The Weekly Grapevine

Is Spa a goner?

A source close to politicians in the Walloon region in which the classic circuit lies put the chances of a Grand Prix happening in 2006 at 'less than 20%', saying the economic and political will does just not seem to be there.

Regular readers may recall that, in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 race - the first back in the calendar after Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone suspended the event over a tobacco advertising row - this column questioned the circuit's facilities, sustainability and overall organization.

Then, in May last year, following an interview with race promoter and rock concert impresario Didier Dufourny, the Weekly Grapevine suggested that tax battles with Belgium's fiscal authorities - the circuit runs through two communities (Malmedy and Stavelot), and both seemed intent upon extracting full local taxes - were looming for the amateur GT racer.

And, so they were, as was to transpire shortly before last September's Grand Prix, which played to just 50,000 spectators.

But, before the communes reached court to extract their 'dues', Dufourny filed for bankruptcy after losing upwards of €15m on the most recent race, and, once again, Spa was a circuit crying out for proper management. In course of Dufourny's battles, it transpired that the Walloon region had agreed to underwrite Bernie Ecclestone's hosting fees through to 2009 and, of course, 'The Bolt' called in the guarantees.

Two weeks ago it seemed a deal had been struck to secure Spa through to 2010 - the local government would, it was said, provide €4.25m in subsidies and €2.25m in sponsorship via local agencies, leaving Ecclestone free to promote the event through ready-made vehicle Spa Activities. Owned by Ecclestone's wife Slavica and previously headed by local businessman Andre Maas, Spa Activities promoted the Belgian Grand Prix through to 2002.

Ecclestone, though, demanded that Wallonia upgrade the 6,976-kilometre circuit's pit and paddock areas, plus remodel various corners, including Stavelot. Such work is, it seems, a bridge too far for local politicians presiding over Belgium's poorest region. Estimated to cost €15m - in order to expand the present F1 pits to accommodate 12 teams with three cars each, plus provide a paddock befitting the sport's high-rollers - the short start/finish straight needs to be extended 100 metres northwards and the famous La Source hairpin completely replicated.

Not, of course, the work of a moment, and given the enormity of the requirements, certain to totally disrupt Spa's 2006 race calendar for a considerable portion of the year. With the Grand Prix having run at a loss for two straight years, it stands to reason that the circuit's primary sources of black ink are non-F1 meetings, track days and 'other' activities.

Why would any right-thinking businessman jeopardize those proven revenue spinners for the sake of alterations demanded for the staging of an event promoted by a multi-billionaire? More to the point, can Wallonia afford to lay out upwards of €22m in a single fiscal year for the staging of the event? At extremely short notice, at that?

As always, the crux of the matter is a cold calculation balancing Ecclestone's hosting fees versus expected gate income, plus collateral spend in the region by spectators. Historically, Spa enjoyed a date linked to the United Kingdom's August Bank Holiday Monday, and British fans crossed the Channel by the thousand in the knowledge that they could take in a foreign Grand Prix on a classic circuit in an affordable country without a single day off work - with any negatives further swung by cheap ferry fares. Then, for 2005, Ecclestone stipulated a September date. The result was clear to see; yet a similar listing was granted for this year.

The burning question is, of course, why Ecclestone does not simply promote the race for his own account after waiving all promoters' fees? Fundamentally, because times have changed.

After selling out to CVC, promoters' fees may no longer be as negotiable as they once were. The chances of persuading his new-found partners to take a risk on a loss-making event are equally slim, particularly when compensation for 18th and 19th races is due to teams in terms of the Concorde Agreement. One less race means less compensation. And, having seen the numbers, Ecclestone is hardly likely to back a losing horse unless local authorities cover all the bases.

In the final analysis, a 2006 race at Spa seems doubtful. Should that be the case, a return to the venue is almost a given in view of the massive goodwill in F1 circles towards the place, crummy as it may be at times.

The best solution appears to be to strike the event off the calendar this year, enabling circuit and authorities to upgrade within a reasonable timeframe - thereby, crucially, permitting Wallonia to budget for the expenditure.

Harsh, yes, but better by far than yet another scandal enveloping the charismatic circuit on the calendar.

The Bridgestone pact

While Bridgestone' teams have a struck a co-operative deal to share all tyre testing information, those cars running Michelin's best seem destined to maintain their present modus operandi of being open with the French rubber company on condition that all information is kept strictly confidential.

Certainly, that was the impression given by Honda's technical director Geoff Willis on the occasion of the launch of the team's RA106 (Racing Automobile F1 2006).

"We have always been totally open with Michelin," said Willis, "because we knew they totally respected the confidentiality and did not disclose the information to others."

All well and good, but will this spirit of secrecy serve Michelin well in their last year in the premier league?

In Ferrari, Toyota, Williams, and, to a lesser degree, MF1 and Super Aguri (should the latter be granted an entry for 2006), Bridgestone have some formidable testing power, and, if, as the Italian team's technical director Ross Brawn stated at the launch of 248 F1, the teams genuinely pool their data, such a strategy could well see the Japanese tyre company score one over the competition.

Of course, the notion of Formula One's most inaccessible team (Ferrari), its most independent (Williams) and the epitome of a corporation (Toyota) pooling such sensitive testing information seems a touch strange, but if it helps them beat the rest before they turn the sights on each other, then it is hardly to be discounted.

True, Brawn stated that the deal applied "only to testing, and not to racing, where we compete against each other under the same circumstances ... and will allow all of us to focus on the technology which works and discard that which does not," but can the Ferrari-Williams-Toyota trio engender enough trust in each other to remain open for the entire season? Forget not that, for example, Ferrari and Toyota are presently embroiled in a rather distasteful legal action.

True, Brawn stated that "the matter is in the hands of the appropriate authorieties, and the (Toyota) people concerned are no longer there, so it (the legal matter) should not present a problem" but, in F1, deals are made to broken, and the Briton admitted there was no guarantee that the co-operation agreement would last all season.

If not, no problem to Michelin and users of its rubber; if, though, the Bridgestone deal lasts, it could place Michelin's refugees at considerable disadvantage next season, when all teams will be on the same rubber - although only Ferrari, Williams and Toyota will be well versed in Bridgestone's system.

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments