Re: Racer's input.....
 

Guys,

The best short term solution would be for the three sanctioning bodies to enter into an agreement to have "joint race sites". The sanctioning bodies get to split costs for security, permitting fees, safety crews and some TV production costs. The economies of scale allow each to save significant money, while still maintaining their identity.

The organization that has the most registered entries (as of 30 days prior to the race) gets Sunday to race alone. The other two race on Saturday. One races their classes early and the other late. This makes the sanctioning bodies compete for your loyalty even more than they do now - so they can wrap up the Sunday races. Since the sanctioning bodies are saving money........then they can pass on more to the racers. The racers win.

At the end of the weekend, you have APBA winners, SBI winners and OSS winners. If the racers "cross registered" then, they may be the overall winner for that race. The fans get to watch two full days of racing, and the race sponsors get to look forward to potentially 9 to 11 hours of races per weekend.

The current pissing contest among so-called sanctioning bodies has driven the sport into the ground. All politics aside (if you don't know who's side I'm on, just ask), the sport deserves better. Find a way to work together............like APBA and SBI did for several races..........recognize the economies of scale of joint race sites.........and hopefully things will get better without an organization going down the tubes and taking the sport with it.

This is a short term solution - all three sanctioning bodies would benefit..........and hopefully the racers. As of now there will be 28 separate races (APBA, SBI, OPA and OSS) spread out over 21 different weekends in 2005. Six weekends feature two of the sanctioning bodies racing in different sites. On one weekend three of the four host different race sites. If you were a race "promoter", would you be ****tin* your pants looking at the overall schedule? I would, if I had just made big promises to my local tourism board.

As it stands, in my humble opinion........... 25% of the races will be good, 25% will get cancelled, 25% will cause the promoter to lose his azz, and the other 25% will happen but with no spectators/media. Joint race sites is the first "baby step". Otherwise................what racer wants to step forward and write the $170,000 check to subsidize the next race.

Food for thought from an ex-racer - that's all.

Re: Racer's input.....
 

Hey Mike.....Thanks...I talk to Mike ST.A. about 4 or 5 times during the 2003 season while racing with the GLSCS....We talk alot about how it was produce...just never the $ amount....
Talk to ya soon....

Re: Racer's input.....
 

How do you come up with $170,000 to put on a race?

I like your ideas, but there would also be the need to insure the race three times since three different rule books would be used. Where's the savings? The cranes?

Why does everyone look to the sanctioning bodies to solve the issues? It's up to the racers/customers to force any changes.

Re: Racer's input.....
 

Bob Bull and Big John could answer whether there would be any real savings. Sarasota was done that way - kind of. Both sanctioning bodies raced and awarded points, but they were able to split costs for security, cranes, fencing, race advertising, permitting fees, printing, helicopter/safety costs, etc. Just an idea for a short term solution to some of the racer's concerns.

As for the $170,000.......a promoter told me that not too long ago. I won't say who though.

Re: Racer's input.....
 

That figure must include a $75,000 purse and TV coverage for another $60,000. It's the only way to get the numbers that high.

Re: Racer's input.....
 

Must be Mr. Mills quoting that number, I hear it's his favorite number when asking for money in the keys.
for what that's worth!!!!!

Re: Racer's input.....
 

I thought Mill's went into buisiness with.Allweiss ?

Re: Racer's input.....
 

Nope-

Re: Racer's input.....
 

Uh,,, I don't think so.....