It is the week of what is likely to be the last British Grand Prix to be held at Silverstone. Personally I find myself saddened by this prospect but that is an illogical and emotional stance. However I have divined a deliciously logical aberration in the reasoning behind Silverstone's demise which makes me feel much better about my emotional response.

Right now, and as addressed in my most recent rant, the FIA, FOTA and FOM are engaged in an ever escalating war which centres on budget capping the teams. Teams who sign on for this budget cap will be granted significant advantages over teams who do not and thus we are presented with the utterly illogical prospect of cars racing in the same Grands Prix but subject to two different sets of rules.

Well thank you very much FIA. Now I can watch the same processional Grands Prix of the last decade with the added bonus of trying to predict which of the two tiers of entrants might win relative to each other. There will still be no passing but there will be the private thrill of figuring out which team has what budget and who will be the champion of the pinnacle of motorsport relative to their respective spends. I can't wait for the next rule update that might allow me to regard the best left-handed driver in a car painted red.

From my reading of the rhetoric espoused by the proponents of the budget cap, who also happen to be those who make the rules, the budget cap is an essential measure intended to sustain the sport (business?) of Formula One in difficult economic times. In short, I gather that the FIA are eager to limit the spending of the teams for their own good. After all, there is a global economic downturn and needless spending in any business would be unwise. Such very perfectly laudable thinking in these financially troubled times.

Laudable that is, right up until the part where I contemplate the reasons given for Silverstone losing the British Grand Prix.

Again synopsising, according to those who championed against Silverstone, it comes down to what a shambles Silverstone is. A hasty Google on the subject confirms as much.

Since the race track itself must comply with FIA standards to host a Grand Prix and has done so for many years, I doubt that the surface upon which the event takes place has suddenly fallen into unacceptable disrepair. Indeed given the comments of drivers over the years, one could be forgiven for thinking it's quite a favourite among the competitors. This necessarily leads me to suspect that it is the off-track aspects of Silverstone that have incurred the ire of those empowered to choose where Grands Prix are held. Presumably this must be things like corporate facilities. It could not, of course, be grandstands and general admission viewing areas as these are much the same the world over.

Hang on a minute, it suddenly becomes clear to me that Silverstone was accused, tried and found guilty of not spending enough money! Let me say it again, Silverstone has not spent enough money!!!

F1 is presently in a state of open war, with threats of non-entry and a breakaway series being formed because the FIA are committed to limiting the spending of the teams. At the same time, I am about to regard the last British Grand Prix at Silverstone because the circuit's masters have not spent enough money.