Queensland Raceway

[Gaz170]

Originally posted by spook

If TC did post here, what do you suppose his "handle" would be?.

GOD

[bestfit]

GCMG
{GOD CALLS ME GOD}

[Morris 1100]

FIGJAM

[pete55]

I wish i had have thought of that Morris.

[Morris 1100]

I thought it was the obvious choice!

[pete55]

It is now that you've said it

[Crash Test]

RT- I wish you'd read everything people post. CAMS hasn't bullied anyone into running race meetings here there or anywhere. More to the point, the AASA hasn't explaimed themselves to the clubs up here, and I don't think everyone glues themselves to the internet following bulletin board arguements. Shoot, if everyone had some common sense, all of our race meetings would be multi-club affairs from the cheapest provider. But unfortunately it seems we have to run state championship meetings, or elese they don't work. But if we did away with state championships, the bottom line would be that motorsport would become more affordable for all. Nobody from CAMS or the AASA have ever been able to tell me why there is such a difference in fees between a multi-club and a state championship race meeting, when they are essentially the same thing. Go figure...

One last thing, every has a go at the system for encoraging street circuits, which kill off permanent facilities and therefore grassroots racing. Here we have a situation where it seems that the permanent facility has no interest in club level activity. Oh well, let's hope some common sense can prevail, ey?

[spook]

Hold on Crash, QR has always maintained a focus on the customer - the racer - the amateur motor racer, the problem lies in those people are being led by CAMS who are telling the circuit they have to pay a high price to have their members race there. ********.

People should be allowed to race anywhere they want, and it should not matter a toss whether CAMS licence the circuit or not. It's not like the circuit has become dangerous since 1/1/2004 - CAMS are simply asking too much for a piece of paper that hangs on a wall and allows the track to do business with "CAMS clubs".

The last newsletter from QR stated they had issued over 500 track licences last year - that's 500 people that have been introduced to motor sport (by driving at a QR event). How many new L1, L2 or C3 licences were issued by CAMS for QLD last year?. CAMS "member services" is so hopeless they probably can't even answer the question.

QR is not interested in stealing people away from CAMS. They are simply tapping the market that CAMS have chosen to ignore and/or disenfranchise by continually pushing up costs to simply sustain their own organisation. Why do CAMS insist on higher fees for "State Championships"?. Simple, they have a bottom line that needs to be met every year.

AASA are never going to try & sell their product to clubs, but anyone is welcome to run their events at QR under the insurance provider of their choice. Now there is a choice.

It would be nice to see CAMS wake up to themselves and see the writing on the wall, but I fear they are still convinced the AASA Indians are coming over the hill to rape & pillage. The reality is most of the population growth in motor sport is already on the other side of the hill and CAMS are defending an empty shell that no one can afford any more.

[Bigguy]

Originally posted by spook

It would be nice to see CAMS wake up to themselves and see the writing on the wall, but I fear they are still convinced the AASA Indians are coming over the hill to rape & pillage. The reality is most of the population growth in motor sport is already on the other side of the hill and CAMS are defending an empty shell that no one can afford any more. [/B]

I think these few words sum up the current situation across the country perfectly.

[Falcadore]

If a meeting is advertised as part of a series, and then goes ahead, no longer part of that series, then it affects competitors. If the meeting goes ahead at another circuit then it affects competitors. If the meeting goes ahead, under AAsA instead of CAMS, then it makes a big difference.

I've heard that MG is going ahead at Morgan Park because of this issue. I imagine their alternative was to cancel as MG prefers to run with CAMS. It could be in time MG will run with AAA, but they would seem to not be prepared to make that leap yet.

As far as I can tell, at grass roots level, AAA cnad CAMS is not a subtle shift. Its two sides of a coin. And while AAA does not want to be CAMS enemy and only exist to provide an alternative, the end result will be conflict as at the end of the day the choice will be black and white. There will not be room for both.

To say I don't want this is tremendous understatement. I would have prefered a CAMS that actuallyrepresented its membership, however......

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by Crash Test
RT- I wish you'd read everything people post. CAMS hasn't bullied anyone into running race meetings here there or anywhere. More to the point, the AASA hasn't explaimed themselves to the clubs up here, and I don't think everyone glues themselves to the internet following bulletin board arguements. Shoot, if everyone had some common sense, all of our race meetings would be multi-club affairs from the cheapest provider. But unfortunately it seems we have to run state championship meetings, or elese they don't work. But if we did away with state championships, the bottom line would be that motorsport would become more affordable for all. Nobody from CAMS or the AASA have ever been able to tell me why there is such a difference in fees between a multi-club and a state championship race meeting, when they are essentially the same thing. Go figure...

One last thing, every has a go at the system for encoraging street circuits, which kill off permanent facilities and therefore grassroots racing. Here we have a situation where it seems that the permanent facility has no interest in club level activity. Oh well, let's hope some common sense can prevail, ey?

Crash - this time I think you are completely wrong - it has nothing to do with the tracks not being interested. Let me put it this way - I am aware of now of WHY the MGCC decided not to hold the meeting at QR and, once I get corroborative info to confirm what I have been told, yes I will post it here - but until then - make do with understanding that, once again, CAMS are the prime cause of this happening. It has NOTHING to do with the facility not wanting club level activity - that is a one eyed and unsubstantiated view of yours.

And when have AASA been approached to run a State level meeting in QLD? As I understand it, they haven't.

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by spook
AASA are never going to try & sell their product to clubs, but anyone is welcome to run their events at QR under the insurance provider of their choice. Now there is a choice.

Are they though? My understanding is that if you want a CAMS permitted event you have NO choice but to use CAMS insurance.....this is, from my informaiton, primarily what has caused the QLD MGCC to let go of the scheduled QR State Round - nothing else.

[Matthew Ronke]

Originally posted by Falcadore
If a meeting is advertised as part of a series, and then goes ahead, no longer part of that series, then it affects competitors. If the meeting goes ahead at another circuit then it affects competitors. If the meeting goes ahead, under AAsA instead of CAMS, then it makes a big difference.

I've heard that MG is going ahead at Morgan Park because of this issue. I imagine their alternative was to cancel as MG prefers to run with CAMS. It could be in time MG will run with AAA, but they would seem to not be prepared to make that leap yet.

As far as I can tell, at grass roots level, AAA cnad CAMS is not a subtle shift. Its two sides of a coin. And while AAA does not want to be CAMS enemy and only exist to provide an alternative, the end result will be conflict as at the end of the day the choice will be black and white. There will not be room for both.

To say I don't want this is tremendous understatement. I would have prefered a CAMS that actuallyrepresented its membership, however......

I still think your beef is with CAMS. Why not a temp licences for the meeting? The answer is because CAMS are using CAMS are using the MGCC to force QR into taking out an expensive product that they real do not need. If you guys attend things like state councils I would suggest you go along at tell the QLD board member his position is a little shaky.

[spook]

Racetime, read the 2003 CAMS Manual, Page 15-3, Item 1, paragraph (iii). Here is the catch. CAMS have tied their permits to their insurance, you have no options.

BTW, I'm sure many CAMS Clubs don't realise that they have no insurance cover from CAMS unless they have a CAMS permit for the activity. Some CAMS people over the years have been telling clubs that they are covered for Public Liability all year by taking out CAMS affiliation. You are only covered by CAMS insurance when a permit is issued - no other time.

[FalconEL]

Spook,

I've heard another fairly unrealible rumour and being our resident QR contact, can you tell us - Is the rumour going around that V8 Supercar Teams cannot test at QR unless the circuit is CAMS Licenced true or false?

I see major issues arising from this is true as I would imagine significant income would be generated by V8 Teams hiring the circuit.

The above is a question possibly better asked of GTRMagic or someone else in the know I suppose. Personally, I cannot imagine how the V8's could be stopped from testing unless they had restrictions placed upon them in their AVESCO agreements, but I felt this rumour valid enough to require substantiating.

[GTRMagic]

Section D1.3 of the AVESCO operations manual states:
"1.3.1 Testing may be undertaken at any test track located in the State or Territory in which the Team or Group is based"

So there is nothing stopping a team from nominating any track in their home state as their test track, LRT for example could nominate Wakefield Park if they so wished, while Dynamik tests at Mallala for lack of other options.

Would the V8 teams test at Morgan Park, or is that now also a problem? Surfers Paradise isnt an option these days, although Lakeside might be?

But the presumption is that these circuits are CAMS accredited...

... I am not sure how it would be enforceable if tested at law if AVESCO were to tell teams they couldnt test at circuits not under the CAMS umbrella. My bet would be that if the Qld teams couldnt test at QR there would be some issue though...

The other thing to remember is that CAMS is no longer an equity partner in AVESCO, so arguably there would be nothing specifically stopping TC from hitching his wagon to the AASA should he so desire...

[sevi]

I have just been told that they can't, however I will ask a few more people.

[GTRMagic]

Section D1.1.4 of the AVESCO operations manual defines:
"1.1.4 Test Track
Means and includes any:
1.1.4.1 motor racing circuit
1.1.4.2 automotive test facility - including but not limited to manufacturers' test facilities, roads or tracks
1.1.4.3 private or government driver training complex
1.1.4.4 any other road, surface or track upon which an automobile can be driven"

Now without having seen any other definition of a test track superseding or countermanding this rule, it basically suggests if you want the block around your house as a test track it can be done....

Or Lang Lang... or You Yangs... or Anglesea... not restricted to just generally accepted race tracks

"

[Morris 1100]

I remember back a few years when CAMS said that there was no such thing as a State Championship. They claimed it took competitors away from the National Championships and that they would not recognise any claims of a state title.

[RaceTime]

Originally posted by spook
Racetime, read the 2003 CAMS Manual, Page 15-3, Item 1, paragraph (iii). Here is the catch. CAMS have tied their permits to their insurance, you have no options.

Which, under sections 45 and 46 of the Trade Practices Act is definately illegal.

If you front up with your own insurance coverage they cannot force you to take out additional coverage.

[RaceTime]

Crash - let me pose a question to you and see how you take inference from this (and yes, others can answer as well).

My current understanding is that the MGCC Queensland were informed that in order to use Queensland Raceway to run a State Round, they would have to first show that they have their OWN insurance coverage to cover the $100,000 CAMS excess.

The MGCC declined and THIS is the reason they are no longer the promters of Queensland State Championship Round 1.

Anyone else like to confirm this please?

[GTRMagic]

Um, how do you cover the excess of another insurance policy with an insurance policy? or am I missing something??

[RaceTime]

That's what I am asking.

I not 100% sure who is asking for the additional insurance coverage - the track or CAMS - so don;t go picking on either until that has been established.

[GTRMagic]

It is theoretically possible, as its the basis of re-insurance, but last time I looked CAMS was not a registered insurance broker, and I doubt has an APRA licence to begin laying off risk by insuring excesses.

Nor indeed is there any mention of such insurance 'trading' in the CAMS Limited annual report... or is that tucked up in one of the "untouchable" companies in the structure?

[RaceTime]

Whatever it is has only been raised since Jan 1 this year - as I said I am not sure who is requiring this cover - and remember, at this stage, AFAIK, CAMS are not reselling insurance - they are FORCING hirees to have coverage for the CAMS $100,000 excess (btw, is that even legal???)