch for that. Just ask the riff-raff - mechanics and journalists among them!

Aleshire demonstrated some sense of humour when he added: "The comptroller has estimated a whopping $250 in alcohol sales for every visitor, but didn't offset that with the jail costs for DWIs (driving while intoxicated)..."

For whatever reason, the lawsuit was dropped after the Austin race date was changed from June to November 2012.

Aleshire has now changed tack. Instead of arguing that Austin was ineligible for Texas Major Events Trust money because there was no competition, he is now arguing that it's ineligible because there is!

After New Jersey's recent announcement Aleshire told Austin's KUT News: "An event such as F1 is only eligible for public funding if we - Texas - competes with other states in a highly competitive process, and F1 selects the site in Texas as the, quote, 'sole site for the event' and, quote, 'the event is held not more than one time in any year' - that's what our state law says."

I can't assist with the reasons for the mooted change in the Austin promoter but it's possible that those investors who have committed might not be overly thrilled about the implications of a New York race on their own event or, indeed, about Aleshire's assertions.

There appeared to be posturing going on at the announcement of the New Jersey race, scheduled to run along the banks of the Hudson from 2013.

I might be reading too much into New Jersey being the Grand Prix of America but you might have expected something a bit different with Austin scheduled to run on the Circuit of the Americas...

The proposed layout of the Grand Prix of America © sutton-images.com

Then, one of the prime movers behind the New Jersey plans, New York sports media and investment magnate Leo Hindery Jr, was quoted thus in a New York Times blog by Jonathan Schulz: "There's not a yard of dirt being moved," he said. "We're pennies on the dollar compared to Austin.

"The expense of mounting the inaugural United States Grand Prix at Austin could cripple any effort to reprise the race, let alone make it a fixture of the Formula 1 calendar," Hindery said.

"I wouldn't bet on Austin making it," he said.

In a telephone interview with the Austin Statesman, Hindery denied calling Austin into question but Schulz has insisted he was quoted accurately.

Hellmund himself publicly congratulated the New Jersey effort, quickly adding that New Jersey and Texas were nearly 2000 miles apart and offer unique and very different fan experiences. But he must surely have been thinking, "Thanks a lot, mate..."

What's really going on will become known in due course. At the moment, it's all about as clear as the Circuit of the Americas mud...