Though they have said they may not be able to run the British GP, the owners of Silverstone are optimistic about the future.
Despite running the F1 race at a loss, other events Silverstone are set to host have boosted the tracks financial situation, making the sale of the track – which has not long ago seemed a real possibility – less of a priority.
The Heritage Lottery Fund and local councils and enterprise partnerships have all invested into Silverstone which, BRDC chairman John Grant says, has helped balance the books.
“This is a big step forward, because it should attract half a million new visitors to Silverstone every year,” he told Autosport.
“And that provides a stronger business case for the hotel, which has been on our wish list for years.
“With all these things starting to go our way, our general feeling is more optimistic, so we’re feeling under less pressure to have to do a deal immediately [to sell Silverstone].”
As well as being able to invest in the track facilities, the BRDC can focus on working out an arrangement for the loss-making Grand Prix.
Grant believes there are a number of possibilities that would keep the race at Silverstone, including help from new F1 owner, Liberty Media.
“The impending change of F1 ownership should be helpful medium-term,” he said. “Liberty seems genuinely sympathetic to our point of view.
“We need a rebalancing of the economic equation. We’re exploring lots of ways and talking to a number of parties.”
There have been calls for the government to help keep the British GP at Silverstone. Whilst it’s an unlikely scenario, Grant isn’t ruling out assistance from the public sector.
“There are compelling arguments for public money to be used, but we understand F1 is seen as a rich sport,” he said.
“I don’t think a cash handout would be politically possible, but some other form of public support may be.”
Grant also pointed out that, should the BRDC decide the trigger the break clause, it wouldn’t be the end of the conversation, but rather the start of it.
“If we do exercise it, we don’t’ see that as the end – it would be a basis for further negotiation. We would not see it as irrevocable.”
