warthog - 14 May 2008 04:16 PM

I actually met Mr George Barber during the races last month. I asked him about the WSBK and when they were going to get a race. His response was clear, they want too much money to let him host an event. He was concerned he would not get enough revenue to offset that sanctioning fee so they were going to relook at it for 2009. We can only hope they can come to an agreement.

That said, does a track lose money if they do a joint AMA/WSB weekend? If that is so what does Miller have gain? By running two tracks and signage is he doubling his money?

hornet1 - 14 May 2008 07:40 PM

warthog - 14 May 2008 04:16 PM

I actually met Mr George Barber during the races last month. I asked him about the WSBK and when they were going to get a race. His response was clear, they want too much money to let him host an event. He was concerned he would not get enough revenue to offset that sanctioning fee so they were going to relook at it for 2009. We can only hope they can come to an agreement.

That said, does a track lose money if they do a joint AMA/WSB weekend? If that is so what does Miller have gain? By running two tracks and signage is he doubling his money?

It all depends on how many fans show up. Some costs for a track would be the same no matter if there is one race event or two so in that regards they would save a little money there. They would have to pay two sanctioning fees and some of their variable costs would go up (Advertising, staffing, etc...) but the promoters would know way before hand how many fans would have to show up and what kind of ticket prices they would have to charge. If these numbers look realistic then they sign the deal, if they don't then they pass and look for their next opportunity.

A track may not make money on every single event they have but in the long run they have to make money for the year otherwise they won't be in business for long.

There are a couple of concept in business that apply to a track just like a lot of other businesses. Capacity and efficency.

Capacity for a track is time (they also have seating capcity), they only have 365 days with 24 hours a day. If they had events booked for all that time they would be at 100% capacity, they couldn't book another event if they wanted to. If they only had 25% of that time booked then they would be under utilizing their capacity.

Efficiency would be the amount of money generated from those time increments as it relates to cost.

The goal of a track owner would be to fill as much time as he can at the highest price he can to run at peak capacity and peak efficiency. If a track is sitting idle it is still costing the owner money so they want to avoid as much idle time as possible.

These concepts are pretty much the same for a lot of other businesses. A factory that only runs two shifts but could run three if they had a need would be an example.

hornet1 - 14 May 2008 07:40 PM

warthog - 14 May 2008 04:16 PM

I actually met Mr George Barber during the races last month. I asked him about the WSBK and when they were going to get a race. His response was clear, they want too much money to let him host an event. He was concerned he would not get enough revenue to offset that sanctioning fee so they were going to relook at it for 2009. We can only hope they can come to an agreement.

That said, does a track lose money if they do a joint AMA/WSB weekend? If that is so what does Miller have gain? By running two tracks and signage is he doubling his money?

Not really, because he (most likely) isn't going to get twice as many fans. Signage for World Superbike goes to the Flammini Group, they may allow them to sell one or two corners.

The biggest problem is the cost of meeting a world championship standard protocol. The requirements for garages, closed circuit TVs, media centers can add an enormous cost. In addition to a multi-million dollar sanction fee. I haven't been to Miller, so I don't know what they had to do to meet the SBK standard, but I don't think they'll be making much (if any) profit on the event.