Here's a bombshell for you...

[Mattberg]

I'll can't wait for some more Florida guys to chime in. We've built a huge following down here and now executives from other regions want to suck out some of that success for themselves at our expense? Sorry. Let those regions build up their own base. They haven't been able to, so now they want to load that burden on us by making us go to their tracks? There's a reason we don't have to leave Florida. We've got three good tracks, a huge base of drivers and no less than eight very well subscribed SARRC events and three hugely successful Nationals. Why screw that up? How would all you Georgia folks feel if we moved the ARRC to Topeka?

All I'm saying here is be aware of what the executives are talking about and doing. They have a funny habit of mobilizing and implementing their ideas without our input and before you know it, it's too late to do anything about it. Funny thing is I've now heard from a few people here who I know weren't at that meeting but knew about it (Atlanta Region). If they knew about this and post here regularly, why didn't they mention it? Pretty serious as it applies to Florida regional drivers. Selective communication. Care to respond Mr. Hudson?

Sandy, I'm not sure who you are but the reference to Fletcher tells me you're Mrs. Williams. If so, ask your brother-in-law how much time I put into racing and the SCCA. He was my crew chief last year. And do you think anyone would actually elect me to any position? LOL

And just for the record, I've raced FF, FA, AS, S2000, Prod and ITS as well as SM and was the 2003 ECR champion. Oh yea...forgot about Sports Renault.

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 18 2005, 02:21 AM
Wow.........

I have GOT to spend less time at this thing called "work" and devote entire days persuing paranoia!

Thanks for the earthshattering, hat blowing news...but last I checked, all my hats were present and accounted for, undisturbed... 

Matt....do you know Mr Hudson? Why the total rude and disrespectul approach? I, and others, find it totally unacceptable, and completely without integrity.

Sigh............................

[snapback]65789[/snapback]​

Because it needed to be said and the whole "volunteer" thing makes it impossible for anyone to say the emperor has no clothes on for fear, no offense intended, of recourse like yours. I for one am tired of regional officials deciding our racing futures and playing God, disregarding rules and plotting out policy that does not benefit drivers in any way without regard for the drivers' opinions or needs and then hearing about it after it's a done deal. Furthermore, they all run from accountability when it goes bad with cries of "I'm a volunteer" and it gets supported as they get lumped in with the workers, the ones who truly deserve praise. I was flat out LIED to by a member of the BoD not once, not twice, but THREE times in order to deflect and/or delay any possible action by myself and others in opposition to what THEY desired which was not what the drivers wanted. This official also fabricated information, to support his decision claiming it was what the people of his division wanted, that was proven to be entirely false shortly thereafter but too late to do anything about it. It was what the REs in the division wanted. That's why I will not lay down on this issue. I've learned that we do it too often and I've been burned too many times. It's the reason we're buying belts every two years and running the Runoffs in Topeka, KS, just for a couple of examples. Fight early and often, make all intentions and positions known and do not allow operations to take place behind closed doors. Create accountability.

Have you ever heard a BoD member come out publicly and say, "boy we really screwed up on this Enterprises deal." Or, did the CRB take responsibility for the famous Z4 debacle. No, they passed it onto the drivers. How about Spec Miata? They claimed every excuse from typos to fabricated polling of members. Not communicating to the Florida drivers, their intentions with this proposal, was and is a total disservice.

On the actual issue of the proposal, the way to market for new racers for under performing regions is to do exactly that, not try and force a shift of existing market base to a new location by restriction. That's what's being attempted. Instead of generating interest in other regions which they haven't been able to do they want to take what we in Florida have spent much time and money creating and distribute it elsewhere. It can only amount to a net loss by and business standard. And if certain regions aren't looking to benefit peripherally from this, please explain to me why all other regions should be resrticted from running races other than the "elite eight"? If you want to distribute fairly that doesn't sound fair to me?

 

[lateapex911]

Matt....

Just because one guy, or two lied to you it does not mean that every person volunteering for the club is a liar.

Nor should they be treated that way, and respect is a two way street.

And yes, actually I have been told, on a number of occasions, that people made mistakes..as a matter of fact, I have had some people in very high positions admit errors in judgemet..others have told me they "stepped all over it on that one"....

Bad apples exist in every bushel...throwing the entire bushel in the dumpster isn't productive.

Get the facts. Be open minded. Write a letter to your BoD guy. Encourage your friends to do the same. Get back to work.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 17 2005, 09:48 PM
How would all you Georgia folks feel if we moved the ARRC to Topeka?

[snapback]65794[/snapback]​

They might be proud that what they started became what it is. Then they might realize that for it to grow into something MORE, they would have to set it free.

Then, and only then, would racers from all over the country come and race for a true 'unofficial' National Championship. Heck, maybe the SCCA would recognize it as such.



AB

 

[Mattberg]

Jake,

I respect you and your opinion and just so you know I'm not throwing them all into one barrell. But the two REs I talked to won't tell about who's behind this. What am I supposed to do? If they protect each other that way I have no choice but to consider it a group effort and consider the failure to notify us of this proposal a lie by ommission by all. They want to give me a name or names I'll redirect. But officials that come out in support of this behavior? I can only see them as complicit. I also understand that there is supposedly a "closed session" meeting on this topic coming up. So I'm looking at a lot going on regarding a topic that directly affects a lot of drivers including myself and have no access. It sucks and I don't like the way it's being done. It's reminiscent of the BoD ten years ago.

Bottom line is a don't want to get blind sided by this the way I have on a few other issues by officials assuring me that I was overreacting which it turned out I wasn't. I'm still sore over the SM battle and last minute hoodwink not to mention the threat to take away my membership through legal means if I didn't back off on a certain other issue. They eventually caved on both issues but I still had to hire and pay a friggin' lawyer just to protect my 1st amendment rights. That's just BS.

Creating awareness is paramount. I don't think it's fair to break up what we've put together because some other regions haven't been able to do it. They don't want to drive to Florida for eight races, don't. But don't take our races away to FORCE us to drive to friggin' Alabama or North Carolina as the alternative. Actually, as I've said, I think this is about getting people to Roebling Road and RA. Getting the FL folks much farther north or west would be a lofty goal. That, combined with the restrictions on other regions for new races tells me this is not the "even playing field" proposal they're making it out to be and makes me question the honesty, intentions and integrity behind the proposal. I ask again...why restrict the other ten regions if you want to distribute the races more evenly? Given that restriction I believe there are only four other tracks that could qualify for races with only one competing in reasonable driving distance from FL. Atlanta is still a 15 hour trip for me. Starting to see the picture? That's why I think the Buccaneer region is behind this proposal and probably being supported by Atlanta.

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 18 2005, 04:16 AM
They might be proud that what they started became what it is.  Then they might realize that for it to grow into something MORE, they would have to set it free.

Then, and only then, would racers from all over the country come and race for a true 'unofficial' National Championship.  Heck, maybe the SCCA would recognize it as such.



AB

[snapback]65805[/snapback]​

Just a sidenote on your ARRC comment. It's not unofficial AB. It's a great race and I think people recognize that. But it is still a regional race by participation. You have probably well over half the field from either GA, SC or FL but you usually have all the top guys (e.g., Daniels, Stretch, Coello, Moser, Leverone) who make the trip from wherever they might be which qualifies it in my mind as every bit as much of a national championship as the Runoffs. But if you moved it...well I don't know and won't speculate for fear of severe recourse. People come from all over the country for the Runoffs because... it's the Runoffs, not necessarily because it's their chance to prove they're the best of the best. Fewer than the ARRC I'm sure. I actually think the ARRC is better in that respect and the regional following in whatever radius it might be to Atlanta has created a pretty spectacular level of competition for that race where people come to really race and not parade like many do at the Runoffs.

As it pertains to the topic, that's why I don't think we go screwing around with regional racing. We've created a really good thing that is for good or bad, geographically based. FL has four great tracks and you can't change that. Moroso probably only because of location. Why piss off the FL drivers and shake up the geographical make up to make the Buccaneer region happy? Because they own their track and can't pay to maintain their 60 grit track surface? I won't go there anymore because I go through two sets of tires in a weekend and it's just a POS. No region should own a track. Anyway, geographic concentrations are natural because of tracks and shouldn't be fooled with. This is a stupid idea that tries to reallocate supply with no regard for demand and I think the true intentions are part of a hidden agenda masquerading as a deal of "fairness".

 

[Chris Wire]

I don't see any black helicopters (maybe the aluminum foil on the windows is blocking my view), and I don't hear them either.

If the rule becomes "1 SARRC per track, and 1 Nat. per track" that's nothing. Overall it means that the CFR race in Feb. on the Sebring short course would simply be a regional only. CFR would still keep its 2 Nationals (Sebring/Daytona) and keep SARRCs at Daytona (double) and Sebring (Turkey Trot). And if Roebling can get a pass for its double-National, I'm sure CFR could get a pass for a double-SARRC.

If the rule gets applied evenly to all, what regions would really benefit? Wouldn't then Roebling lose its Spring National (L. Cook?)? And Bob has already mentioned Atlanta Reg. would lose its June National. So really who benefits?

Ironically, I saw the new "Chicken Little" movie over the weekend!

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Chris Wire@Nov 18 2005, 04:51 AM
I don't see any black helicopters (maybe the aluminum foil on the windows is blocking my view), and I don't hear them either.

If the rule becomes "1 SARRC per track, and 1 Nat. per track" that's nothing.  Overall it means that the CFR race in Feb. on the Sebring short course would simply be a regional only.  CFR would still keep its 2 Nationals (Sebring/Daytona) and keep SARRCs at Daytona (double) and Sebring (Turkey Trot).  And if Roebling can get a pass for its double-National, I'm sure CFR could get a pass for a double-SARRC.

If the rule gets applied evenly to all, what regions would really benefit?  Wouldn't then Roebling lose its Spring National (L. Cook?)?  And Bob has already mentioned Atlanta Reg. would lose its June National.  So really who benefits?

Ironically, I saw the new "Chicken Little" movie over the weekend!

[snapback]65814[/snapback]​

NO, NO, NO! Not per track. Per region. CFR loses one National and the eight SARRC races between FL and CFR become four. The talk is Atlanta would give up its June National to VIR which they don't want anyway because it loses money scheduled against the MO National and Roebling keeps all of it's races because the SEDIV theoretically sponsors those races beyond the restriction, not the Buccaneer. Is it getting any clearer who is probably trying to get this done?

 

[Chris Wire]

Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 18 2005, 12:41 AM
No region should own a track.

[snapback]65812[/snapback]​

That's just nonsense. With the competition to get and keep race dates these days, every region would benefit from owning a race track.

Would Atlanta Region have had to cancel the Labor Day race this year if they owned RA? Don't think so.

Not every region can foster and maintain the kind of relationships that CFR has with Daytona & Sebring. And I think we would still be better off if there was some ownership involved.

 

[Chris Wire]

Originally posted by Mattberg@Nov 18 2005, 12:58 AM
NO, NO, NO! Not per track. Per region. CFR loses one National and the eight SARRC races between FL and CFR become four. The talk is Atlanta would give up its June National to VIR which they don't want anyway because it loses money scheduled against the MO National and Roebling keeps all of it's races because the SEDIV theoretically sponsors those races beyond the restriction, not the Buccaneer. Is it getting any clearer who is probably trying to get this done?

[snapback]65815[/snapback]​

Well, Bob's post contained information from his Asst. RE and it clearly indicated per track. I have nothing else to go on.

In all honesty Matt, some of your posts in the past have slanted heavily toward the conspiracy angle, so I'm taking this one with a grain of salt. Sorry.

If more information if forthcoming, I'll be glad to entertain it and deal with it.

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by Chris Wire@Nov 18 2005, 04:58 AM
That's just nonsense.  With the competition to get and keep race dates these days, every region would benefit from owning a race track.

Would Atlanta Region have had to cancel the Labor Day race this year if they owned RA?  Don't think so.

Not every region can foster and maintain the kind of relationships that CFR has with Daytona & Sebring.  And I think we would still be better off if there was some ownership involved.

[snapback]65816[/snapback]​

I don't think an SCCA region is capable of really running and maintaining a quality track. Roebling is the perfect example. San Fran does a decent job but they have a much larger following and a different situation not to mention way more money. Better left to the private sector. So they cancelled one race because AMA has more pull. BFD. Write it off to experience and get a better committment next time. Bad business and another sign that regions don't have the business talent.

CFR owns no tracks and has no problems with races other than hurricanes not to mention more cash than any region in the country other than estimated cash value of Chicago's Road America stock. Not only that, with the addition of Homestead (a really neat track), Florida and CFR probably have the two or three best facilities in the SEDIV with the exception of VIR and our eviction from Barber.

Chris, ever been to Roebling in the rain?

Great avatar by the way!

 

[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.

 

[planet6racing]

You know, I figured Mattberg would be showing up again soon, but on a different topic. Something like T3 and going National in 1 year...

Oh well, I guess he is full of surprises!

And, the phrase is "I COULDN'T care less." If you could care less, don't you think you would?

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by planet6racing@Nov 18 2005, 06:04 AM
You know, I figured Mattberg would be showing up again soon, but on a different topic.  Something like T3 and going National in 1 year...

Oh well, I guess he is full of surprises!

And, the phrase is "I COULDN'T care less."  If you could care less, don't you think you would?

[snapback]65824[/snapback]​

I could care less if Bob Hudson's comments were accurate but they aren't and he wasn't at the meeting. That makes me wonder even more about how information is communicated from these meetings to those not in attendance. Was he told something incorrectly or is he protecting the ultimate goal. I don't really care as long as it doesn't happen. If he's lying, shame on him. If he's only communicating what he was told, shame on someone else.

One misplaced word like "track" instead of "region" changes everything. Unfortunately they don't print it. I'd like to make them do so so there's no confusion. All I know is that everyone who was in attendance at the meeting has confirmed the proposal as I presented it with one new exception, an alternate proposal that allows a double at one of the CFR SARRCs that gives the FL and CFR regions six races instead of eight. Still a net loss and a loss of two SARRCs for Florida region.

 

[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't jump on the forum and/or spread the word, then this "source' is part of the problem too(if there is a problem). Wouldn't anyone on any of the SCCA's boards have a duty to inform their constituents? Who is this source that says everyone else here is wrong, yet won'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'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'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't prove a thing.

 

[chuck baader]

Matt, this has been an ongoing discussion within SEDIV since Barbar came on line three years ago. With due process this is being handled. Please remove your head from the sand or whereever else it has been residing. Chuck

 

[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't jump on the forum  and/or spread the word, then this "source' is part of the problem too(if there is a problem).  Wouldn't anyone on any of the SCCA's boards have a duty to inform their constituents? Who is this source that says everyone else here is wrong, yet won'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'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'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'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's comments, no one else has said the information is wrong. And as far as being the messenger, that's why it was leaked to me. It's tough politically for a lot of the officials, especially if they want to see the right thing done and it's not popular among their own. These folks can get be vicious and things can get pretty nasty if you'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'm not sure what Rick said to you and I didn't get his permission to discuss publicly details of our call or any statements he made, but he did confirm everything I'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'm sorry I can'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't think we have enough tracks do we? So how or why would that be proposed? You'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's nine. We're four short so we'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'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't have the details is more than a little worrysome so we need to keep informed and aware. I also think it's about time for some officials to come forward and clarify the issue.

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Nov 18 2005, 01:41 PM
Matt, this has been an ongoing discussion within SEDIV since Barbar came on line three years ago.  With due process this is being handled. Please remove your head from the sand or whereever else it has been residing. Chuck

[snapback]65836[/snapback]​

All insults aside, since you seem to be in the know, can you enlighten us as to the intentions and details?

 

[chuck baader]

I attended the SEDIV meeting when Barber was brought on line and there was difficulty in scheduling the race because of conflicts with the mileage and time rules of the division: concessions had to be made and rules had to be modified. At that time discussion began (to my knowledge) about the inability of new racing regions scheduling races because of the current racing calendar. By keening in touch with my RE, I am aware that discussions have been ongoing and will probably be finalized or at lease proposed at the SEDIV end of year meeting. Chuck

 

[Mattberg]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Nov 18 2005, 04:22 PM
At that time discussion began (to my knowledge) about the inability of new racing regions scheduling races because of the current racing calendar.  By keening in touch with my RE, I am aware that discussions have been ongoing and will probably be finalized or at lease proposed at the SEDIV end of year meeting. Chuck

[snapback]65858[/snapback]​

Which confirms what I've heard as well and that this new structure will be put to a vote at Jekyll Island with little if any member input. How are new regions going to put on races with the proposal to have only the "elite eight" continue putting on races? Given that policy, who is this going to benefit? As I look at it it only means that Florida racers MUST go to Roebling (double) at least once or Atlanta AND Roebling at least once. If I don't want to go to Roebling I've got to go to Kershaw or VIR! Might as well visit the folks and go to Lime Rock or Summitt Point!

What I really have a problem with is Roebling getting a free pass with SEDIV hosting those races beyond the proposed maximum. Why is Roebling the center of the universe? It's such a lousy track. It's just not right. Maybe Florida should just become a Division.