Fortier & Harper are Insane: Formula 1 in Montreal

[August1991]

The mayor of Montreal and federal and provincial cabinet ministers will leave for London on Wednesday to plead the case to save the Canadian Grand Prix.

Mayor Gerald Tremblay will be accompanied by federal International Trade Minister Michael Fortier and Quebec Economic Development Minister Raymond Bachand at Thursday's meeting with Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone.

Bachand said Tuesday he has spent the last week looking at the economic benefits of the event.

"I'm starting to have a good feel for these numbers," said Bachand.

"We'll be meeting Mr. Ecclestone on Thursday to see how much he wants this Grand Prix to be held. If the conditions are financially responsible, we'll save this event. If they're totally unreasonable, we're in trouble."

Fortier and Tremblay have also previously said they are willing to support the event but only if it guarantees economic benefits.

CTV

Here's what Wikipedia says about Ecclestone:

The Sunday Times Rich List of 2003 ranked Ecclestone the 3rd richest person in the United Kingdom, with an estimated fortune of £2,400m. He fell to eighth place in 2004's Sunday Times Rich List, and by 2006 the rich list placed him 13th with an estimated net worth of £2,243m. Currently in the 2008's Sunday Times Rich List he ranks as the 24th richest person in the United Kingdom, with an estimated fortune of £2,400m.

In early 2004 he sold one of his London residences (Kensington Palace Gardens), never having lived in it, to steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal for £57.1 million, making it the most expensive house ever sold.

Ecclestone is married to Slavica Ecclestone, née Slavica Radić. Radić was born in the town of Rijeka in Croatia in the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia in 1958. She is a 6'2" (1.88 m) former Armani model who is 28 years his junior, and 11.5 inches (29 cm) taller than her husband).[18] The couple have two daughters, Tamara Ecclestone (born 1984) and Petra Ecclestone (born 1988).

Not a cent of federal money should go into this crazy scheme to give more money to a UK billionaire.

If there are no "private economic benefits" to a Formula One race in Montreal, then there are no "economic benefits". If the private sector cannot make a profit doing this, then it means the whole exercise is a waste of valuable resources.

I'm tired of seeing bad ventures go to the government and request various subsidies or tax shelters with arcane calculations about "economic benefits" or "spin-offs". The best economic benefit can be obtained if my money stays in my pocket or I use it the way that I think is best.

To get economic benefits, it doesn't have to take a round about way through the wallet of some billionaire in the UK and on to his 6 foot tall wife.

----

After this past election campaign in Quebec and the goofiest ad campaign claiming that Bloc MP salaries were a waste of money, Harper should reign in Fortier or even better, get himself some new advisors.

As far as I'm concerned, if the city of Montreal or the Quebec government can find money for car racing, then they have lost all moral arguments for fiscal deficits or transfers to municipalities.

[M.Dancer]

I think that it can be argues that the F1 race has quantifiable and non quantifiable benefits which deserves a kick at the can.

First like many cutural events that almost make a profit for the organisers they undoubtable make money for others, in this case hoteliers, broadcasters etc etc....secondly Montreal can and does spend a lot of money advertising itself...as a tourist destination as well for economic development. Simply being an F1 venue gives Montreal the airtime to a huge upscale audience that is almost imposible to get elsewhere (for that kind of money). I'm talking huge numbers of Europeans and Asians, South Africans, Australians and even Americans who are surprised to find that high perfomance cars can turn both left and right.

And of course, the demise of the event is in part the fault of Ottawa. Stricter sponsership rules meant dollars were kept away from the event, and once something is off the budget it's damn hard to get it back on.

And lastly: Villeneuve.

[guyser]

If I recall correctly, didnt Montreal get bumped for Dubai? If so, then I see only another date offered at best, later in the season when it may not work for Mtl.

Dubai probably threw some obscene money at Bernie, who would have been an idiot to turn down.

But I agree wit dancer, that level of showcasing cannot be bought. It goes way beyond the dollars spent. Toronto realized this with the lose of the CART/IRL racem and as such has brought it back.

[William Ashley]

Although air time being eaten up or giving guys a chance to feel like guys watching the race when they could be doing something else like ... working out, or washing their own car. It is an event.

I personally think though the grand prix should be paying the government, not necisarily Canada, but instead whereever the race is being held either in a percentage of intake or some balance of the cost, for blocked roads, or otherwise. The idea it is an event. I think having the locality pay or derive benifit is where it should be. The GoC has very little to do with this, except peraps providing contigency planning for riot control and other safety and import issues.

I tend to agree the government should not provide funding, the organizers should be paying to hold the event there.

Of course the government could buy advertising space if they needed it.

If he can't get networks to buy broadcast of the race, are people really interested in seeing it.

Edited October 22, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[guyser]

I personally think though the grand prix should be paying the government, not necisarily Canada, but instead whereever the race is being held either in a percentage of intake or some balance of the cost, for blocked roads, or otherwise.

They do.

Police for traffic, city services for clean up, set up, patrol, hotel taxes paid, sales taxes paid on meals, beverages, tourist chotchkes......

[M.Dancer]

Of course the government could buy advertising space if they needed it.

Take a guess which is more cost effective. Two hours of F1 Live reaching 47 million viewers or an equivilent ad buy.

[William Ashley]

Take a guess which is more cost effective. Two hours of F1 Live reaching 47 million viewers or an equivilent ad buy.

No idea, if you have figures post them up.

[William Ashley]

They do.

Police for traffic, city services for clean up, set up, patrol, hotel taxes paid, sales taxes paid on meals, beverages, tourist chotchkes......

OK so where does the government providing funding come from is this for a stake in profit? A share.. how much risk is there any? If so why?

I don't understand this issue.

Is this sponsership scandal stuff to buy the winner of the race with a candian flag and patriotism and all that *stuff*

Edited October 22, 2008 by William Ashley

[M.Dancer]

No idea, if you have figures post them up.

A 30 second ad for the Super bowl which reaches 90 million viwers can cost upwards to 2.6 million US$

Being a venue for the F1 is worth the equivelent of 156 Million US$ in ad costs.

[Argus]

I think that it can be argues that the F1 race has quantifiable and non quantifiable benefits which deserves a kick at the can.

If it can't be quantified it's fiction.

Entertainment of this sort produces no economic wealth for Canada. Whatever people spend on it would have been spent anyway on some other kind of entertainment.

And if this problem was occuring in Toronto or Winnipeg nobody would care about it but those cities. You certainly wouldn't be seeing federal cabinet ministers running off to beg some foreign billionaire.

[M.Dancer]

If it can't be quantified it's fiction.

I take it then you feel that image advertising isn't real.

[guyser]

Entertainment of this sort produces no economic wealth for Canada. Whatever people spend on it would have been spent anyway on some other kind of entertainment.

True, those American visitors who are die hard F1 fans could spend their money at home...in America. Now that that is out of the way....

And if this problem was occuring in Toronto or Winnipeg nobody would care about it but those cities. You certainly wouldn't be seeing federal cabinet ministers running off to beg some foreign billionaire.

True again. They flew Micheal Andretti and Green et al in to Toronto for meetings wit the bureacrats. No need for ministers to fly out of Canada.

Edited October 22, 2008 by guyser

[M.Dancer]

Then there is the quantifiable.

The Montreal race was popular with drivers and teams and a huge success with spectators. The event would usually bring in over 300,000 fans for the three days of racing. It was the city's biggest week for tourism and estimated to produce more than $75 million (Canadian) in annual economic benefits for the local economy.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/513054

[Argus]

Then there is the quantifiable.

http://www.thestar.com/Sports/article/513054

Well if it's that damned valuable then let Montreal pay for it.

[M.Dancer]

Well if it's that damned valuable then let Montreal pay for it.

Maybe it is..somethings of value are unaffordable....anyway...ain;t that why the mayor is going?

[drewski]

Well if it's that damned valuable then let Montreal pay for it.

it could be rightfully argued Montreal isn't the only one that see's the economic gain. The feds see a share through taxes collected through the GST, gas tax, etc

[madmax]

If I recall correctly, didnt Montreal get bumped for Dubai? If so, then I see only another date offered at best, later in the season when it may not work for Mtl.

Dubai probably threw some obscene money at Bernie, who would have been an idiot to turn down.

But I agree wit dancer, that level of showcasing cannot be bought. It goes way beyond the dollars spent. Toronto realized this with the lose of the CART/IRL racem and as such has brought it back.

NO NO NO NO NO..... Wait......

I...... concur.... with........Guyser .

I.......concur....with.........M.Dancer

That wasn't difficult was it.......

[White Doors]

Glad I made it last year. it was fun and I can attest that it brings alot of people into Montreal.

[guyser]

NO NO NO NO NO..... Wait......

I...... concur.... with........Guyser .

I.......concur....with.........M.Dancer

That wasn't difficult was it.......

Watch it , the sun might rise in the west tomorrow.

The attitude that this is dumb always amazes me. I go through the same thing with a triathlon thats held near my cottage. This year was the Ironman 70.1 , and normally it is another one held in June.

The amount of bitching about a road being closed for one sunday in june, the silly stupid questions, the lack of any attempt at understanding boggles the mind.

The triathlon brings in millions of dollars, all based on a one day event.

And since I am a member of triathlon boards, the Americans are always asking where to stay, where to go, and above all else, where else to go since I will stay up for a few days and see the area.

So montreal gets all the moolah on the one or two days + lodging etc, but the area surrounding it being so beautiful that so many stay and play tourist and spend even more dollars .

They sure aren't a "have not" prov when it comes to scenery,food, and places to go and things to do.

[jdobbin]

As far as I'm concerned, if the city of Montreal or the Quebec government can find money for car racing, then they have lost all moral arguments for fiscal deficits or transfers to municipalities.

It certainly will be harder for governments to get away with some lines in their budget if budgets start producing deficits.

The government would have to show that they get the money back in tax revenue somehow, that it is an investment.

If they deem this is be an important thing to fund, they should look for other parts of the budget to fund it.

[August1991]

I think that it can be argues that the F1 race has quantifiable and non quantifiable benefits which deserves a kick at the can.

First like many cutural events that almost make a profit for the organisers they undoubtable make money for others, in this case hoteliers, broadcasters etc etc....secondly Montreal can and does spend a lot of money advertising itself...as a tourist destination as well for economic development....

Then let the hoteliers, restaurants and broadcasters pay for this advertising.

Look Morris, you might be able to make a case that the city of Montreal should pay for this "advertising scheme", but I fail to see why someone in Chicoutimi, let alone Calgary, should give a cent to this project.

In fact though, as a resident of Montreal, I don't see why I should contribute a penny either. I get nothing in return.

If this is a truly profitable venture and has advertising advantages, then let the beneficiaries pay for it. The extra profits of hotels and restaurants will presumably exceed the higher taxes they'd have to pay. Of course, the hotels/restaurants would object because the project is a crazy scheme that is only viable when financed with "other people's money".

----

This particular scheme really sticks in my throat because Quebec and the city of Montreal have gone "écolo" and are subsidizing all manner of bicycle paths while refusing to fix potholes. In the past campaign, Duceppe and other Quebecers blamed Harper for being "pro-oil corporation" and ignorant of global warming.

And what do three levels of government do? Find ways to take money from Albertan taxpayers to spend it on big cars with big motors driving around in circles in Montreal! What is the carbon footprint of a Formula One race if you include the cost of shipping these vehicles and teams to North America?

I didn't mention it in the OP but not only do Quebec/Montreal lose the moral high ground in the "fiscal deficit" debate, they also lose it in the "global warming" debate.

It certainly will be harder for governments to get away with some lines in their budget if budgets start producing deficits.

The government would have to show that they get the money back in tax revenue somehow, that it is an investment.

If they deem this is be an important thing to fund, they should look for other parts of the budget to fund it.

Deficits have nothing to do with this. It would still be a dumb scheme even if the federal government had a massive budget surplus. Governments should not spend other people's money on stupid stuff.

Dobbin, a government is not a business. It shouldn't spend money with an eye to what tax revenues the spending will generate. But let me take that idea and see where it goes. If the government taxes me and gives it to Barney Ecclestone so that American tourists will come to Montreal and eat in restaurants which in turn will pay taxes to local governments.

Why involve Ecclestone and Americans in this? Why not leave the money in my pocket and let me go to the restaurant and have a meal? The government will still get the tax revenue without the circuitous foreign route.

IOW, when the government taxes me, that means I have less to spend and others will pay lower taxes.

If you are going to champion the "economic benefits" of some government scheme, at least have the decent integrity to note the "economic costs" of the taxes collected. In a river, water diverted in one direction just means less water going elsewhere.

it could be rightfully argued Montreal isn't the only one that see's the economic gain. The feds see a share through taxes collected through the GST, gas tax, etc

As I noted above, that's a horrendously dumb argument.

How did the feds get the money to subsidize this crazy scheme? They taxed me and millions of other Canadians. How much did the Feds lose in GST, gas tax etc because I no longer had the money to buy things?

It seems to me that our governments should not be in the business of subsidizing foreigners directly or through incentives to come eat at our restaurants - certainly not rich foreigners.

----

This thread is enough to despair anyone who believes that the State may some day do the right thing. If someone like Stephen Harper can get involved in the shenagians of Fortier, Tremblay, Eccelstone and Formula One, what chance do we have to ever have a politician with the courage to throw these idiots out of her/his office?

Edited October 23, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Deficits have nothing to do with this. It would still be a dumb scheme even if the federal government had a massive budget surplus. Governments should not spend other people's money on stupid stuff.

I guess that is dependent on what the Feds get out of it. Does it bring in as much in tax revenue to federal coffers? I have my doubts that it does.

I tend to agree that chasing F1 racing a big money game best left to private hands. I'd be curious why we have to have public money chase this race.

Dobbin, a government is not a business. It shouldn't spend money with an eye to what tax revenues the spending will generate. But let me take that idea and see where it goes. If the government taxes me and gives it to Barney Ecclestone so that American tourists will come to Montreal and eat in restaurants which in turn will pay taxes to local governments.

Will they come if they are in a recession? That I don't know.

Why involve Ecclestone and Americans in this? Why not leave the money in my pocket and let me go to the restaurant and have a meal? The government will still get the tax revenue without the circuitous foreign route.

IOW, when the government taxes me, that means I have less to spend and others will pay lower taxes.

If you are going to champion the "economic benefits" of some government scheme, at least have the decent integrity to note the "economic costs" of the taxes collected. In a river, water diverted in one direction just means less water going elsewhere.

F1 is the most expensive racing circuit in the world. My opinion is that if Vancouver was chasing this race, it would be easy to cut them off. Politics is everything.

[August1991]

Will they come if they are in a recession? That I don't know.

Will Americans come if the US is in a recession? I couldn't care less if they come because it isn't.

My point is that to collect "extra" tax revenues, a government doesn't need to use the circuitous route of taxing me, then subsidizing a rich Englishman so that Americans come to eat in our restaurants and pay taxes. Why not just leave the money in my pocket and let me eat in the restaurants and pay taxes that way?

The amount of bitching about a road being closed for one sunday in june, the silly stupid questions, the lack of any attempt at understanding boggles the mind.

The triathlon brings in millions of dollars, all based on a one day event.

And since I am a member of triathlon boards, the Americans are always asking where to stay, where to go, and above all else, where else to go since I will stay up for a few days and see the area.

With such nonsensical reasoning, why am I not surprised that you want other people's money to subsidize your preferred hobby.

How many "millions of dollars" were not brought in in other industries because of the taxes raised to support your particular pet project?

Guyser, at least have integrity when you champion your cause. When the government gives you one dollar for your project (that brings in millions), then there is one less dollar for my project (that might have brought in millions).

By and large, government bureaucrats and politicians are not good at picking winners. Countries where these kinds of choices are left to politicians and bureaucrats usually go bankrupt.

Edited October 23, 2008 by August1991

[marksman]

Will Americans come if the US is in a recession? I couldn't care less if they come because it isn't.

My point is that to collect "extra" tax revenues, a government doesn't need to use the circuitous route of taxing me, then subsidizing a rich Englishman so that Americans come to eat in our restaurants and pay taxes. Why not just leave the money in my pocket and let me eat in the restaurants and pay taxes that way?

With such nonsensical reasoning, why am I not surprised that you want other people's money to subsidize your preferred hobby.

How many "millions of dollars" were not brought in in other industries because of the taxes raised to support your particular pet project?

Guyser, at least have integrity when you champion your cause. When the government gives you one dollar for your project (that brings in millions), then there is one less dollar for my project (that might have brought in millions).

By and large, government bureaucrats and politicians are not good at picking winners. Countries where these kinds of choices are left to politicians and bureaucrats usually go bankrupt.

Sometimes you've got to spend money to make money. That isn't a radical new concept. If we spend a bit of money that results in economic benefits for a lot of people that's a good thing. If it's got the added value of increasing Canada's image then even better. This isn't the government of August1991 it's the federal government of Canada. They're supposed to promote Canada and support economic activity. The F1 is a proven economic boost for Montreal. It's hardly a gamble.

You want to know why they don't leave the money in your pocket? What're you going to do with $1 that'll bring in tourists from other countries and boost any local economy in the way the F1 does? Taking $1 from you won't change your effect on the economy in any significant way but does create a big boost for a lot of other people. If this was done to excess it'd be a problem. But that's why they're going to talk and see if they can work out a deal. But the mere fact that these types of events get supported isn't cause for such indignation.

[blueblood]

Will Americans come if the US is in a recession? I couldn't care less if they come because it isn't.

My point is that to collect "extra" tax revenues, a government doesn't need to use the circuitous route of taxing me, then subsidizing a rich Englishman so that Americans come to eat in our restaurants and pay taxes. Why not just leave the money in my pocket and let me eat in the restaurants and pay taxes that way?

With such nonsensical reasoning, why am I not surprised that you want other people's money to subsidize your preferred hobby.

How many "millions of dollars" were not brought in in other industries because of the taxes raised to support your particular pet project?

Guyser, at least have integrity when you champion your cause. When the government gives you one dollar for your project (that brings in millions), then there is one less dollar for my project (that might have brought in millions).

By and large, government bureaucrats and politicians are not good at picking winners. Countries where these kinds of choices are left to politicians and bureaucrats usually go bankrupt.

We pay taxes nonetheless. I would rather have my tax dollars go to something that boosts the economy rather than pissing around with alleged global warming that is a money drain. Or at least have our tax dollars go to the army/police force. I mean both of us would like to not pay taxes, but we pay them regardless. I like tax cuts when they come, but the crux of the matter is we pay taxes like it or not. If the F1 brings in money to our economy, it isn't that bad of an investment on the gov't side. I'd like to see the real numbers before making a choice. The feds have invested in Hibernia and in Alberta, is that a waste of tax dollars??? I see the government as more of a corporation and the citizens of Canada are it's shareholders, the corporation can do with it's money how it sees fit providing the shareholders agree. The rest of Canada subsidizes Quebec for lots of it's nonsense, the F1 from what some posters say doesn't appear to be nonsense and it appears to boost the economy. Albertans are subsidizing Quebec politicians (their salary) to pass legislation promoting racism and bigotry (Bill 101 and reasonable accomodation), you are in no position to be poo pooing an F1 race.