Special Stage Forums banner
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

Sorry ACP, but RDG has done a CRAP job
>of marketing rallying. They've had an entire year now, and
>there is nothing forthcoming about next year. As you've
>mentioned, we competitors need to know stuff well in advance
>and so far RDG is stonewalling us about 2005.

I wish we had a train and a tow fund. How are those bad things?

Most good long term marketing relationships take a while to develop. I think that a realistic measure of success in that area would be more than one year.
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

>I wish we had a train and a tow fund. How are those bad
>things?

The tow fund came from the Subaru sponsorship money, I believe - it was an interesting initiative, and (along with the train) made our trip to Rocky viable.

The train was administered through CARS, not RDG.

Adrian
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

It is way too easy to sit on the sidelines and point fingers.
The reality is that we have a couple of groups who just don't want to play in the same sandbox.

The biggest problems I see, are a needed reform of the CARS power structure, and the need to remind a marketing partner that while they are a self standing 'for profit' company (which I don't have a problem with), they are still marketing the canadian championship on behalf of CARS, and that they do (should?), in part, answer to the board, the organizers, and the competitors.

Cars Reform -
As it stands, there is an massive imbalance of power. Rallywest has had 31 drivers compete in the last 3 years, 28 have driven events this year. We have an additional 15 cars in construction NOW, and issued 17 (yes, seventeen) new logbooks THIS YEAR.
Because we 'all get along' we only have 4 clubs in Rally West, and as such 4 votes at the AGM.
If we look at atlantic (sorry Clarke, not picking on you, but if I point to the centre of the universe Ray will have a fit) the level of activity there is considerably lower, yet they have 6 member clubs and therefore votes at the AGM. yet on the other side of the country, RPM, with a lot of growth and activity, has only 2 member clubs.

Personally, I think there needs to be some drastic reform measures taken ... something that will bring more voting members into the agm that will give better balance and representation. The simplest would be to give each director the voting power of the number of licensed (active?) competitors in their region. Perhaps adding TSD licenses at at nominal fee and/or opening up a ?voting membership? in cars as well. (this would help us answer the question of how many people are ?really? interested n rallying ... (see the Rally America ?workers license? concept.) This also brings in a new revenue stream for a cash strapped association.

Working together
RDG, or a new marketing company, MUST realize that their job in marketing the CNRC is to promote the entire series and build the championship status - not their own status. If you look at the WRC, ISC is virtually invisible, as are most marketing firms who do a good job for their clients. In my mind, the obvious separation between RDG and CARS was a bad thing.
As I have said, RDG had some good concepts - but the execution was suspect. The marketing firm needs to remember that CARS and the events are partners, if not CLIENTS, in this relationship rather than suppliers that are backed into a corner. Yes, the tow fund was a great idea, although it kinda smacks of ?buying your friends,? particularly when the sponsorship backing for the program fell through (or never materialized.)

All of these thoughts and ideas need to be considered when taking the next step. We all have to remember that rallying is all about the Press On Regardless attitude ... so lets move forward ... somehow!
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

Wow, imagine rallying in Canada *not* being a subaru commercial, sounds interesting. RDG sounds like a manipulative entity; with replacement or control of CARS at the root. They got blindsided and ACP's post is the result.

Rallyists are the customers, that's all it's about, paying money to drive dirt roads, I'm still looking for the glory, maybe Pat took it all :)
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

I do not know any of the history being discussed in the forum, but having just read the post on the CARS website, I have to admit that given those circumstances conveyed in that bulletin, I would have supported what is reported as a "unanimous" decision by the Directors of CARS.

Regardless of what happens, I am totally fired up about participating in this wonderful sport next year, and I believe our team sponsors will be attracted to support because of the professionalism of the team and not the politics of the governing body. TV coverage and media exposure is a result of our professionalism as a "body" not one person's ability to talk a good line to a potential sponsor/media contact.

These kinds of discussions are on going in any organisation. The difference with todays increased communication channels is that what becomes public in a fraction of a second without necassarily all of the facts, would only ten years ago have been delayed by a number of days or weeks by which time a resolution would have been decided on.

Life on the bleeding edge of technology!

Mark Jennings-Bates
Prescribed Burn Rally Team
 
CARS Official Response

INFORMATION BULLETIN #1

November 18, 2004

Subject: Termination of the CARS-RDG Marketing and Broadcast Rights Agreement and plans for the 2005 Canadian Rally Championship

A year ago, CARS entered into a five year marketing and broadcast rights agreement with Rally Development Group (RDG). Included in the wording of the agreement was a one time option to terminate the agreement at the end of the first year. The primary aim of the agreement was to secure long term commercial sponsorship stability for the Canadian Rally Championship. In addition, RDG had presented a very desirable program for both the development of the sport and its promotion.

During the first ten months of the agreement, three shortcomings in the agreement became more acute and a unanimous CARS Board decision was made to present to RDG with a request for changes to the agreement. The three changes CARS asked for concerned respectively, a shortcoming of the agreement, a means of improving the working relationship between RDG and CARS and, lastly, the financial stability of CARS. The rationale for the changes was as follows:

1. In the agreement, there was no protection for either CARS or RDG in case of failure of either party. CARS was exposed to possible legal difficulties if RDG were to fail or get in difficulty during the life of the contract and the assigned rights given to RDG could pass to others or be held beyond the reach of CARS. As well, RDG was exposed to fulfilling all financial commitments even if an event in the championship did not run. The wording of the first change was an attempt to address CARS?s issues and would have been expanded to address RDG exposure.

2. The second change was designed to relieve some of the strain that existed between CARS and RDG in the first year of the agreement. The change asked for increased communication, on a confidential and timely basis, on matters relating to sponsor negotiations and media campaigns.

3. The third change was an attempt to help put CARS on a secure financial path. During the first year of the agreement, CARS received approximately 2% of the total budget to which RDG was committed. CARS did not ask for new money to be added to the budget, but that already existing funds be reallocated from other aspects. The amount being asked for would bring the total payable to CARS to less than 5% of the total budget. CARS is currently operating in a very serious deficit position and to continue the agreement without a financial solution would result in the financial collapse of CARS before the end of the agreement.

The decision to exercise the option was made by majority vote when efforts to negotiate three changes to the agreement were rejected by RDG, at 7:15 pm. The rejection was without explanation and came twenty-four hours after RDG first received them. This was less than five hours before the option to terminate would expire and the agreement would have become binding on both parties for four years. Friday evening contact attempts by the CARS president went unanswered.

At 11:00 pm on Friday, November 12, 2004, CARS, with great reluctance, informed RDG that CARS wished to exercise its option to terminate the CARS-RDG Marketing and Broadcast Rights Agreement. Included in the notification of exercising the option to terminate was an offer to rescind the notification if a settlement of the three requested changes could be negotiated. All attempts on the morning of Saturday, November 13 to contact either principle of RDG were unsuccessful. Messages were left inviting RDG to contact the president. No response was received at any time over the weekend. Further attempts, including intercession by ASN Canada FIA and the chairman of the national organizers? committee on Sunday, November 14 similarly failed. Attempts to establish dialogue continued throughout both Monday and Tuesday, but RDG indicated, through others, they did not wish to reinstate the old agreement or become involved in a new agreement or anyone else concerning the 2005 CRC.

The decision to terminate the CARS-RDG Marketing and Broadcast Rights Agreement was a difficult one to make because of the desire of the entire CARS board to continue with the agreement to allow the good work started by RDG to continue to prosper in the four remaining years of the agreement. However, sometimes difficult decisions have to be made to protect the best interests of the sport.

Current Situation:

Even at this late hour, CARS is prepared to work with RDG if there were any possibility they wished to continue on the path they had started in 2004, but the way forward should reflect the best interests of all parties involved.

Plans for 2005:

CARS wishes to assure its member clubs and their members, organizers and competitors as well as its present sponsors that there will be a Canadian Rally Championship in 2005 and beyond. While we are still hopeful that the present situation can be rectified, the CARS board is committed to press forward to retain the present sponsorship of Subaru and seek other sponsor partners. One of the first acts in the coming days will be to establish a relationship with a marketing company with an eye to improving the commercial side of the sport. However, CARS will pursue all sponsor possibilities that present themselves in the immediate future.

(Because of the urgency of time, this document is being released in English. The French language document will follow as quickly as possible.)
 
RE: CARS Official Response

Geez, there goes Terry Epp, being all disciplined, diplomatic and introspective again!!!

Now that you have a response from the other side, you can see that there is more to this issue than meets the eye. RDG is shown to be not as perfect and innocent as was once suggested.

Since this black and white issue has been shown to be varying shades of gray all over the place, I suggest we stop the speculating and public discussions here, since that can only lead to more damage being done with potential sponsors.

And ACP, I do agree wholeheartedly with you that we need full accountability from everyone where this sport is concerned.
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

>Cars Reform -
>As it stands, there is an massive imbalance of power.
>Rallywest has had 31 drivers compete in the last 3 years, 28
>have driven events this year. We have an additional 15 cars
>in construction NOW, and issued 17 (yes, seventeen) new
>logbooks THIS YEAR.
>Because we 'all get along' we only have 4 clubs in Rally
>West, and as such 4 votes at the AGM.

Massive imbalance of power...

Yet another issue seen through the glasses of west vs. east?

I don't think any of what's going on has anything to do with the ebb & flow of rally participation in any given region.(and it will ebb - wait for the price of oil to drop...)

Terry, you can continue to be president but you've got to pack up the family and join the ranks of eastern refugees 'out west'

Robin
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

>Yet another issue seen through the glasses of west vs. east?

>Terry, you can continue to be president but you've got to
>pack up the family and join the ranks of eastern refugees
>'out west'

Robin,
I wasn't actually going after the Western Alienation thing here, and I'm offended that you'd bring that out. You are using a cheap trick to deflect and marginialise a real issue as just 'western whining.'

I was simply pointing out that regions that are active and cohesive enough to acomplish growth without splintering into a half dozen clubs have less of a voice at the CARS AGM. That's not right no matter where the region is! The voting power at the AGM should be somehow representitive of the stakeholders (Competitors, organisers and workers) in the sport. Right now it isn't!

That there is a tangible inequity for western competitors is an entirly different issue ... and one that seems easily dismissed by putting off as another 'west vs. east' gripe.
 
RE: IMPORTANT: The RDG-CARS termination, the

>>Yet another issue seen through the glasses of west vs. east?
>
>>Terry, you can continue to be president but you've got to
>>pack up the family and join the ranks of eastern refugees
>>'out west'
>
>Robin,
>I wasn't actually going after the Western Alienation thing
>here, and I'm offended that you'd bring that out. You are
>using a cheap trick to deflect and marginialise a real issue
>as just 'western whining.'
>
>I was simply pointing out that regions that are active and
>cohesive enough to acomplish growth without splintering into
>a half dozen clubs have less of a voice at the CARS AGM.
>That's not right no matter where the region is! The voting
>power at the AGM should be somehow representitive of the
>stakeholders (Competitors, organisers and workers) in the
>sport. Right now it isn't!
>
>That there is a tangible inequity for western competitors is
>an entirly different issue ... and one that seems easily
>dismissed by putting off as another 'west vs. east' gripe.

Keith,

I'm sorry you're offended. No cheap tricks here - simply an expression of dismay that what is shaping up to be an important issue of interaction between CARS and the membership is being reduced to an enumeration of how many cars are being built in your region.

It's great that you're active and cohesive. It's a simplification (and perhaps not-a-little offensive) to imply that the greater number of clubs elsewhere is an indication of less activity and a lack of cohesion (or splintering).

I completely agree that the decision-making regime should be representative of all of the stakeholders. I believe that what is being exposed here is not western-competitor alienation/inequity but competitor alienation and that we have an opportunity to do something about it before we start pitting regions against one-another: counter-productive.

Robin
 
21 - 31 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top