PDA

View Full Version : TWS event elimination reason?



G-Man
10-06-2003, 05:22 PM
I originally posted this response in the "2004 Schedule" thread in the main forum but did not receive any response, either from Bryan, whose original post is referenced, or from any other current BOD member. It is my hope that by posting it here in the appropriate forum I (and other members who don't understand the base motivation for this very impactive change) might be able to get some input.

Bryan's original post and my response follows:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We had to cut one facility.
We didn't want to cut Oak Hill because we have too much investment in the track.
We didn't want to cut Hallett because it gives the Okies a couple of races.
Obvoiusly we wanted to add an MSR.

TWS was the only option.

I feel your pain, I live only 62 minutes door-to-track.

The other option was to run an 11 race series, but I think we'd all go broke(er) </div></div>Bryan (or any other current BOD member who might care to comment), can you provide some additional clarification so that I might be able to understand what the driving force behind this decision was?

We had to cut one facility.
Exactly what was the reason for this "cut"?

1.Fiscal? I was under the impession that the club was operating very comfortably budget-wise. I understand that track rental and expenses are more at TWS but isn't revenue correspondingly higher as well? Does the CMRA lose money at TWS events? If you have % profitability #'s for race event weekends at each track maybe those could shed some light on the BOD's motivation (if it is actually fiscally based).

2. Calendar? Taking a date away from TWS and adding a date to MSR certainly isn't going to solve that as a problem so I can't see that being the issue.

3. Safety? I think there are those that would disagree that from an endurance standpoint that MSR is safer than TWS. I would also state that the arguments regarding facilites and geographic concerns from South Texas members are spot on.

We didn't want to cut Oak Hill because we have too much investment in the track.
Exactly what is the ROI to keep throwing money into Oak Hill, a track that can't support big bike endurance now and can barely support current sprint grids #'s much less future grids.

We didn't want to cut Hallett because it gives the Okies a couple of races.
So what makes the wishes of the Okies of more concern than the South Texas members? What is the ratio of Okies to members in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Lousiana, etc.?

Obvoiusly we wanted to add an MSR.
Please help me to understand why it's so obvious?

TWS was the only option.
Many of us are trying our best to understand how this is the case. I myself just don't see it that's why I'm hoping to get some additional input.

The other option was to run an 11 race series, but I think we'd all go broke(er)
Did I miss the membership consensus that indicated that there are too many events in a year or that personal financial obligations were keeping competitors away? If financial expenditures are a deterring factor whether you race, the reality is that you picked the wrong hobby and changing tracks isn't going to solve that issue either.

Any insight into the process of making this decision would be greatly appreciated.

Bryan Norton
10-06-2003, 05:57 PM
Gordon, I will let some other BoD members chime in here but I will try to best answer your questions.

The main reasoning is that we wanted a third MSR. If we did this and still wanted to run a 10 race series, we would have to eliminate one race at another track. We HAVE run 11 race series in the past, and these were poorly received.
We have had (at times) the best spectator turnout at MSR of any track. We have a friendly track management, an outstanding track layout/surface, good facilities, central location. We have had 55 team endurance grids. The BoD felt the majority of the riders would wish to add a third MSR race.

This track has the best available options for many reasons -
Can accomodate both Big Bike Endurance AND Mini Endurance (TWS does great for big bike but bites for mini)

Facilities are very good (showers, second level viewing, paved roads) It does not have the garages of TWS though.

Centrally Located - I do not have the statistics handy, but our rider base extends from Louisiana to Kansas. Draw a circle around the rider base and you land in Dallas (OK probably a bit south of Dallas)

Track Management friendly to racing - We are welcomed here.

Very good to excellent Spectator turnout - I think lack of promotion has slowed turnout numbers, but in the past we have had outstanding spectator turnouts

Future upgrades - Getting 3 dates next year will hopefully keep us on top. I do not know the status of the track extension plans, but they are supposed to extend the track to 3 miles. Dates are VERY hard to get here.
I hope our members realize that tracks like TWS and MSR fill up EVERY weekend. You can't just walk up to a track and say 'we want to race this weekend and that weekend' and get what you ask, unless you ask EARLY and push.

Fiscal reasons - I think Brooks has mentioned in the newsletter regarding fiscal status. For several years the club operated in the red. We are operating in the black now, but are not making money hand over fist. We are struggling to see how to fund electronic scoring for sprints.

Safety - I'm not going to dwell on it. Yes, I would like to see TWS move back the armco around turn 8a, but as I understand it they do not want to invest in it. I do not consider TWS 'unsafe' though.

ROI on Oak Hill - with the vested interest we have in the track, we get VERY good deals on track rental. From a weekend standpoint (and I don't have the financials handy, but I hope someone else can verify this) we make MUCH more profit from an Oak Hill race than from TWS.


We decided to keep the two Oklahoma races to keep a northern presence. We didn't want to lose an Oak Hill date. This left TWS as the odd track out. Since TWS cannot be run backwards, 3 dates stagnates the variety. If we run MSR counter clockwise/CW/CCW then you won't see the same track twice.

The BoD is human. We make decisions, and we try and make them in the best interest of the club as a whole. We may find next year that 3 MSR and 2 TWS wasn't the best idea, so we will adjust that in the 2005 schedule. you don't really know until you try it.

I know we have shaken a lot of things up this year. There will be a lot of adjustment all at the same time. Not every decision we make will be a gold star on the chalkboard. That is how we learn and make the club stronger.

CYCLE 1
10-06-2003, 06:58 PM
Gordon,is it the distance to the races you dont like or losing a track you prefer. How many race weekends did you attend this year. Do you race minis , gt, endurance,sprints or a combination.
/ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif

Walter Walker
10-06-2003, 07:50 PM
Let me add my .02 cents. As a rider I love TWS. I have raced there for a lot of years. I remeber when the padock area was dirt/mud and we only raced the 1.8 mile course. I have a picture of a young man named Hayden on a YSR going out for his first roadrace in the rain at TWS. OK I'm rambling. As an offical I hate it. TWS pushes our resourses to the limit. You don't want to know what it cost to to rent that track. Did you know in our rental contract we only get the actual track from 8:00am to 5:00pm. If we go over that time it cost $400.00 per hour rounded up to the next whole hour. Can anybody remember the last time we finished before 5:00? We have to use there med units and they stage where they want, regardless of what we want. Ask Sam McDonald what it's like to have almost hit a med unit that took off to a crash without being called. And you have no idea how many butt chewings I have taken from track managment over silly stuff. There are 15 corners to man, thats 6 more corners and 12 more corner workers than anywhere we go. Recovering crashed bikes is a pain, if not for Larry and the pushers it would be impossible. Turn 8A, enough said. PA system, never mind I'll shut up now. Look TWS is still a cool place to race, but why do we have to do the same schedule every year. Bottom line is the schedule is set. There is no way to change it now so lets go racing and have fun and see what 05 brings. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Daniel Browning
10-07-2003, 01:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Bryan Norton:
Since TWS cannot be run backwards, 3 dates stagnates the variety. If we run MSR counter clockwise/CW/CCW then you won't see the same track twice. </div></div>Bryan thats a really good point.. We have to remember that everyone rides on the same track, drives to the same track, goes over the same bump, cuts across the same patch, buys tires from the same 3 guys, pits in the same paddock, hates the same red dirt.. all odds are the same.. complaining about the drive or facilities is a moot point because everyone has to do it.. if someone can spend $20k on a new race bike does that mean its not fair? No.. Sure MSR pits aren't as nice as TWS.. but your still in the same place as everyone else.. Thats what makes it RACING.. take away all the similarities and we could just compare checking acounts and mileage driven and determine the winner.. but it doesnt work like that..

Thanks to the BOD for everything you guys do..
I guess Im done complaining about the crying.. Ill shut up now.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Brooks Gremmels
10-07-2003, 09:14 AM
Gordon,
I am not sure, just in principle, what the harm is in trying something different, i.e. scheduling a third race at MSR at the expense of one at TWS.
But, in terms of rationalization, I give you an example. Have you noticed that the announcer doesn't use the PA at TWS? That is due to the fact that track magt. refuses to unlock the equipment for our use. After charging the club $14,230.00 for track rental and an additional $875+/- as a gate percentage.
Our vendors are hassled at TWS, threatened with expulsion, for instance, for selling Nutech. Our riders and officials face the same treatment. At MSR, we have consistantly been treated with respect. The facilities are first rate and it is arguably the safest track we race on. The track can be run in both directions adding to the variety.
I went to Ronnie Lunsford, several months ago to tell him the BOD was contemplating trying a schedule with two TWS dates. I went to Ronnie because he is both from Houston and an avid endurance racer. I correctly suspected that he would prefer more, rather tham fewer races at TWS. I wanted out of respect to hear his thoughts and to explain the BOD's. The BOD will listen to the membership's opinions regarding the scheduling for the following season.
Brooks

John Orchard
10-07-2003, 10:23 AM
Heya Gordon, I've had the same question as Scott on a number of occasions, what's your angle/interest?

In addition to pushing ridesmart on the message board, you usually always have an opinion on something, which is fine, but I'm curious as to what your interest is - I wasn't able to find you anywhere in the results and have never met you at a race weekend. In what way do you participate in the CMRA race weekends?

G-Man
10-07-2003, 11:21 AM
Interesting since you've never asked me the question directly. Not exactly sure why it's even remotely pertinent to the topic at hand but I'm more than happy to answer.

I raced a couple events during the 2001 season till being sidelined with a broken hand that required surgury to repair and a job change. Haven't raced any during the 2002 season simply because my consulting business requires occasional weekend work and several event weekends fell on holiday weekends which I reserve to spend time with my wife and two children. As hard as I've tried I just can't convince the Mrs. that spending Easter Sunday at the track is an acceptable alternative to attending church and celebrating with our family.

I've got two questions for you then.

1. Is it your implication that my ability to try and understand the motivation/reasons behind this change is somehow limited because circumstances might prohibit the number of races I attend in a season? I've been unable to locate anything in the club's rule book or charter that even remotely references the # of races an individual attends dictating his input on this forum or to the organization in general; if I missed it please feel free to point it out to me. My stance is I payed the same amount for a CMRA race license as you did consequently I have just as much right to question how the club is run as you or anyone else in this organization does.

2. What is your issue with me or anyone else promoting RideSmart, a CMRA sponsor, on this member forum and exactly why is it relevant to this issue? If I've violated some kind of rule supporting an organization that supports the CMRA and it's racers then please show me the rules and I'll guaranatee you it doesn't happen again.

John Orchard
10-07-2003, 12:47 PM
No need to get defensive there Gordon. It was a simple question, which you sort of answered. You say you haven't participated in a race weekend since 2001, so I am still curious what difference it makes to you if the BOD drops a round a TWS and adds one somewhere else?

Yes, we all pay the same amount for our license, but the guys who show up regularly year after year will always have more say in the way things are run. The BOD represent us all, but doesn't necessarily answer to any single one of us, yet the tone of your post is demanding of answers as if someone owes you something. Honestly, I took a little offense to your tone, especially from someone who hasn't been around in a couple of years, except on the BBS.

btw, a simple "ctrl+shft+f" took about 15 seconds to search for your name on the 2003 results pages.

-John O

G-Man
10-07-2003, 12:49 PM
First of all I would like to thank Bryan, Walter and Brooks for their insite into this decision. I may not necessarily agree with all the reasons but at least I have a better understanding of some of the motivating factors in the decision.

Second, I never insinuated or promoted that my goal was to change this year's schedule, just to better understand the BOD's mindset since I don't ever remember being given the opporunity to express an opinion on this change prior to the BOD making the decision. Granted, Brooks did seek out the advice of Ronnie Lunsford (an excellent source due to both his current and previous CMRA involvement as both a racer and BOD member) but the reality is sampling one (or even 10) racer's opinion on an issue that has such sweeeping ramifications for all CMRA racer's seems a little too narrow a focus.

Based on your detailed responses, I hope you will indulge me a few more questions:
1. Was the goal to ad an event at MSR or reduce events at TWS or both? Brooks focused on eliminating an event at TWS due to cost, safety and facilities issues. Bryan focused primarily on adding an event at MSR due to reduced cost and flexibility of the track and it's owner. Why I still don't understand is why it was so imperative we add an event at MSR. Why not add one at NPR if the BOD wants to try a little "variety" instead of adding yet another event at an existing track?
2. Exactly what is the profit percentage for a weekend event at each track for the club? I now understand that TWS is significantly more expensive to rent but do increased revenues offset the higher rental?
3. If Oak Hill is so profitable for the club (and it's membership) why did the fee increase so dramatically last year for CMRA license holder's to rent the track themselves?

Thanks again for your patience.

Brooks Gremmels
10-07-2003, 12:54 PM
Those who have their time, money and personal safety on the line are separated from the spectators by more than a tire wall.
Brooks

G-Man
10-07-2003, 01:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, we all pay the same amount for our license, but the guys who show up regularly year after year will always have more say in the way things are run.</div></div>Really? The old "Everyone is equal but some are more equal than other's" approach, huh? Maybe you can expound a little more how that works. What is the Orchard Scale of who has what say? Is it based solely on the # of races attended? Does how I finish mean anything? Does my bike color make a difference. What if I attend an event weekend as a spectator and don't race?

I've never heard anything so assinine in my life. I for one would like a BOD member to comment if the "Orchard Scale" is how member's input is weighted in the CMRA.

Brooks, Bryan, anybody?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The BOD represent us all, but doesn't necessarily answer to any single one of us, yet the tone of your post is demanding of answers as if someone owes you something.</div></div>I disagree 110%. The BOD, repesents all member's of this organization and is always accountable to said membership. There was absolutely nothing "demanding" about my original post and your "offense" at it is your is your issue, not mine.

As for your forum searching skills, if you already knew the answer, what was your point in asking the question?

David Branyon
10-07-2003, 01:06 PM
Thanks BOD folks for providing a little background info. That's all I was looking for. I personally love MSR as a track (well, except for when we consumed a new rear tire in endurance PRACTICE this year), but love TWS also, and it seems to have several advantages, which I already noted in the other thead.

But with the explanations of cost and management issues, I understand the basis of your decision. I would still put in one vote for going back to 3 TWS rounds in '05, but I thank you for filling us in, in addition to getting a schedule out nice and early.

Brooks Gremmels
10-07-2003, 01:45 PM
It only makes sense to strive to represent those who are involved in the sport past the role of a BBS poster.
With the ballots still out I would like to make a public disclosure. If elected I intend to represent the active racers, their wishes and agendas as best I can. I honor the past racers and their roles in the CMRA's history. Those "without a dog in the fight" don't have the same Credibility.
Please make your vote accordingly.
Brooks

John Orchard
10-07-2003, 01:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Brooks Gremmels:
Those who have their time, money and personal safety on the line are separated from the spectators by more than a tire wall.
Brooks </div></div>Gordon, Brooks post answers your question succinctly.

And regarding the forum searching, my question was about your participation (not racing specifically) - thought maybe you were a corner worker or participated in some other meaningful way? /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Peace man - John O

Rich Desmond
10-07-2003, 02:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Gordon Salisbury:
First of all I would like to thank Bryan, Walter and Brooks for their insite into this decision. I may not necessarily agree with all the reasons but at least I have a better understanding of some of the motivating factors in the decision.

Second, I never insinuated or promoted that my goal was to change this year's schedule, just to better understand the BOD's mindset since I don't ever remember being given the opporunity to express an opinion on this change prior to the BOD making the decision. Granted, Brooks did seek out the advice of Ronnie Lunsford (an excellent source due to both his current and previous CMRA involvement as both a racer and BOD member) but the reality is sampling one (or even 10) racer's opinion on an issue that has such sweeeping ramifications for all CMRA racer's seems a little too narrow a focus.

Based on your detailed responses, I hope you will indulge me a few more questions:
1. Was the goal to ad an event at MSR or reduce events at TWS or both? Brooks focused on eliminating an event at TWS due to cost, safety and facilities issues. Bryan focused primarily on adding an event at MSR due to reduced cost and flexibility of the track and it's owner. Why I still don't understand is why it was so imperative we add an event at MSR. Why not add one at NPR if the BOD wants to try a little "variety" instead of adding yet another event at an existing track?
2. Exactly what is the profit percentage for a weekend event at each track for the club? I now understand that TWS is significantly more expensive to rent but do increased revenues offset the higher rental?
3. If Oak Hill is so profitable for the club (and it's membership) why did the fee increase so dramatically last year for CMRA license holder's to rent the track themselves?

Thanks again for your patience. </div></div>Gordon, if you're so interested in all these details, and would like so much to be part of the decision making process, why don't you run for the board?? It does seem a little odd that a guy who hasn't been around for a couple of years, and who's asking questions that have obvious answers, at least to anyone whose been paying attention to club affairs, all of a sudden is demanding explanations for a Board's decision.

G-Man
10-07-2003, 02:15 PM
Brooks:
Great. I applaud a candidate that is willing takes a stand on issues.

Please take it farther and define "active"? How many races a season does it take to meet your standard? If I prefer to race a bike that only allows me to run 2 races a weekend does that mean I'm any less deserving than someone who runs a middleweight and can run 3 times that amount?

Do those racer's that can't participate to your standard get some kind of license discount since you refuse to represent their concerns on club issues?

John:
So spectators who contribute directly to the club's profit potential by paying gate fees and supporting track vendors are not "meaningful"? I imagine all the CMRA Associate Membership might not agree they have no "value" to the club either if they don't corner-work.

This just keeps getting better and better.

G-Man
10-07-2003, 02:21 PM
I was wondering how long it would take before someone came up with the inevitable question of "Why don't you run for the board?".

My answer (not that it matter's) is that if I don't have enough time to race competitively, what makes you think I would have enough time to fufill a board member responsibilities (something I would take more seriously than you would imagine as I've served on boards for non-profit orgs before)? At this point in my life, I've chosen instead to devote what little free time I have to my family, and the two 501c3 children's charities that I actively support. I continue to do trackdays when I can (to continue to develop my skills) with the hope that my future schedule will allow more direct involvement.

Rich, do you serve on the board? If not, do you feel your opinions have no merit because you've chosen not to? Once again, is it your implication that you either run for the board or have no right to contribute to the organization? Have I missed something or is this a forum to discuss CMRA issues with this forum specifically geared to ask questions to the BOD?

As for paying attention to the club's affairs, show me one instance where the BOD made any reference to the CMRA membership, either here or The Inside Line or any other member communication method, regarding this change prior to it being made. I certainly could have missed it so feel free to elighten me.

Finally, exactly what about my post is demanding? I simply asked for some clarification on a fairly impactive issue, as did several other members in the originating 2004 Schedule thread. I've never seen individuals so threatened by a simple request for information in my life. If the reasons for this change are so obvious, why is the original "2004 Schedule" thread several pages long?

CYCLE 1
10-07-2003, 02:35 PM
Gordon,you are correct if you are a paid active
member youre opinion is valuable to the club.
However on a personel level someone who travels to all the races and has to plan time off and calculate and plan finances to be there every race weekend carrys more weight to me.
I hope you will be able to attend races in 04. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Rich Desmond
10-07-2003, 02:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Gordon Salisbury:
I was wondering how long it would take before someone came up with the inevitable question of "Why don't you run for the board?".

My answer (not that it matter's) is that if I don't have enough time to race competitively, why makes you think I would have enough time to fufill a board member responsibilities? I instead to devote what little free time I have to my family, and the two 501c3 children's charities that I actively support.

Once again, is it your implication that you either run for the board or have no right to contribute to the organization? Have I missed something or is this a forum to discuss CMRA issues with this forum specifically geared to ask questions to the BOD?

Finally, exactly what about my post is demanding? I simply asked for some clarification on a fairly impactive issue, as did several other members in the originating 2004 Schedule thread. I've never seen individuals so threatened by a simple request for information in my life. If the reasons for this change are so obvious, why is the original thread several pages long questioning the schedule? </div></div>Well, I guess that goes back to the original question some of have, if you're so busy that you can't race, or help out the club in some other way, why do you care?? As for demanding, you've gotten several comprehensive answers from board members, yet you keep yammering away on the issue. As for the obviousness, the issues with TWS have been well know for some time, as is reason for the OH fee increase, as is the reason we don't go to NPR. All this stuff has been discussed on this board, and gets talked about at the track.
Finally, I would hope it's beyond obvious that those who race the most, and therefore contribute more, should have a greater say. I've raced 2 mini endurances this year, which means my input is worth a little more than yours, and a heck of a lot less than that of a guy (like Ronnie) who's there every weekend for both sprints and endurance. That's just common sense fairness.

10-07-2003, 02:52 PM
i have been resisiting this but my i am unemployed and bored so here goes...

gordon,

your question was answered very well earlier in this post by three people but it seems that you just do not like the answer.
relax about it.
your tone suggests that there is some sort of conspiracy afoot.
there is not, i am almost sure of it.
obviously, i am not the only one who gets this vibe from you.

also, i feel that the racer that shows up every weekend does in fact have a much more weighted opinion than the casual racer.
for example, eric falt has not missed one weekend since 1986 (i think this is right, if not it is not off by much) and i have only made two weekends this year; by default, his opinion should mean more to the BOD than mine.
why?
because he generates more revenue than i do.
this club is able to exist because of racers such as eric falt, not by the likes of me or you.
that is just pure economics.

i am also of the opinion that the BOD should not be obligated to answer in excrutiating detail every descision they make.
i am impressed that they participate on this bbs with the regularity that they do and i think that it is in fact a good thing, but i do not feel that we as members should be able to demand an answer and cry foul if we do not like the one we get.
this club is not a democracy, it is a republic.
we get our chance to make our voice heard by sending in our ballots.

i guess that is all i got for now.

oh yeah, IMHO... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G-Man
10-07-2003, 02:53 PM
Rich:
To answer your question why I care, I care for the same reason you should. This is my orgaanization as well and I want to do whatever I can to make it better, for me as well as other members. If that's not a good enough reason for you then I don't have really any other response.

Rich/Scott:
Gentlemen, I respect your opinions on the value of member input being based on how much they physically race but we will just have to agree to disagree in this case.

I believe that elected club officials have the responsibility to represent all members that elected them to their positions, not just the ones they "want" to due to some personal bias. Yes the term "bias" is 100% applicable; if you can't quantify the definition of "active", then any assumption you make on the value of my input is based solely on a personal bias.

Said elected officials must always answer to the members, even if it's inconvenient/annoying/repetitive. What's "clear" to you may not be clear to others so if one requests information then a little tolerance can go a very long way. BTW, I will make an effort to go back and search the forum for references to the OHR fee increase and the specific reasons why NPR isn't an option.

I also believe that those that can't race to some undefined "standard" of participation and Associate Membership holder's are valuable assets to the CMRA. The reality is that circumstances could change and those racer's and Associate Members might be able to increase their involvement. The last thing the BOD or any member should do is belittle them because they can't meet some undefined "standard".

G-Man
10-07-2003, 03:06 PM
John;
No conspiracy theory.

I've never stated I liked or disliked the decision. For the record I don't agree with it but the reality is that any decision made for a large group of members that effects all of said members is going to less popular to some and more popular to others. However, my feelings on the outcome have zero to do with wish to better understand how the process came about.

There was no information reagrding the TWS schedule change prior to the 2004 Schedule announcement. I (as well as several other members) politely requested some additional insight to this decision. I thought that since I hadn't received a reponse in the original thread that it was worth posting the very same request in the appropriate forum section. I got very good responses that to me seemed a little contradictory (Brooks seemed to indicate the primary goal was always to eliminate an event at TWS where Bryan stance was the goal was always to add a date at MSR and maintain the 10 event calendar) so I asked for some clarification. It had absolutely zero with "liking" the response nor was it "yammering"; simply just that I didn't understand the response fully.

That's all.

In the mean time, I've had several members question my value to the CMRA, (even better) imply I have some alterior motive and generally get their knicker's in a twist because I dare try to gain a better understanding of the issues effecting all racer's in the CMRA (even the ones that might only race one weekend a year).

Irregardless John, thanks for your input.

10-07-2003, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Gordon Salisbury:

In the mean time, I've had several members question my value to the CMRA, (even better) imply I have some alterior motive and generally get their knicker's in a twist because I dare try to gain a better understanding of the issues effecting all racer's in the CMRA (even the ones that might only race one weekend a year).

</div></div>here is where you start to lose some credibility.

no one has questioned your value at all.
there have been several that have commented that the people that show up race after race have a much more vested interest in what the schedule is; as a result, their opinion does, and more importantly should, mean more.
you seem to take that as a insult.
(this is where the conspiracy crack comes from /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif )

also, here is something to consider.
the schedule was released in its final form over 5 months before the start of the season.
i am not sure if you realize the accomplishment of this or not.
there are other organizations that regularly start the season without all the dates that year finalized.

and finally, i think that the move to get as many dates at MSR now is going to pay off huge in the long run. when the track gets done with all the planned upgrades, it sounds like it could be one of the best road courses in america.
i think it is a big feather in the club's cap to be in so good with this track.

David Branyon
10-07-2003, 06:33 PM
WOW. Just when you think the mboard is getting boring...

Gordon, I think we must have an issue of it being very difficult to carry across tone of voice and other non-verbal (non-typal?) communication on the net. No one is after you or has denigrated you in any way. And what "tone" I can read in has you as the most "twisted knicker" poster on the thread to this point.

People who race more have more of a voice. That is common sense, isn't it? They have selected priorities that have them spending a lot of money and time on this clubs activities, and the decisions made affect them in a very concrete and immediate manner. A spectator or corner worker is not nearly as affected. That an inactive racer is inactive is not some kind of mortal sin, but it does mean you don't have as much at stake in decisions as does the guy who is spending big money, time, and has his life at risk each race weekend.

What constitutes "active"? That sounds like an accusatory question that you are waiting for an answer to shred someone on. The more a person races, the more Brooks (for one stated example) weights their input. Does that mean that an associate member has no value to them and he'd just as soon they crawl off and die? No. (Brooks, pardon me for speaking for you.) And it's not that a person who makes 2 races per weekend is not represented at all and one who makes 3 is fully represented. Nothing about the process is that scientific. All input is considered, it's just that if there is some person who really has nothing to do with the club, other than to get on the message board and stir the pot (and maybe purchase a license for some reason) has a very strong opinion on a topic, it might be discounted against others' opinions who are out there racing every weekend, or even most weekends. I think to the bulk of humans on this planet, that makes complete and absolute sense.

Sheesh, I didn't mean to come across irritated, but... I'll try to maintain the friendly attitude that has been given to you in this thread and hope that you'll be able to make it out and race with the club more in the future. I know I hope I can.

Chris Headley
10-07-2003, 07:29 PM
WORD. You've got my vote Brooks.

--> in regards to the first page post. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif Guess I'm a little slow in the reading.

Andy Galindo
10-07-2003, 07:38 PM
I was also curious as to why this "TWS" decision was made, and can say that I have been fully informed and will be moving on to another topic.

TWS management acts like it's a world class facility and it's not. They aren't putting any money back into the track at all, or wait, they painted the rumblestrips. They need to wake up. Cresson is professionally run, and actually has visions for a future, with better facilities yet, and a longer track. Love it!

I still love riding TWS but it's not like we're losing it entirely.

Rich Desmond
10-07-2003, 09:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Gordon Salisbury:
Rich:
To answer your question why I care, I care for the same reason you should. This is my orgaanization as well and I want to do whatever I can to make it better, for me as well as other members. If that's not a good enough reason for you then I don't have really any other response.

Rich/Scott:
Gentlemen, I respect your opinions on the value of member input being based on how much they physically race but we will just have to agree to disagree in this case.
</div></div>This is ridiculous. You may "want to do whatever I can to make it better" but what in fact are you actually doing??? The CMRA needs people to enter races, to run for the BOD, to cornerwork, to volunteer to help run the races, to answer calls for help from staff/BOD people, to go to OH work days. Have you done any of this in the last few years?? (And for the record, I've done some but by no means all.) Let me put it another way. 100 people like Ronnie Lunsford (or Scott Levine or Eric Fault or Danny Dominguez or a bunch of other guys) plus some dedicated volunteer/underpaid staff and you have a race organization. 1000 guys like me plus the staff and you have a race organization. 10,000 guys like you plus the staff and what do you have? A debating society with enough money in the club account for a nice banquet, where you can get up and make speeches about how fair and responsive to the membership you are. So yeah, I think the people who actually make the club viable deserve a bigger say.

ysr612
10-08-2003, 09:44 AM
Troy Green had a great post to someone on this subject too. I looked for it and could not find it but it was well thought out and well stated that helmet covers a usefull part on Troy

Troy\'s take on some of this (http://www.frenzy.com/UBB/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001141;p=6#0000 76)

Forgive me if it was taken to far out of context.

Ronnie Lunsford
10-08-2003, 10:13 AM
I feel responsible for the deterioration of this
post, because I was the one who asked WHY ?

I'm sorry I asked at this point.

In between the question and answer things went
south.

PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY
PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY
PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY

So after the riders meeting at Cresson, can we
please have a group hug, as we chant
Cresson 3 times, Oak Hill 3 times, Hallet 2 times, and Texas World 2 times ?

Thanks to the Board and the entire CMRA staff for
all that you do, so that we have a great place to
race !!!!!!!!!

Peace, Love, Harmony
Ronnie Lunsford
#39

David Branyon
10-08-2003, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Originally posted by Ronnie Lunsford:
PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY
PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY
PEACE,LOVE, HARMONY

So after the riders meeting at Cresson, can we
please have a group hug, as we chant
Cresson 3 times, Oak Hill 3 times, Hallet 2 times, and Texas World 2 times ?

Thanks to the Board and the entire CMRA staff for
all that you do, so that we have a great place to
race !!!!!!!!!

Peace, Love, Harmony
Ronnie Lunsford
#39 </div></div>Hate to quote the whole thing, but... "what Ronnie said." Well, I'm not completely sure on the whole group hug thing, but... /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

G-Man
10-08-2003, 12:10 PM
I'm just plain stunned why some individuals are so threatened by someone trying to get some background information on a club decision and in a forum specificially designated as "Questions to the BOD". It's almost like you are taking it as some kind of personal insult. Just a few simple questions (I'm still at a loss how anyone could construe it as a "demand") and a request for some additional clarification because I didn't understand the two very informative responses I got from Brooks and Bryan. I think it's perfectly natural to have these type of questions since the decision was made without membership input; now before all you start screaming about the BOD is not required to get member input I'm not stating it's required, just that there was simply no background information made available to the club membership, either before or after.

I didn't critique the board or Brooks yet everyone feels obligated to remind me what a great job they do (I agree 100%) and how little I do to support the CMRA since I don't race as frequently as I would like to or run for the BOD. BTW, Rich I would be willing to bet I've cornerworked as much as most of the members here but that isn't really the issue here.

The really funny thing is I didn't even critique the decision itself although I very clearly stated I didn't particularly agree with it and conceded that this type of decision will always result in mixed reviews.

As for debating, well I haven't debated anything except my value as a member to the organization; a perfectly acceptable response when you are told that your input is less "credible" than others based solely on the # of races entered. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I'll go on with the assumption that racer's like me that have limitations on the # of events they can attend and Associate Members who support the CMRA through their annual membership fee's do contribute positively to the organization.

The truth is after all the pontificating here along with the insults, discussion of my racing involvement, the # of times I've corner-worked, my support of RideSmart and a host of other things that have absolutely nothing to do with my original query, I still haven't been able to get what I perceive is a very simple answer to a very simple question. Regardless of what those that feel threatened might think, there is no alterior motive, for this answer other than I'm just curious; it's just that plain and simple.

Was the primary motivation for this decision to:

A. Eliminate an event at TWS because of high cost, a failing PA system, safety concerns and abusive track mgmt.

or

B. To add yet another event at MSR (while maintaining a 10 event season) to improve the club's standing with the owner and add a more profitable event to the club calendar?

G-Man
10-08-2003, 12:16 PM
I would like to include that I do thank those that donate their time and efforts to make the CMRA a premier club roadracing organization.

Corner, gate and track staff, vendors who support our events and the CMRA BOD, especially Nancy Selleck, who while always proving to be prompt, courteous and extremely efficient, does a very important yet sometimes thankless job.

Bryan Norton
10-08-2003, 01:46 PM
The answer is yes A and B.

As simple as I can state, the opportunity came up for a third date at MSR.
(I had asked Brooks last year if there was any way we could get an extra date. Other members and BoD have as well)
With the third date a possibility, the recent eperiences we have had at TWS lent it to be the most viable candidate.

These two conditions, while mutually exclusive occurred during the same time frame.

However, we did not sit around and say "let's only run TWS twice, where can we run an extra date"

I hope this explains the decision in crystal clarity.

The BoD makes decisions in what we feel is the best interest of the club as a whole. That includes racers and the clubs financial matters. We try and balance those among other factors.

The club is not run by the members, and every decision is not voted on by the members at large. The club is managed by the BoD, who are elected by the members. The BoD acts on the members behalf and includes business factors in all decisions. The weekend club events are run by the CMRA staff, not the BoD.

Don't take the above paragraph out of context or paraphrase it.

Every single member of the BoD and the candidates for election that I know take the racers perspective into consideration on all decisions.

G-Man
10-08-2003, 02:04 PM
Thank you for the additional clarification, Bryan.

That's all I was looking for.

Eddie Burk
10-08-2003, 10:30 PM
Man, that wore me out. Guess ya'll might be to tired to start a thread on Hallet x3 for '05, so I'll give you a day or two to recover.. /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

cedestech
10-09-2003, 08:37 AM
Excellent statement Bryan.

fjklemen
10-09-2003, 10:06 AM
I do appreciate Gordon's questions. I do not think he is muckracking.

I just wanted to add these peices of information based on what Brooks has written about how much we pay to TWS to rent the track.

Being a nosey kind of person I looked up via the Brazos Central Appraisal District how much Texas World Speedway is valued at and how much property taxes Raceway Limited Partnerships (the owners of TWS) have owed.

Here are my findings. (one can go to http://www.brazoscad.org/ to see the info as orignally presented)

TWS is valued for 2003 at 2.9 million dollars. This is the same as it was for 2002. It was 2.8 million in 2001.
For 2002 Raceway Limited Partnerships payed 64,803.40 in property taxes just on the TWS property as we know it. (They own some additional property but they pay 5,000/year on it.
Raceway Limited Partnerships rents out TWS on weekends about 30-35 times a year (based on the online schedule available at http://www.texasworldspeedway.com/sched/index.htm). If they charge the same rent to all who rent the track based on Brooks' info (~14,000 x30) they collect 420,000/year in track rental fees.
I would guess that Lone Star Track Days pays less since they rent the track usually on Mondays.

I will assume Raceway Limited Partnerships labor costs are 250,000/year. This number I think is on the high side (gate person, "security", cafe workers).

Okay so property taxes and labor totals to 314,803.40/year. TWS is having $100,000/year going to the bank.

Now since 1992 have their been any improvements in the track-safety or otherwise?

I will offer this out-maybe the CMRA along with other clubs/organizations which use TWS should form a consortium and buy out Raceway Limited Partnerships and finally have a track close to Houston which really is for performance enthusiasts.

I have always enjoyed TWS as a track, but always considered their management neandrethral as best.

I support the BOD choice in scheduling even though I come from "South Texas".

Thanks for your patience in reading this.

I'll be at Cresson Saturday and Sunday. I endurance the RC51--Team Onca Petroleum, #44. My sprint number is #48. So if anybody wants to discuss this further off the board I invite them to look me up. Of course I appreciate any comments on the board as well.

Thank you!!

Frank Klementich

cedestech
10-09-2003, 11:27 AM
Excellent research!

Tony Moore
10-09-2003, 12:06 PM
No offense, but if I had a 2.9 million dollar investment and was only seeing a 100k return on it yearly, I would have my head examined.

Tony Moore
(another non active racer)

cedestech
10-09-2003, 01:31 PM
Tax evaluation, market price and actual value aren't always the the same thing. Ask a Houston
home owner.

Steve McNamara
10-09-2003, 03:31 PM
Frank,
TWS/Richard the owner is asking around 4 million dollars. I have seen some additional information regarding track revenue. They are doing pretty well and not spending near the amounts of money on their fixed overhead expenses. The track could be made quite respectable with an additional million or so for repaving, clean up, and additional garage spaces. FYI:
Skip Barber has booked 16 dates at TWS for 2004.
This revenue adds up to an additional $100,000.00 in the TWS coffer for 2004. They may possibly add another 8-10 on their 16. They originally asked MSR, but Jack could not accommodate their request with his members days. The track is for sale except the property back behind the back straight which has some mineral rights issues. This track could be made into a very successful venture if the right people were to operate the facilty.

G-Man
10-09-2003, 04:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tony Moore
(another non active racer)</div></div>LOL! /ubbthreads/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif