Mazda and CAMS events

[robert inall]

Originally Posted by Factor

You have to remember that this isn't conspiracy theory - its somewhere on here in black and white. There was a decision by ARCOM that manufacturers would be required to contribute to the ARC fund even if they only wanted to run say a state series, this wasn't apparently designed to prevent the evil subaru people from winning theNSW championship whilst ignoring the ARC and not throwing money in the TV pot.

The facts are clear - Mazda had been participating in various events until one sunny afternoon when Ben Rainsford went to them at an event and made a clear statement about their need to pay the RAllycorp levy. I have a statement from a person who was standing in earshot of the Horsley /rainsford conversation. I trust my source. I don't trust Cols source.

And before anyone asks - I didn't put Ray up to this and he didn't ask me anything about this before he posted his original post in this thread. When challenged about his facts however he did PM me and ask what if anything I knew. The above is what I know.

They havent apparently seen fit to operate at CAMS events since. Been busy at Targa and the like though.

So what Ray is saying is that the we had some people who were building cars and running young drivers and supporting club and statelevel events, RAllycorp decided to heavy them, and they no longer support those events.

I think that is a shame.

I think its a real shame that some here dont think that driving competitors away from our sport is counterproductive.

As for Cols comments about showroom class. You really think Mazda or anyone else are going to want to run a showroom class MPS 3 against (back then) Group N (p) stuff!!! (or as I like to call them - Group G for rich people).

As for asking mazda - well thats okay but why cant we ask for CAMS/Rallycorp/ARCOMs side of the story?

Andrew THIS is the point, a full blown version earlier would have helped, been a bit cloak and dagger thats all, and for the record I support what you and Ray are saying or the point that is trying to be made, just took a while to get it out, so to speak.

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by Factor

You have to remember that this isn't conspiracy theory - its somewhere on here in black and white. There was a decision by ARCOM that manufacturers would be required to contribute to the ARC fund even if they only wanted to run say a state series, this wasn't apparently designed to prevent the evil subaru people from winning theNSW championship whilst ignoring the ARC and not throwing money in the TV pot.

The facts are clear - Mazda had been participating in various events until one sunny afternoon when Ben Rainsford went to them at an event and made a clear statement about their need to pay the RAllycorp levy. I have a statement from a person who was standing in earshot of the Horsley /rainsford conversation. I trust my source. I don't trust Cols source.

And before anyone asks - I didn't put Ray up to this and he didn't ask me anything about this before he posted his original post in this thread. When challenged about his facts however he did PM me and ask what if anything I knew. The above is what I know.

They havent apparently seen fit to operate at CAMS events since. Been busy at Targa and the like though.

So what Ray is saying is that the we had some people who were building cars and running young drivers and supporting club and statelevel events, RAllycorp decided to heavy them, and they no longer support those events.

I think that is a shame.

I think its a real shame that some here dont think that driving competitors away from our sport is counterproductive.

As for Cols comments about showroom class. You really think Mazda or anyone else are going to want to run a showroom class MPS 3 against (back then) Group N (p) stuff!!! (or as I like to call them - Group G for rich people).

As for asking mazda - well thats okay but why cant we ask for CAMS/Rallycorp/ARCOMs side of the story?

Communication is not just an issue for CAMS to be aware of - Ray really should have posted this first so that the normal people who care about this sport arent riled up and think he's trolling - it's not like he wasnt asked to put up or shut up.

I might be part of the axis of evil but I do have some ability to be even handed

[Dave Kelly]

Originally Posted by Factor

You have to remember that this isn't conspiracy theory - its somewhere on here in black and white. There was a decision by ARCOM that manufacturers would be required to contribute to the ARC fund even if they only wanted to run say a state series, this wasn't apparently designed to prevent the evil subaru people from winning theNSW championship whilst ignoring the ARC and not throwing money in the TV pot.

The facts are clear - Mazda had been participating in various events until one sunny afternoon when Ben Rainsford went to them at an event and made a clear statement about their need to pay the RAllycorp levy. I have a statement from a person who was standing in earshot of the Horsley /rainsford conversation. ....

That might well be true Andrew (and Ray), but so too is it true that back years ago all manner of sins occurred that together conspired to fail rallying as a sport.

HOWEVER... that was then. We now are here in 2010, and ARCom assures us (and the minutes as I recall back this up) that the former model for funding by manufacturers etc is NO MORE (and so therefore the rationale for requiring manufacturer support first or only at a national level also naturally must have lapsed)..

Sure, we can go around on some sort of witch hunt because Mazda don't run their Mazda 2 anymore (and presumably given that car is now a superseded body shape.. I doubt they would still want to be running it under their official livery anyway) OR we can see what WE can do to help rallying now and into the future, and hope that we might again entice that sort of support from some major corporate and/or manufacturer.

Yes, I (and many of us) can list a whole heap of decisions made in the past that were certainly detrimental to rallying at an overall level. Even in looking at the ARC one doesn't have to dig too far to see a litany of disastrous decisions made in years gone by. The good news is that from the beating of tom-toms these days it seems that ARCom have learnt something from those disasters, and now MUCH more productive ways are being put forward by and through them. Hell, even the newly badged RallyCorp (not sure what it is meant to be called.. apart from the "ARC") has made some reasonably sensisble decisions lately (mostly through the intervention of people like Justin Dowell I assume).

Of course, we still have fights to resolve.. and currently the significant threat is the incredibly poor governance and administration that ALL of motor sport is getting from the Board and paid senior administration. Lets not let that one go, and we must keep the fight up on that level.. but for the moment at least, surely the battle is pretty well over with ARCom and we can stop looking for bogey men at every turn.. and even more importantly stop the blood letting over decisions made years ago by them or their predecessors which no longer are applicable policy or have any current relevance?

Lets please look forward... it is clearly the best way! If ARCom (or others) try to BS us again.. then well all bets are off... but in the meantime can't we at least try for some unity of purpose?

2010.. its the year of lurrrve (doncha know it )

Dave

[Factor]

All fair comment Dave - but if we dont acknowledge the mistakes of history we are bound to repeat them.

Anyway - I have moved my ARCOM commentary to another thread where I have undertaken to be a good boy.

[fro]

Originally Posted by Spac

What Ray is alluding to, is the rumour that ARCom told Mazda that any Mazda supported car would HAVE to compete in the ARC.
Basically "Manufacturers belong only in the ARC", when apparently Mazda specifically wanted to put their time and money into non-ARC stuff.

http://cams.com.au/Common/Archived%2...20Minutes.ashx

Page 16, Article 8 - Quoted below:

8. Manufacturer Supported Entries – ARCom Approval
ARCom RESOLVED to include a clause in “Rally Car Eligibility” that requires Manufacturers entering cars in non-national level events to first seek the authorisation of ARCom. This is considered in line with ARCom‟s view that manufacturer representation in the sport should firstly be at the national level.
Also, due to the need for manufacturers using the sport as a platform for their products to contribute to the sustainment of the sport, it is proposed that those competitors receiving manufacturer support beyond a certain level be required to contribute to the Australian Rally Championship.
The Sporting regulations will provide guidance as to the indicators that ARCom will take into consideration when determining the level of support that is appropriate before triggering the requirement for contribution to the Australian Rally Championship. Determination of „significant manufacturer support‟ shall be at ARCom‟s discretion.
Action: CA

[Marcus]

Originally Posted by fro

http://cams.com.au/Common/Archived%2...20Minutes.ashx

Page 16, Article 8 - Quoted below:

Ahhh thanks be to you. I presume there has been nothing to supercede that?

[fro]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Ahhh thanks be to you. I presume there has been nothing to supercede that?

Well it's still in the current "Vehicle Eligibility" regulations:

GENERAL
Event Organisers, State Rally Advisory Panels and/or State Sport and Club Development Councils may make application to ARCom for specific dispensations.
Manufacturers wishing to enter rallies are required to seek authorisation from the Australian Rally Commission.

Page 3 - http://camsmanual.com.au/pdf/04_rall...neral_Q110.pdf

[fro]

Oh, see parts of this discussion (not necessarily relating to Mazda, but relevant nonetheless):

Defining 'Significant' Manufacturer support for the ARC
ATT- Members of ARCOM
2009 ARC new Manufacturers?
Manufacturers and the ARC - a thought

[Col Trinder]

Originally Posted by Factor

You have to remember that this isn't conspiracy theory - its somewhere on here in black and white. There was a decision by ARCOM that manufacturers would be required to contribute to the ARC fund even if they only wanted to run say a state series, this wasn't apparently designed to prevent the evil subaru people from winning theNSW championship whilst ignoring the ARC and not throwing money in the TV pot.

The facts are clear - Mazda had been participating in various events until one sunny afternoon when Ben Rainsford went to them at an event and made a clear statement about their need to pay the RAllycorp levy. I have a statement from a person who was standing in earshot of the Horsley /rainsford conversation. I trust my source. I don't trust Cols source.

And before anyone asks - I didn't put Ray up to this and he didn't ask me anything about this before he posted his original post in this thread. When challenged about his facts however he did PM me and ask what if anything I knew. The above is what I know.

They havent apparently seen fit to operate at CAMS events since. Been busy at Targa and the like though.

So what Ray is saying is that the we had some people who were building cars and running young drivers and supporting club and statelevel events, RAllycorp decided to heavy them, and they no longer support those events.

I think that is a shame.

I think its a real shame that some here dont think that driving competitors away from our sport is counterproductive.

As for Cols comments about showroom class. You really think Mazda or anyone else are going to want to run a showroom class MPS 3 against (back then) Group N (p) stuff!!! (or as I like to call them - Group G for rich people).

As for asking mazda - well thats okay but why cant we ask for CAMS/Rallycorp/ARCOMs side of the story?

Andrew
you've already been caught out selectively quoting stuff and asserting it as fact. You are wrong again. The allegation that Mazda or any manufacturer was ever told they can only enter the ARC is rubbish. Stop trying to mislead people.

ARCom concluded that it was in the best interests of the sport overall that if manufacturers intended to enter lower level competitions it would be wise that someone knew about it. They were asked to inform us of their intentions first. Hyundai for example have had no issue with this.

[Col Trinder]

Hasn't this conspiracy run its course - can we move on to the next one?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Col Trinder

Andrew
you've already been caught out selectively quoting stuff and asserting it as fact. You are wrong again. The allegation that Mazda or any manufacturer was ever told they can only enter the ARC is rubbish. Stop trying to mislead people.

ARCom concluded that it was in the best interests of the sport overall that if manufacturers intended to enter lower level competitions it would be wise that someone knew about it. They were asked to inform us of their intentions first. Hyundai for example have had no issue with this.

In case it still isnt clear - the purpose of these comments is not to pick on people - its to say - Hey - this decision of ARCOM/CAMS/RAllycorp the decision that still exists in the manual, is silly it serves no purpose, in fact it appears to have a detrimental effect. Consider getting rid of it.

Okay - Col wins - I am over trying to improve the administration by challenging its failures. I'm with Col - lets all drop it - the future is wonderful the past is irrelevant.

Lets all go and watch the 8 ARC entries for the first ARC rally. Demonstrably life is wonderful.

[Griffo]

Originally Posted by Col Trinder

Hasn't this conspiracy run its course - can we move on to the next one?

Fro's links paint & clear picture... For the average punter like myself it is hard not to align the dots & come up with the same picture as Ray & Factor...

[Dave Kelly]

Originally Posted by Factor

Still playing the man hey Col. I have the statement - play the man too much more and you will see it, in the appropriate place,

In case it still isnt clear - the purpose of these comments is not to pick on people - its to say - Hey - this decision of ARCOM/CAMS/RAllycorp the decision that still exists in the manual, is silly it serves no purpose, in fact it appears to have a detrimental effect. Consider getting rid of it.

Okay - Col wins - I am over trying to improve the administration by challenging its failures. I'm with Col - lets all drop it - the future is wonderful the past is irrelevant.

Lets all go and watch the 8 ARC entries for the first ARC rally. Demonstrably life is wonderful.

Oh c'mon Andrew... Surely Col's response was clear and really quite reasonable?

We know that the whole funding/finance thing by manufacturers NO LONGER exists.. and as for manufacturer entries needing to let ARCom know first... well ... SO WHAT? Sure, as with a fair percentage of CAMS rules, the requirement is fairly clunkily drafted (I say as someone who has drafted legislation, regulation and suchlike professionally), but Col has quite clearly stated the intent...It isn't sinister at all, and surely ARCom as the peak body ought be aware when manufacturers wish to pursue entering into our sport (given the possibility or likely marketing use by them etc).

Sure, for reasons as THEY THEN existed, Mazda "might" have decided to play elsewhere... but as keeps being said, the world has NOW changed from what it was when Mazda made that decision (i.e. the funding issue has gone). Please can't you see that and offer something constructive rather than trying to use the provision or otherwise of your future advice or contributions as a tool to try and get Col to engage in public self flagellation?

For what its worth, to me it seems this thread has now run its course and perhaps ought be locked out. A question was asked (albeit perhaps not originally in the best of ways) .. and now quite clearly has been answered.

Thanks Col

Game over, isn't it... and the world is a better place

Felicitations to all,

David

[Matt Dyne]

When's the first rally of the year? Maybe then people will be focused on working on their cars and competing, rather than bored in the off-season, with nothing else to do than to bait people.

M

[Rallyray]

At the end of the day, a manufacturer is no longer competing in grass roots events since this little chat.

How it got there is up to you to decide... I'm comfortable with my version.

The point of the matter is that this conversation should never of happened when the manufacturer was doing positive things for grass roots motorsport.