Here's a bombshell for you...

[Mattberg]

Chris...I see it the same way. I could care less if it were per track. We have four tracks, no loss. But I confirmed it was per region. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. They want to limit races in FL to four and force races in other regions. That's the whole idea behind the proposal.

And BTW, I also was told that Bob Hudson was not at the meeting and posted that information incorrectly, by someone who WAS there.

I also suggest you call Rick Balderson with whom I spoke at length today as well as a number of other REs. As long as we react to this it will never happen. If we sit on our heels they will ram this through.

BTW, has there been a "conspiracy" I've exposed that hasn't been true? I choose them carefully. Runoffs financials? Spec Miata? GT-2 and GT-4? The famous "book"? I do my homework. I'm not looking for credit but don't discredit me for exposing them and getting it fixed. Once fixed or improved doesn't mean it never happened.

[its66]

Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 18 2005, 05:14 AM
Chris...I see it the same way. I could care less if it were per track. We have four tracks, no loss. But I confirmed it was per region. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. They want to limit races in FL to four and force races in other regions. That's the whole idea behind the proposal.

And BTW, I also was told that Bob Hudson was not at the meeting and posted that information incorrectly, by someone who WAS there.

I also suggest you call Rick Balderson with whom I spoke at length today as well as a number of other REs. As long as we react to this it will never happen. If we sit on our heels they will ram this through.

<DELETE>

[snapback]65820[/snapback]

Matt,
Who confirmed this? If your source was at the big "secret" meeting, and didn&#39;t jump on the forum and/or spread the word, then this "source&#39; is part of the problem too(if there is a problem). Wouldn&#39;t anyone on any of the SCCA&#39;s boards have a duty to inform their constituents? Who is this source that says everyone else here is wrong, yet won&#39;t reveal his/her identity??Or, are we to believe that this secret person, from the secret meeting has decided that you will be the messenger?

I&#39;ve also talked to Rick today, and Bill Martin, and several others. Evidently, Rick told you something different than he told me. Mysterious, unidentified informants don&#39;t get much credit from me.

Please bring some facts and proof to the forum on this subject. Just stating that you talked to Rick today doesn&#39;t prove a thing.

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by its66@Nov 18 2005, 06:44 AM
Matt,
Who confirmed this? If your source was at the big "secret" meeting, and didn&#39;t jump on the forum and/or spread the word, then this "source&#39; is part of the problem too(if there is a problem). Wouldn&#39;t anyone on any of the SCCA&#39;s boards have a duty to inform their constituents? Who is this source that says everyone else here is wrong, yet won&#39;t reveal his/her identity??Or, are we to believe that this secret person, from the secret meeting has decided that you will be the messenger?

I&#39;ve also talked to Rick today, and Bill Martin, and several others. Evidently, Rick told you something different than he told me. Mysterious, unidentified informants don&#39;t get much credit from me.

Please bring some facts and proof to the forum on this subject. Just stating that you talked to Rick today doesn&#39;t prove a thing.

[snapback]65826[/snapback]

Exactly my point Jim. Word should have been spread immediately. And my source should have been all over this but feared recourse. And other than Bob Hudson or those relying on the accuracy of Bob Hudson&#39;s comments, no one else has said the information is wrong. And as far as being the messenger, that&#39;s why it was leaked to me. It&#39;s tough politically for a lot of the officials, especially if they want to see the right thing done and it&#39;s not popular among their own. These folks can get be vicious and things can get pretty nasty if you&#39;re familiar with any of the territory wars that have taken place over the years. So every once in a while they look for a thick skinned loudmouth like me to take them to task and take the rap as bad guy among the ranks of officials.

I&#39;m not sure what Rick said to you and I didn&#39;t get his permission to discuss publicly details of our call or any statements he made, but he did confirm everything I&#39;ve said as accurate regarding the existence, basic purpose and elements of the proposal and that he was present at the meeting. Did he deny that? I would be extremely surprised of such.

As far as further proof, I talked to Butch Kummer who was also at the meeting and he added confirmation although he corrected the information I was given, or should I say added the caveat regarding the possible alternate deal concerning the CFR double SARRC i mentioned earlier. Two others also confirmed that the events took place and Bob Hudson himself confirmed it here as well but seems to have the facts mixed up. How much more proof do we need here? I&#39;m sorry I can&#39;t go to the video tape.

The question I have as to the mix up on track versus region issue is that it makes no sense. I don&#39;t think we have enough tracks do we? So how or why would that be proposed? You&#39;d need 13 tracks to do the 25 races with that policy. Daytona, Moroso, Sebring, Homestead, Roebling, Atlanta, AMS, CMS. VIR... am I forgetting any? That&#39;s nine. We&#39;re four short so we&#39;re either adding tracks outside of Florida OR were losing seven or eight races. Now...that presents a whole different situation. Since everyone is chanting the "even distribution mantra" I can only speculate but, is this a plan to actually reduce the number of races? Maybe. I know officials got a little spooked about the Atlanta-AMA incident and a continuing shortage of workers. But a reduction of 7 or 8 races where 4 of them come out of Florida is hardly a fair shake. Personally, I still think this is intended to get Florida racers to travel out of Florida but my opinion is not important here. (I know someone is going to jump all over that one! Go ahead guys. )

Bottom line is no matter what, something&#39;s going on, the meeting took place and a proposal was discussed, which even Hudson confirmed. Ultimate intentions and designs? Your guess is as good as mine. That we don&#39;t have the details is more than a little worrysome so we need to keep informed and aware. I also think it&#39;s about time for some officials to come forward and clarify the issue.