Here's a bombshell for you...

[Mattberg]

Yet we are just finding out about it now? Maybe not a "secret" meeting but certainly one in which the details were not released voluntarily. What would you call it instead? This has been an ongoing practice by officials. Can't be fought on issues if no one knows about them. Then we hear the excuse, "The meeting was open".... Well that's convenient. Drivers just don't go. What about the closed session coming up in which this will be discussed? Drivers are not invited. Perhaps secret meeting is not the right term but I'm not sure what else this practice should be called. The fact remains that it did happen, we were not informed and information was not made readily available. Bottom line, and no offense, but that's a weak response to the question I asked and only relates to the current issue. You used the word "always". So I'll ask again, what other issues? As I recall every issue I've addressed has ended up being exactly as I presented it.

There were other things about this meeting that I have been told about that lead me to believe things were not handeled properly or fairly, but will not go into detail until further confirmation. Suffice to say, not alerting drivers when there are so many avenues available to so so, from the region websites to the division, is to me a lie by ommission. If they can take the time to publish news about the worker of the year they can certainly give a brief summary of the meetings. There is no excuse to do otherwise other than a need to contain potential recourse.

As it relates to John, we spoke for a long time. He's worried about workers. I don't think the solution to that problem is down sizing. Improving the product, fixing some problems and expansion is the answer. We are shrinking and facing more and more competition every day. NASA just pulled what I see as the coup of the century in taking not only our MO Runoffs date but as I understand it, a number of other abandoned dates. We need more dynamic thinking management, a more efficient and pragmatic worker/steward system and more than anything, less chiefs and more indians. As I've asked before, why do we need 27 stewards for a race with 110 cars? It's totally out of control. Now if we allow one region and track to get control of the whole division I think we run a sever risk of perpetuating the current modus operandi and that just sinks up deeper and deeper into the muck to the point it will be a matter of time before eliminating more races.

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 21 2005, 03:34 AM
Matt,

THIS IS ONE.
No closed door meeting, no secret handshake. Just an issue to deal with that may make sense from 10,000 feet but not to the local guy. The issue has been tabled to gather more info and maybe even some member input. Holy crap - maybe the right thing is happening!

Maybe a different approach may net you some more support. Get it?

Damn, I thought I was done. Done, done, done.

AB

[snapback]66106[/snapback]

P.S. The first two officials that came on here denied any of it even happened the way I described it and the altered the details. How do you explain that? They said it wasn't tabled and now it is? Right or wrong thing happening, I'm the only one whose information doesn't change by the hour. Even Barry's tone has changed if you read his post. Now it's looking like everything happened EXACTLY how I described it and the approach is different by the hour. Now it's strictly about workers. I just love when they drag workers into the issue. Why don't we just blame Katrina? 11 races at Roebling...that's the bottom line.

[Capt.John]

Matt. ...Not that it is of any earth shattering significance, but try as I might I can't recall when there were 27 Stewards and only 110 cars at an event. Was it a National or Regional and at what track? I will admit that the memory may not be what it used to be ( I'm even begning to have trouble with Jeopardy) perhaps you can fill me in as to when this occured. I agree it appears to be excessive coverage.


Capt John

[SilverHorseRacing]

Secret or overlooked, or just not deemed to important, I'm glad this surfaced.

My .02

Let capitalism do it's best, and let the chips fall where they may. If CFR or FL can attract the racers, supply the workers, and have the tracks, then they should get the lion's share of the races. I'm not saying I wouldn't want to travel all over the division to race, but the reality of cost containment is that I currently run Daytona (1.25 hours), Sebring (2.0 hours), Moroso (1.5 hours), and Savannah(5.0 hours) for the double points race and the SIC. Would I like to go to Barber or VIR or RA? Sure. But since I can't justify the time off work and the money to run what I can run down here, why would I make the trip?

Now changing the rules to force drivers in one area to go race in another smacks of making a mess of things. If I have to tow 12 hours to have a shot at getting points for the SARRC series or another series I wish to run in, then guess what? Odds are I'm not making that race, especially if I have a better commercial option (read closer track with more competition and support) in my own backyard. Saying that the champion of the division needs to run all the tracks is a joke. This isn't NASCAR, and I don't have someone towing my rig for me while I make appearances. That said, if someone up north gets a lot of points, and someone down south does the same, let them meet at the SIC and duke it out, with the best man (or woman) taking home the prize for the season.

Now if CFR were to run bad races, maybe I'd be inclined to go spend my money elsewhere. But they don't, and short of Hurricanes, they don't cancel too many races (ie RA Labor Day...), so I can count on the schedule and plan accordingly. Basically, they provide good bang-for-the-buck racing, and therefore have my business, as well as that of many others. Regions or tracks looking to attract more money? Understand how CFR does business, copy it, and succeed. Or, run a poor schedule, drag your feet, waste time, cancel events, etc... and reap the benefits of that type of behavior.

I now return you to the in-progress sling-fest. This has been one of the more enjoyable reads here in a while, much better than most of the rules fights that could be scripted by a six-year-old.

[Butch Kummer]

It came to my attention last night that my name has appeared on this site. I'll attempt to be brief, but I'd like to state what I think is happening:

Late last week, either Thursday or Friday (11/17 or 18), I got a phone call from a person who identified himself as "Matt Weinberg". He acted as if I should know who he is (I don't) and we talked for probably half an hour about this and other topics. I notice that my name first appears on this post about 10:30 AM on 11/18, so based on the timing of the post(s) and the similarity of the names, I'll assume "mattberg" is the person I talked to on the phone.

The best thing to come from this discussion is that I now know why Toni Creighton (whom I admire and respect) was upset with me during lunch at the Mid-year Meeting that I would "let this happen". From what she's posted here, apparently she (and perhaps others) heard the following:

"We need to have meeting to discuss how to cut back on the number of races each SEDIV region can hold."

That is NOT what I heard, nor apparently what Barry Hair or (Capt.) Bob Anderson heard (and no, we were not all in the men&#39;s room together <g>). What I heard (paraphrased) was:

"We&#39;ve got some serious problems with the SEDIV racing calendar. New regions wanting to build racing programs are having extreme difficulty finding dates, the proliferation of events is causing worker & official burnout for some regions and we may soon have to cancel events because we cannot staff them adequately. We do not have time to solve these problems today and the schedule is jammed on Saturday and Sunday at Jekyll, so let&#39;s have a meeting Friday evening that is dedicated to discussing these issues further with the hope of at least starting down the path of finding a solution acceptable to all."

One suggestion thrown out for consideration (it was not even a proposal, much less a motion) was to limit each region to one National, one single SARRC, one double SARRC and a drivers&#39; school. Another suggestion was to clear the calendar completely and have each region sequentially "draft" each weekend in turn until all regions and/or weekends were full. Yet another thought is to remove the mileage limits for conflicting events on concurrent or consecutive weekends and let the marketplace decide. NONE of these suggestions were made into a motion and I suspect that NONE of these suggestions, if made into a motion, would have a chance in hell of passing at this time!

The Friday night meeting a Jekyll will NOT be an REs meeting only, if for no other reason than some regions have Competition Directors (like myself) that would be directly affected by any actions taken. As far any agenda, the biggest benefit is getting the regions to engage in open conversation about the issues faced by each of us. This is not a Florida issue, it&#39;s not an Atlanta Region issue, it&#39;s not really an Area 12 issue, it&#39;s a SEDIV issue that involves all of us.

What I suspect will come out of this meeting (assuming there are survivors) is a proposal of scheduling guidelines for (no sooner than) the 2007 season and beyond, which would include clearly defined procedures for (new) regions wanting to find a spot on the calendar. I would also support requiring that said proposal not be voted upon until the 2006 Mid-Year Meeting, which would give all regions (and drivers) adequate time to consider specific guidelines and provide input. Finally, I don&#39;t see any changes in the scheduling of events in the state of Florida - every area of the division (and the country) has problems, but staffing and supporting races doesn&#39;t seem to be high on the Sunshine State&#39;s list.

No black helicopters, no clandestine meetings, no covert ops - just some people who care about (SCCA) racing trying to find a common ground in an effort to make it better for all of us. If/when a "real" proposal is floated with specific points, all the membership will have adequate time to comment.

I also feel a need to respond to some of Mr. Whineberg&#39;s other points, then I&#39;ll close:

Perhaps the Atlanta Region lost the Labor Day weekend at Road Atlanta because we have no business talent. You are entitled to your opinion. When the AMA moved their Big Kahuna event to Barber the year after Road Atlanta spent $40K installing the Turn 3 chicane, track management went back to the AMA and asked what could be done to help them amortize that investment. The AMA reportedly said the only weekend they&#39;d consider running Road Atlanta was Labor Day. Since that weekend rivals the Petite for attendance, the track (reluctantly) made a business decision to move us off our traditional date. Even in the heyday of the Runoffs, SCCA hasn&#39;t packed spectators into the track like the AMA weekend does - dollars and cents decison. If the France kingdom suddenly decides to host a wheelbarrow race the first weekend in August at Daytona, I&#39;ll guarantee you CFR gets bounced off one of the biggest (and most fun) weekends they have.

As far as no region owning a track, I also disagree. Part of the reason we have so many events at Roebling is because of location, but another big factor is that we (through Buccaneer Region) have control of the scheduling. And because it&#39;s a "non-spectator" track, there are no big Pro events coming in to wipe out traditional weekends. One of the things I want to do as Asst. RE of Atlanta Region is investigate the feasibility of us building a racetrack. Maybe I&#39;m tilting at windmills and maybe we&#39;ll find that the obstacles are insurmountable, but SFR did it at Thunderhill and I need to be convinced we can&#39;t.

Finally, your comment about Sandy Pence being Mrs. Fletcher Williams is technically accurate but philosophically incorrect. Having worked (and yes argued) with both of them for a number of years, I find that a more accurate statement is that Fletcher Williams is Mr. Sandy Pence !

I&#39;m finished now...

Butch Kummer
2006 Asst RE, Atlanta Region
National Competition license #76908
SCCA member since 1980

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Capt.John@Nov 21 2005, 06:29 PM
Matt. ...Not that it is of any earth shattering significance, but try as I might I can&#39;t recall when there were 27 Stewards and only 110 cars at an event. Was it a National or Regional and at what track?

[snapback]66165[/snapback]

Entry forms aren&#39;t archived so exact dates and examples aren&#39;t easy to document. Although not for a 110 car race the following is the standard example of officials:

Chief Steward................................Bob Shafer
Registrar.......................................Gi nny Amato
Asst. Chief Steward........................George DeLong
Safety Scrutineer............................Bill Eveland, Sr
Asst. Chief Steward.........................Leland Miller
Timing & Scoring.............................Lee Shafer
Asst. Chief Steward.........................K P Jones
Flagging & Communications.............Rich Kasson
Asst. Chief Steward.........................Fritz Baker
Grid Marshal...........................Sammi Marlis-Ronshausen
Asst. Chief Steward .......................Bob Henderson
Pit Marshal.................................Jennifer Schwartzott
Asst. Chief Steward – Tech..............Grumpy Esau
Starter........................................Lar ry Kurkowski
Asst. Chief Steward – Safety...........Bob Hayward
Sound Control................................Berta Sager
Asst. Safery Steward ...................Shelley Dobkin
Course Marshal.............................Bob Anthony
Chairman S.O.M............................Bob Windisch
Paddock Marshal...........................John Vogt
Steward of the Meet....................Richard Jemison
Medical Director............................Dave Langston
Steward of the Meet.........................Sandy Jung
Pace Car........................................Jack Ragaglia
Steward of the Meet........................Pete Magnuson
Regional Executive........................Rick Balderson
Race Chairman..............................Robin Langlotz
Event Coordinator..........................Charlenne Gunn

That&#39;s 28. It doesn&#39;t differ much from race to race. That&#39;s a lot of chiefs...and assistant chiefs in a time when we hear how tough it is to get indians.

Back on topic, Marcello hits the nail on the head. Almost all sports are broken down to regional activity. Football has its divisions, colleges have their conferences, and racing has its regions. The simple economics of travel dictate where one competes. What&#39;s wrong with having conferences within the division and letting people run as many races as they can within their conference? All this proposal does is reduce the available races one can attend by incurring more expense.

[Mattberg]

Butch,

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve said anything other than what you have described other than to speculate on certain business agendas behind such a proposal. I stated this was discussed, not put to vote, and that it was tabled for further discussion at Jeckyll.

That said I&#39;ll go back to topic and ask why do new regions need races if they don&#39;t have a track? For that matter, why do we need so many regions that have the same home track or tracks? What this does, if you redistribute the races, is award one or two tracks, in this case Roebling, as many as 13 races? That&#39;s not even distribution. What we should be looking at is re-arranging regions not races. Outside of FL the entire division has only six tracks and 17 regions! WHY? So, take a compass and from each one of those tracks draw six equal circles of whatever size it takes to include the entire division area. There&#39;s your regions.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 22 2005, 08:34 AM
Butch,

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve said anything other than what you have described other than to speculate on certain business agendas behind such a proposal. I stated this was discussed, not put to vote, and that it was tabled for further discussion at Jeckyll.

That said I&#39;ll go back to topic and ask why do new regions need races if they don&#39;t have a track? For that matter, why do we need so many regions that have the same home track or tracks? What this does, if you redistribute the races, is award one or two tracks, in this case Roebling, as many as 13 races? That&#39;s not even distribution. What we should be looking at is re-arranging regions not races. Outside of FL the entire division has only six tracks and 17 regions! WHY? So, take a compass and from each one of those tracks draw six equal circles of whatever size it takes to include the entire division area. There&#39;s your regions.

[snapback]66294[/snapback]

To Have a choice. That&#39;s why you need different regions. Sometimes the managment doesn&#39;t want to listen to it&#39;s customer. Having an alternative offers a choice of who I want to race with. While I don&#39;t agree with forcing drivers to do anything like what&#39;s been discribed somewhere is this thread, I am all for offering choice on where and how our driver members choose to spend their money.

[tom_sprecher]

I was going to call you, Butch, but since you have replied to this topic I want to thank you for bringing clarity. This it the type and form of information needed so we can avoid the argumentative speculation that I have refused to participate in on this tread. Having read the responses from Toni, Barry and you, I would like to add my thoughts based on issues discussed in the meetings I have attended and with other members.

The race schedule is a multi faceted subject with many points that are inter-dependant. Let me list them.

1. Low worker turn out.
2. Loss of track dates due to business decisions.
3. Loss of a track due to personal reasons.
4. Track dates on holidays.
5. Non-race regions wanting a race.
6. Racing regions wanting double races.

Low worker turn out: This has been an ongoing problem all over the county. I&#39;m not saying that some areas are not blessed with excess workers but in general the ranks are thinning. Two races were cancelled this season because of it. This was partly due to the holiday weekend and a competing race date but the fact remains we need more workers. I wish I had an answer other than more incentive than a T-shirt but that&#39;s another topic for another meeting.

Loss of tracks due to business decisions: As with everything in the capitalist society we live in the almighty dollar rules. I can&#39;t blame a track for trying to make more money and us losing a date. Can we get another date in return? I don&#39;t know but I have not heard anything. Maybe some fine tuned negotiations are needed here. If that&#39;s the case let me know I&#39;ll do whatever I can.

Loss of a track due to personal reasons: What are you going to do? Without logic and reasoning any situation or discussion is made that much more difficult. Most people know that&#39;s why you don&#39;t argue with children (or trolls).

Track dates on holidays: Convenient for tracks trying to fill dates they know would be difficult if it wasn&#39;t for low profit (to the track) racing organizations, convenient for the regions because the dates are available and convenient for racers who need the time off. Maybe not so convenient for workers who want to see family or take some time off to relax and thereby adding to the worker shortage.

Non-race regions wanting a race and racing regions wanting double races: A.k.a - the meat and potatoes of this thread. Besides all the fun a region has hosting a race it also brings much needed income. This allows the region to provide a more enjoyable and beneficial racing experience for their members and members of visiting regions. I can understand why non racing regions want to put on a race and can see a race schedule change in the future to accommodate that request. It may be possible to pull it off without to much of an impact to the schedule, the racers and the Mattbergs of the world. What would change is which region is hosting an event on the same date and at the same track that previously was hosted by a racing region. Also, it would definitely redirect where the proceeds are deposited.

What amazes me is the people that will rant, rave, bitch, piss and moan on these forums that do nothing to volunteer to help the regions they belong to. If you want to change something get involved. You’re wasting time and getting nothing accomplished by typing away at the base-less drivel and twaddle you post here.

There you have it, my opinion on the subject. It’s more like $1.02 so you own me a dollar. You can pay me at Jekyll in January.

[Mattberg]

No one is keeping non-racing regions from hosting events except for those who discussed establishing an "elite eight" concept. As I understand it, that&#39;s part of the discussion. I&#39;m all for any region that wants to put on a race to do so. Now, if they can&#39;t get a track, entrants or workers, that&#39;s their problem. Limiting what Florida offers in order to make a Chatanooga region race at Roebling more attractive is just wrong. What they are looking for is a financial guarantee of a successful race weekend with little or no risk. That&#39;s not how it works.

We have far too many regions and they all look at hosting events as a significant revenue source but if they don&#39;t have the werewithawl to undertake such, they shouldn&#39;t attempt it. We have four regions all nestled within a small area fighting for that revenue and now we want to add more? We&#39;re defying supply and demand laws. Furthermore, most of them don&#39;t have much choice as far as track. There&#39;s Roebling and then there&#39;s.... uh... Roebling.

This weekend CFR will probably break a bunch of records at Sebring. I have always been impressed by CFR and the races they host and the racetracks at which they race. They are quality events and well attended. I don&#39;t know for sure what the worker situation is but I&#39;ve rarely heard of any significant problems to the extent I hear coming from the four regions north of us.

If these other regions want races, figure out how CFR does so well and copy them. I think a good start would be to combine some of the 16 other regions and create some strength both in numbers and money. Forcing Florida drivers out of Florida or limiting our dates at OUR tracks will not work. I guaran-damn-tee you will see a Florida division if that ever happened. Anyone remember 1991?

[Capt.John]

Matt..... I count 13 Stewards from the list that you posted. I grant you that this may be a question of semantics but all the others are Chiefs of Specialty and required by the GCR. The listing of the RE and the Pace Car driver are not required just a nice touch to let the folks know who is doing what. From the list of names I would immagine that this was a CFR race possibly at Sebring of fairly recent vintage. You are correct saying that we need more feather wearing Indians; any idea from what tribe or reservation they might be recruited.

Capt. John

[tom_sprecher]

I don&#39;t believe the topic was brought up at the mid-year meeting to move race dates from one track to another but to move racing revenue from one region to another. We can keep the same schedule and still acheive the latter point. Each of the so called "elite eight" gives up hosting a race on an existing date and track on the calander to a non-racing region. I believe that would satistfy everyone except the treasurers of the eight regions that have just taken a pay cut.

The only item I agree with Matt Weinberg on is that, like the the number of counties in Georgia, there are too many regions in the SEDiv. Why divide the limited resources we have available into more regions each with the same fixed expenses. It is a total waste of valuable income. Combining regions should be done before redistributing race dates.

And Matt, you just talked to your RE on the phone about this topic according to his last post. If the worker shortage problem did not play into the conversation maybe your scope was a bit limited. Hopefully, you have learned that before stirring up a bunch of $hit it is best to be actively involved in finding solutions instead of compounding the problem.

[Mattberg]

Tom, no one should be thinking about redistributing income let alone do it by moving good races off one schedule to a region and location unable to do it now. It reduces the value and quality of the product. If a new racing region could host a race better than a Daytona SARRC weekend give it a go! If it&#39;s a success you might even get some of the Florida racers the next year. But replacing that Daytona race with a Roebling race just because some region wants some money is absurd.

And I am not convinced that the worker problem is as severe in Florida. John voiced concerns but I don&#39;t think we&#39;re at a point of cancelling races as we are seeing in a lot of other regions. The worker problem is also tied to other issues, aging demographics, spectator appeal of current car classes and races, no new blood, etc..., it&#39;s a whole new thread! Suffice to say, limiting races and /or redistributing market share is not the way to fix it.

As far as finding a solution, there isn&#39;t one needed regarding new race regions. Host races all you want. Florida is just fine right now but if this proposal ever sees the light of day the division will be looking for lots of solutions on how not to lose Florida. The worker problem? Like I said. It&#39;s a whole different discussion and I think it&#39;s only being used as an opportunistic chit in this debate. But if you want a solution from me, you start by combining some of these regions. They say they can&#39;t compete? Don&#39;t. Can&#39;t beatem&#39;, join em&#39;. The biggest problem you&#39;ll face there is that a bunch of folks are going to lose their "power hats" and some of those regional officials really like wearing them!

[its66]

quote "I don&#39;t believe the topic was brought up at the mid-year meeting to move race dates from one track to another but to move racing revenue from one region to another. We can keep the same schedule and still acheive the latter point. Each of the so called "elite eight" gives up hosting a race on an existing date and track on the calander to a non-racing region."

WOW, why would a region feel that they should be able to host a race at a track within another region? Socialism?? Doesn&#39;t it make sense that the folks who have a relationship with the track are the ones putting on the event. I know what the hurdles of dealing with a certain track in Daytona are now. Can you imagine if Chattanooga came down to run a race there???

IF the idea was to distribute the SARRC races to a few new tracks, I might understand that. How many of the workers would be from the host region, and how many from the track&#39;s region? Not stewards, but F & C, Pit, etc. I"m sure the majority would be from the track. A region is a territory. The races held within that territory should be held by the region of that territory.

Will we be asked to bottle up our sushine and distribute it a little more evenly also?? :P

[Mattberg]

Jim,

I think the designs behind this proposal are becoming pretty clear and you hit the nail on the head. Like most SCCA issues, it&#39;s about money, power and feifdoms overriding logic and good sense. I don&#39;t think the proposal stands a chance in hell of getting anywhere but I worry about a vote and the fact that 10 of the 18 regions DON&#39;T get any of this revenue now.

Stop by for a beer this weekend! Over 400 entries as of this morning and still coming in!

GO FLORIDA!

[apexingsupra]

Butch Kummer, thank you very much for your cogent and factual response. Mattberg, I will say this again and neither, Butch or John will disagree with this. There was never any mention or discussion whatsoever of "Elite Eight" regions trying to ban or prevent the other non-racing regions from club racing. You say that and in the same breath talk about Chattanooga wanting to become a racing region when they are not currently one.

You also assume that Chattanooga is possibly thinking about racing at Roebling when that has never been part of any discussion or thought process with them. It would be somewhere else.

Not every region in SEDIV wants to go club racing. I only know of two who have expressed a desire to explore that idea. It is not that suddenly races are going to get distributed to all of the regions in SEDIV. No one is even thinking that.

We as a division are trying to find solutions to our problems hopefully before they become bigger problems. My region has had extreme difficulty in the last two years in scheduling a SARRC race. Every potential date we have had was occupied by a "traditional dated" (SARRC rule) event. It has taken a lot of negotiation to get even one date on the calendar and both times it has involved Florida (thank you Capt. John). Florida gave up a race weekend and did not replace it. If the Alabama region wants to put on a another SARRC race (possibly with Chattanooga) for a grand total of two races we will run into the same problem. The calendar is already full. Either the rules need to be changed and or someone with a large number of races needs to consider giving up a date. I would like to think the larger racing regions do not have a "tough luck" we have the dates attitude and I don&#39;t see that as such. It is about dialogue and the need to explore whether the different regions can accomplish their goals with a little "give and take".

Again this is not a "free enterprise", "free competiton" set up with club racing in SEDIV. It is a controlled "business&#39;. If it was not then a region could put on a triple SARRC any weekend it wanted. But you can&#39;t. Just like putting on just a regional race does not have much of a draw to entrants based on the SARRC series format being a points series.

As to the comment about Chattanooga going racing at Daytona (as a "what if"), that could only happen if CFR agreed to let it happen. There is a home region control of the home track rule in which the outside region wanting to race has to get permission.

Barry H.
Ala. RE

[tom_sprecher]

Don&#39;t get me wrong. I do not want to see anything like what was discussed to ever go farther than it has so far. You&#39;re damn right it&#39;s socialism, pure and simple, and an ideology I despise. Unfortunately, the society we live in makes us take care of everyone. Granted their not asking you to bottle sunshine to spread around but don’t complain if they do. I have no choice in where the over 15% of my income that is taken from me in the form of social security is spent, and I’m sure as hell of a lot of it is spent in Florida.

As far as out of area regions hosting races it has already happened. When Barber became unavailable Al region went to Roebling. When AMS could not be adequately staffed per the GCR the race went to Sebring. The first case was because there are no new tracks or new dates available. The second was due to an insufficient number of workers. We on the SARRC committee are just trying to make a schedule that allows for races to be profitable for the regions holding them. Other regions want in on the action as well.

Of course it’s about money. I notice you boys prefer not to race down there in July and August. Could it be that it’s so damn hot no one would come and the hosting region could lose money. I don’t know for sure so I won’t speculate. That includes the idea of power and fiefdoms as well.

What we want to avoid is a situation where you guys are having a race at Sebring and a non-race region decides to have a race the same weekend or maybe the next one at say, Moroso. Do you have enough racers and workers to do both races and still be profitable for both regions? If the regions in Florida decided to split from the SEDiv that’s exactly what could happen. As a division and with SARRC there are rules in place now to prevent this but you can see how that could happen.

I would like to see a motion put forward to discuss the possibility of reducing the number of regions in the SEDiv. That would be the first step in solving this problem and the topic of another thread.

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by apexingsupra@Nov 22 2005, 10:57 PM
Mattberg, I will say this again and neither, Butch or John will disagree with this. There was never any mention or discussion whatsoever of "Elite Eight" regions trying to ban or prevent the other non-racing regions from club racing. You say that and in the same breath talk about Chattanooga wanting to become a racing region when they are not currently one.

You also assume that Chattanooga is possibly thinking about racing at Roebling when that has never been part of any discussion or thought process with them. It would be somewhere else.

[snapback]66371[/snapback]

Whoooa ther Bama! First, there&#39;s a discrepancy about what was discussed by people who attended the meeting so let&#39;s be careful using the word "never". Second, I only used the Chatanooga region example in response to the basis for the proposal provided by you guys of opening things up to new racing regions. Let&#39;s not take things out of context to try and discredit me and deflect the issue.

Not every region in SEDIV wants to go club racing. I only know of two who have expressed a desire to explore that idea. It is not that suddenly races are going to get distributed to all of the regions in SEDIV. No one is even thinking that.

Well now, that sort of shoots down the whole new racing regions concept doesn&#39;t it?Why would we need to open hosting up to new race regions if only two are even remotely interested? This is the kind of conflicting data that makes me question the true basis for the proposal. Is it new racing regions? Is it a share of the money? Is it not wanting to be a non-racing region? Money? What is it?

We as a division are trying to find solutions to our problems hopefully before they become bigger problems. My region has had extreme difficulty in the last two years in scheduling a SARRC race. Every potential date we have had was occupied by a "traditional dated" (SARRC rule) event. It has taken a lot of negotiation to get even one date on the calendar and both times it has involved Florida (thank you Capt. John). Florida gave up a race weekend and did not replace it. If the Alabama region wants to put on a another SARRC race (possibly with Chattanooga) for a grand total of two races we will run into the same problem. The calendar is already full. Either the rules need to be changed and or someone with a large number of races needs to consider giving up a date. I would like to think the larger racing regions do not have a "tough luck" we have the dates attitude and I don&#39;t see that as such. It is about dialogue and the need to explore whether the different regions can accomplish their goals with a little "give and take".

What are the problems? You have no track? Lack of drivers? Lack of workers? As I understand it we replaced at least one event because you guys couldn&#39;t pull it off. Don&#39;t tell me you could find no dates when we had to pick one up to cover SARRC. So what happens? You all come down and try and poach events from Florida or any other region that has managed to get the job done with exclusivity? Restablish Birmingham-Atlanta as the center of the SEDIV universe? You should fold into another region that does have a track. Be absorbed if you can&#39;t compete. That&#39;s the way it works. Combine Atlanta and Alabama and combine SC and Buccaneer. There&#39;s a solution. Good luck getting that done though. You&#39;ll really learn about SCCA territorial politics!

Again this is not a "free enterprise", "free competiton" set up with club racing in SEDIV. It is a controlled "business&#39;. If it was not then a region could put on a triple SARRC any weekend it wanted. But you can&#39;t. Just like putting on just a regional race does not have much of a draw to entrants based on the SARRC series format being a points series.

This simply doesn&#39;t fly and is just wrong. It is free enterprise. Without it the product suffers. Forcing races and eliminating competition only makes for mediocre product. Give the customer no choice and ultimately the product deteriorates. That&#39;s what HAS happened as Florida is putting together better race weekends and accumulating better market share.

As to the comment about Chattanooga going racing at Daytona (as a "what if"), that could only happen if CFR agreed to let it happen. There is a home region control of the home track rule in which the outside region wanting to race has to get permission.

Never happen. But here&#39;s an idea. Co-sponsor races. Call it a strategic alliance. Offer CFR a deal where your region gets a certain amount of money for every driver you bring to the race from your own region. Go out and market to your membership and get them to go. Not a whole lot of revenue but not much cost either. That is the idea right? To provide for the members of your region? Or is it the money?

[tom_sprecher]

Come on, Weinberg, read and think before you write. Barry has some good points and you missed what he wrote.

From what I&#39;ve read no one but you suggested that there is an effort to prevent non-racing regions from racing.

Just because every region does not want to race does not shoot down the new racing regions concept.

Your quote of Barry&#39;s post lists the problems he has had getting a race.

Your quote of Barry&#39;s post about Chattanooga racing at Daytona: He did write "(as a "what if")". Or did you not see that as well?

Chill, dude, this one has payed out. I hope to see you at the meeting at Jekyll in January and make your concerns heard by the decision makers.

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Toni@Nov 20 2005, 02:17 AM
I was in the meeting. I heard the proposal made by members of the Buccaneer Region. It was supported by members of the Alabama Region and others. The Director of Area 12 tabled the discussion and set a time of Friday night of the Jekyll meeting weekend in January to come to a determination about the proposal. The gathering is limited to the REs and the two Directors of SEDiv.

The proposal was to limit the number of races that a region could put on to:
1 National
2 regionals
1 driver’s school
Limit the number of regions that can put on a race to those regions who currently have a date on the SEDiv schedule.Toni Creighton

[snapback]66028[/snapback]