Insurance

[lateapex911]

All they have to do is move it back to the third week in September. The mean temperature difference is something like 14 degrees. Unfortunately it would butt up against the SOLO Nationals and when push comes to shove the road racers always lose. ................ Don't go and tell road racers to go to Topeka in Mid-October to save on staff T&E and then use those savings to fund new T&E for the convention........... That's what this is all about. It's about shifting cash from road racing to non-racing departments. [/b]

Tooo funny!

Yup, the club is ALL about Solo! They couldn't give two shillings about road racing. Heck, when they decide to have Pro Solo go to a Playoff format, I bet they cancel the Runoffs altogether! Wait...didn't they kinda cancel Pro Solo for next year? Oh...well whatever, I'm sure they'll find anothe reason to move or cancel the Runoffs. Riiiiight!

And they moved the event from Mid Ohio to Topeka (your "Screw the roadracers" plan) so that they could move the convention to balmy whereever , thereby stealing the funds needed to send the staff to Ohio in exchange for sending the staff.....someplece...wait for it....balmy!

Really, I don't know how it took us all soooooo long to see this!

You've really exposed it this time!!!!!!!!

(The theory would work better, (but not all that well, actually) if the other reasons and costs associated with moving the event were discussed...but hey, then facts would get in the way, and we all know it's about anything but real facts...)

[jjjanos]

All they have to do is move it back to the third week in September. The mean temperature difference is something like 14 degrees. Unfortunately it would butt up against the SOLO Nationals and when push comes to shove the road racers always lose. [/b]

I suggest that you tear down the cross you bare and use the wood to build a bridge to get over it.

This was done in the past and the SOLO Nationals moved their date. There is no reason other than a supernatural desire on the part of the officials of the club to piss you off that prevents such a move in the future.

This is what I object to as well as an indoor event for officials being given more attention than the biggest event for the club, our BoD serves non-racers without justification.[/b]

1. I have asked before and I am asking again - DEFINE YOUR MEANING OF OFFICIALS.
2. Given that policy and training is conducted at the National Convention, I would say that the Convention is for racers.
3. Given that many, if not most, of the "OFFICIALS" attending the National Convention endured the full force of nature at the Runoffs, and unlike you, did not have the luxury or the opportunity to slink away into a heated motorhome, why is this such a big deal to you?
4. There are more purposes to the SCCA than the Runoffs.

That was never the intent of the club. Worse than that, they contradict themselves in such an obvious manner by incurring new costs for the convention that were an excuse for moving the Runoffs! I'm looking for the equity there. If you're going to make an effort to cut costs for T&E, do it across the board. Don't go and tell road racers to go to Topeka in Mid-October to save on staff T&E and then use those savings to fund new T&E for the convention. That's what this is all about. It's about shifting cash from road racing to non-racing departments.[/b]

1. So if the Runoffs had been kept on the non-traditional date, your stigmata would not be acting up?

2. T&E for the Runoffs exceeds T&E for the convention - 7+ days for the Runoffs versus 4+ days for the Convention. Given that this is a cost savings to the SCCA, I note the distinct aroma of hypocrisy in the air.

3. Please establish that the current allocation of resources to the various activities of the SCCA is proportional to the interests of its members. Shifting resources from road racing to other departments is only "unequitable" if road racing is utilizing a smaller share of the resources than membership-interests would indicate. Please remember that the areas that generate those resources is irrelevant, so don't rely on a spurious Road-racing earns the most money argument.

[gprodracer]

Why do you all make me ask all the stupid questions?

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant? It brings us back to the original question as to whether Solo is paying for their share of insurance, or are we, the club racers paying for them under our policy. If club racing is paying the whole tab, we (as dues paying members) need to know, and the financial statements for each division of the club need to be changed, so that the true gain or loss of each branch is identified. This is imperative (IMO) for the members to know, so we can make an informed decision as to the direction OUR Club is heading.
I'll say this as many times as needed..each division of our club needs to stand or fall on its own. If a division is failing, and we believe it's worth rescuing, then lets put our efforts in to saving it. If one proves to be a continuous money pit, with no hope on the horizon, then we need to cut our losses, and move on.
I know that this is a very simplistic way of putting things, but there are people in official capacities (that none of us voted into office) that are making decisions for us every day, that have not asked us for our opinions, and/or do not care what they are.
WE need some honest answers...we deserve that, at the very least.
Sorry....I'm done ranting for now...just think about it.
Mark

[Joe Harlan]

Thank you Mark for seeing the bigger picture...

[jjjanos]

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant?[/b]

Road racing could be a cash cow and still represent only 10% of the interest of the membership. Revenue is determine, in part, by the elasticity of demand. Club racing is fairly inelastic with respect to price - not many substitutes that offer the same type of racing. Auto cross is fairly elastic with respect to price - it's fairly easy to put cones down in a parking lot.

It brings us back to the original question as to whether Solo is paying for their share of insurance, or are we, the club racers paying for them under our policy.[/b]

I'm unaware of anyone having yet established that the "insurance" "surcharge" on club racers pays the entire cost of the insurance or whether general revenue is allocated. So, before the pitchforks and torches get pulled out in the hunt for the monsters, I'd suggest that someone demonstrate this. be a terrible shame if club racers' entry fees had to increase to cover the cost of insurance that membership fees are paying.

[JoshS]

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant?
[/b]

Honest question here -- I've done no research. Is it truly a FACT that road racing generates much more income than the other club activities? How much more?

EDIT: I found the information, in the 7/06 Fastrack.

It basically says that:
Club Racing: income: $1.76M, expense $1.56M, net income: $232K
Solo: income: $1.1M, expense $852K, net income: $293K

I believe that the argument in this thread is that this would look very different if the insurance costs were accurately split here, but I don't see ANY insurance costs listed for either activity. The biggest difference between the two in terms of expenses is in terms of "Licensing Costs", which are $538K for Club Racing but only $13K for Solo. Of course, the only licenses for Solo are for Pro Solo, and there's really nothing to that, it's not like the medical stuff, etc, that's required for Club Racing. Is this the line that insurance is allegedly rolled up into that makes this all askew?

I'm really just asking for what makes it a "fact" that, as quoted above, "road racing generates more income than the other divisions?"

Not challenging, just trying to understand.

[Joe Harlan]

My guess is that licensing costs are the rulebooks forced with the license purchase. Solo is provided that information online.

If you back out the sponsership dollars for solo net income would be under 10k....Without the tireack nationals Solo is not he cash cow that it appears.

As to the insurance split, The question has been offcially asked and to this date no answer has been provided.

[planet6racing]

Mark got to ask his "stupid" question (his words, not mine), so I'll ask mine:

Why haven't you all elected to use the "Ignore User" function and change all of Mattberg's comments to:

"You have chosen to ignore this user."

?

It really makes for a less stressful reading of the board...

Merry Christmas to all!

[lateapex911]

But the snappy comebacks and retorts make so little sense that way! Besides, his comments get a mere skimming, just for giggles!

[charrbq]

But the snappy comebacks and retorts make so little sense that way! Besides, his comments get a mere skimming, just for giggles!
[/b]

He can be entertaining! Reminds me of a stalk of celery in a food processor left on all night. By the time he's done, it doesn't look like anything he started out with, but he still tells you it's a salad.

[Joe Harlan]

He can be entertaining! Reminds me of a stalk of celery in a food processor left on all night. By the time he's done, it doesn't look like anything he started out with, but he still tells you it's a salad.
[/b]

It really is too bad that the delivery is so bad because there is really something in the message.

[lateapex911]

It really is too bad that the delivery is so bad because there is really something in the message. [/b]

Yup, and according to matt they CHOSE to race in the cold..which they KNEW was coming, and will do it again next year, in SPITE of the 40 mph winds and sub freezing temperatures, all so they can free up funds to send staffers to balmy places.

There is, I am sure, some truth to Matts rantings from time to time, but honestly, he's rather off base more than he's on, and he's more than happy to drag anyone thru the internet mud at a moments notice, without actual justification.

On balance, what he says that might actually have merit is ignored, just like the boy who cried wolf.....except the boy wasn't nearly as pompous and spiteful.

[Joe Harlan]

Yup, and according to matt they CHOSE to race in the cold..which they KNEW was coming, and will do it again next year, in SPITE of the 40 mph winds and sub freezing temperatures, all so they can free up funds to send staffers to balmy places.

There is, I am sure, some truth to Matts rantings from time to time, but honestly, he's rather off base more than he's on, and he's more than happy to drag anyone thru the internet mud at a moments notice, without actual justification.

On balance, what he says that might actually have merit is ignored, just like the boy who cried wolf.....except the boy wasn't nearly as pompous and spiteful.
[/b]

Your right jake, and unfortunatley there are those that just hide their heads in the sand and ignore the real issues. Take a look at the financial statement one day and forget Matt said anything about it.

Even the gains being made in IT today are because somebody noticed being treated like a step child was wrong and did something about it. You can ignore Matt's rant's all day long but don't ignore the fact that there are real issues and those issues need people like yourself to be involved in fixing them.

[gprodracer]

Josh,

What you are asking is part of the discussion. That is why we need the true costs for each division. Solo looks good with the numbers you provided, but as we've been trying to determine, if Club Racing is paying for the insurance, then the numbers go the opposite direction for Solo. Again, I have no axe to grind with Solo, or any other division, I just want the true and accurate accounting to be made public. I'm just your average dumb club racer, and I had to laugh at the Financial statement they published. Many others got the same impression...

And I have to agree with Joe.....there are messages in Matts posts...just because the delivery sucks doesn't mean the idea does.

Mark

[JeffYoung]

So it looks like Solo actually generates net revenue for the club? And about the same as club racing?

I understand a lot of that is from sponsorhip but honestly, it doesn't matter where the $$ comes from.

I think those numbers show fairly conclusively that road racers are NOT subsidizing Solo to a extent Matt has suggested.

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, I find it interesting that sponserships....Admin generated 200k

And insurance is a single point assigned to admin

Or 717k in license fees compared to 17k

How about 149k in officers and staff compared to 14k

I am not saying anything is even really wrong (maybe) but proper answers would nice.

The final whopper is 200k in pro losses....
[attachmentid=742]

[gprodracer]

The question isn't whether Solo generates a profit,and quite frankly I'd support Solo even at a loss, as many racers (myself included) come from the Solo ranks. The question still remains...is Club Racing paying for the insurance of the Solo program, and what does the Solo financial statement look like if the cost of the insurance is taken out of the bottom line? We still don't have the answer to that. If it's proven that Solo is paying for it's insurance, then Solo is indeed the "cash cow", then Solo participants need to speak up and voice their opinion as to how they want the club to proceed with their/our business transactions.
As for the sponsorship money, I respectfully disagree that it doesn't matter where the money comes from. The sponsors will have some say as to how their money is spent. Club racing money comes from us, doesn't that mean that we should have some sort of say as to how it is spent also?
Again, this is all my own simplistic take on this matter. Feel free to shoot holes in my opinions, I don't get offended easily. I'm just trying to learn how our non profit club works, while trying to afford to race as often as I can.
We have gone on for 10 pages now....

Mark

[Joe Harlan]

No holes to shoot Mark, The reason I point out sponsership dollars is they have not always been there, RoadRac did not have a major title sponser for the ruoffs this year. The other issue is those numbers are also only National numbers. Most of that profit would be the National runoffs event cause clearly they are making nothing on licensing. I also agree that I would continue with solo even at a minor loss but there is no reason it should not run at a break even at a minimum. I guess the real point is why can't the books better reflect the whole picture so the membership feels confident in its leadership.

[gprodracer]

I'm with you Joe, well put.
That is one of the points I have been trying to make. The majority of us common racers really don't have a clue as to the financial aspect of how our club is being run. A lot simply don't care, or don't know enough to care. and that's cool too. I personally want to keep club racing as affordable as possible for the entry level members, so we can grow, and keep future racers keep the club alive and viable. Simplistic..yes, but I have had the luxury of having a father who is an awesome mechanic, and without him I would never have been able to afford anything beyond autocrossing.
I however, am nowhere close to being a mechanic, and unless we keep costs down to the entry level people, my own sons, who have been coming to the track with me since birth, will not be able to afford to race. That is why I feel so strongly about seeing where our money is going, and having open and accurate accounting of the financials of our club. I'm not a black helicopter guy, I just want to be able to vote people into office that have the same goals for the club that I do...to keep racing affordable so the average guy can go racing, and pass that on to his sons, his sons friends etc. and I don't see that happening with the path the club is currently on.
We need the club to get back to serving its members IMHO.

Off my soapbox, and thank you all who are working for the betterment of the club. Even if I don't always agree with you all, alot of us know how much you all do for us, and appreciate all your efforts.

Mark

[Mattberg]

Just curious here...

What would be your guess of how much our insurance paid out in claims, aside from Fran Am, per year for the past few years? Just a ball park guess guys. I'd like to hear what you think the risk is for the $1.7 million we pay. And yes, I know the answer for 1998-2003, number of claims, payout and legal. So let's hear the guesses. Also, what department do you think made the most claims? I'll give you a hint... it wasn't club racing.