good news and at the risk of going into negative mode - shows that it was ill conceived and not thought through very well to begin with.
No one is against the idea of charging a fee co mmensurate with the organisation and other bits and pieces that goes with it - preferably by telling customers their intentions to gauge the reaction and then act accordingly. But it sems that the organisers sat down and discussed it and came up with a figure based on TV coverage etc and then made a righ hash of marketing and communicating. Either that or they plucked the number out of thin air.
So one has to assume there is some form of cost model with a break even which also factors in the number of drivers whop don't bother turning up for the latter rounds even though they've paid. So a model that spreads the cost over the 7 round season taking into account the variables. Or am I being too generous?
whatever the formula, the fact that costs have been reduced due to "pressure" is a good thing but from a neutral perspective - a pity it took the lobbying to get there! A lesson maybe for some pro-active discussion ahead of the next "bright" idea!
|
|