2014 Toyota Racing Series Season

[BackSeat Driver]

I had heard that Eugenes one had been purchased by none other than TKR. Im constantly checking my in-box for the press release

[Ugy]

Does anyone know what the supporting class is for the Utes?

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by Ugy

Does anyone know what the supporting class is for the Utes?

Is that a serious question, or are you taking the mickey?

[raymond]

Originally Posted by BackSeat Driver

I had heard that Eugenes one had been purchased by none other than TKR. Im constantly checking my in-box for the press release

Two car team I understand, with the four drivers already targeted and signed

[raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

'Blackpearl' At least they can't identify you so you have no need to fear their collective wrath.

I would have expected better from you. As for Blackpearl; what are your dealings that you found unsatisfactory?

[smokin'joe]

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

V8ST was created because the majority of the serious NZV8 team owner's/drivers felt shafted by TMC, when TMC reneged on the travel fund and other shared income payments, amounting to sum $163,000.

was the $163K a cost to each team ? per annum?, or the series entrants a a group ?

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by raymond

Two car team I understand, with the four drivers already targeted and signed

Interesting choice of words raymond!

"targeted - selected as an object of attention or attack".

I wonder which they will relate more to after a season with him (if they last a season); the former or the later? I'm guessing here but I bet none of them will have been previous "development drivers". Nothing like fresh meat eh?

[Mark Petch]

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

was the $163K a cost to each team ? per annum?, or the series entrants a a group ?

The $163,000 was owed to VEEGA for distribution to its participating member teams in the form of an appearence payment, so if there were 20 cars that qualified for the minimium prescribed round's then that would have equated to approximately $8,000 per car.

[smokin'joe]

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

The $163,000 was owed to VEEGA for distribution to its participating member teams in the form of an appearence payment, so if there were 20 cars that qualified for the minimium prescribed round's then that would have equated to approximately $8,000 per car.

not an insignificant amount, but only a small portion of the running costs.

[JamesK]

Originally Posted by RogerH

....
The number of vehicles doesn't seem to have been defined but historically and in others parts of the document, 15 cars is a figure used...

Just found this,
Motorsport NZ's Towards 2015, Strategic plan 4.3 racing, specifically states,
"Prior to Championship status application a class shall have competed the previous season as a Sanctioned or challenge Series an should have demonstrated the ability to have at least 15 vehicles contesting 75% of scheduled rounds for the series.

Is there a latter plan that changes this requirement.

[raymond]

Originally Posted by JamesK

Just found this,
Motorsport NZ's Towards 2015, Strategic plan 4.3 racing, specifically states,
"Prior to Championship status application a class shall have competed the previous season as a Sanctioned or challenge Series an should have demonstrated the ability to have at least 15 vehicles contesting 75% of scheduled rounds for the series.

Is there a latter plan that changes this requirement.

You are on to it James, and ST have just become sanctioned

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by raymond

You are on to it James, and ST have just become sanctioned

No he's not raymond, I am. So how come TR86 comes out of nowhere and "voila", instant National Championship with nine cars?

[Mark Petch]

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

not an insignificant amount, but only a small portion of the running costs.

Joe it wasn't about the size of the cheque at all it was all about the lack of trust and integrity that was demonstrated around the Board room table by TMC.

Instead of pretending that all was well with TMC and that they were in good financial shape, a song they [Martin Fine] even sang at the MSNZ conference 18 months later [a mere 3 months before they reinvented themselves as a new entity and then promptly went under] they should have been honest with us and said guys we know we owe you the money, but we cant pay because we are in the shite right now etc.

Most Teams would have been sympathetic and somewhat grudgingly accepted the situation, but they were never honest and upfront with us, and this fact was demonstrated when they unilaterally terminating the JV with us [VEEGA] rather than go through the JV's Disputes provision's. For most of us this was the last straw.

[JamesK]

Originally Posted by on_to_it

No he's not raymond, I am. So how come TR86 comes out of nowhere and "voila", instant National Championship with nine cars?

Exactly..so is the strategic plan can be ignored ?

[RogerH]

The Towards 2020 MSNZ document I quoted in post #87 is (I understand) a draft and not operative.

The operative MSNZ document is the "Towards 2015" version that James copied in post #110.

It says "Prior to Championship status application a class shall have competed the previous season as a Sanctioned or challenge Series".

As I read this, a class (e.g. TR86) cannot even make an application for MSNZ Championship status (let alone be approved as a Championship class) unless they have competed in the previous season as a sanctioned or challenge series. "Shall" is mandatory - it means you must do this.

[Mark Petch]

Originally Posted by RogerH

The Towards 2020 MSNZ document I quoted in post #87 is (I understand) a draft and not operative.

The operative MSNZ document is the "Towards 2015" version that James copied in post #110.

It says "Prior to Championship status application a class shall have competed the previous season as a Sanctioned or challenge Series".

As I read this, a class (e.g. TR86) cannot even make an application for MSNZ Championship status (let alone be approved as a Championship class) unless they have competed in the previous season as a sanctioned or challenge series. "Shall" is mandatory - it means you must do this.

The word "shall" is the operative word in "MSNZ's Towards 2015 document", in the english laungage and is defined by Wikipedia below.

Uses of shall and will in expressing futurity

Both shall and will can be used to mark a circumstance as occurring in future time; this construction is often referred to as the future tense of English. For example:

Will they be here tomorrow?
I shall grow old some day.
When will or shall directly governs the infinitive of the main verb, as in the above examples, the construction is called the simple future. Future marking can also be combined with aspectual marking to produce constructions known as future progressive ("He will be working"), future perfect ("He will have worked") and future perfect progressive ("He will have been working"). English also has other ways of referring to future circumstances, including the going to construction, and in many cases the ordinary present tense – details of these can be found in the article on the going-to future.

The verbs will and shall, when used as future markers, are in practice largely interchangeable. Generally, will is far more common than shall. Use of shall is normally a marked usage, typically indicating formality and/or seriousness and (if not used with a first person subject) expressing a colored meaning as described below. In some dialects of English, the use of shall as future marker is viewed as archaic.[2]

There is nonetheless a traditional rule of prescriptive grammar, applied chiefly to British English, governing the use of shall and will. According to this rule, when expressing futurity and nothing more, the auxiliary shall is to be used with first person subjects (I and we), and will is to be used in other instances. Using will with the first person or shall with the second or third person is asserted to indicate some additional meaning in addition to plain futurity. In practice, however, this rule is often not observed – the two auxiliaries are used interchangeably, with will being far more common than shall. This is discussed in more detail in the following sections.



.

[raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

The word "shall" is the operative word in "MSNZ's Towards 2015 document", in the english laungage and is defined by Wikipedia below.

Uses of shall and will in expressing futurity

Both shall and will can be used to mark a circumstance as occurring in future time; this construction is often referred to as the future tense of English. For example:

Will they be here tomorrow?
I shall grow old some day.
When will or shall directly governs the infinitive of the main verb, as in the above examples, the construction is called the simple future. Future marking can also be combined with aspectual marking to produce constructions known as future progressive ("He will be working"), future perfect ("He will have worked") and future perfect progressive ("He will have been working"). English also has other ways of referring to future circumstances, including the going to construction, and in many cases the ordinary present tense – details of these can be found in the article on the going-to future.

The verbs will and shall, when used as future markers, are in practice largely interchangeable. Generally, will is far more common than shall. Use of shall is normally a marked usage, typically indicating formality and/or seriousness and (if not used with a first person subject) expressing a colored meaning as described below. In some dialects of English, the use of shall as future marker is viewed as archaic.[2]

There is nonetheless a traditional rule of prescriptive grammar, applied chiefly to British English, governing the use of shall and will. According to this rule, when expressing futurity and nothing more, the auxiliary shall is to be used with first person subjects (I and we), and will is to be used in other instances. Using will with the first person or shall with the second or third person is asserted to indicate some additional meaning in addition to plain futurity. In practice, however, this rule is often not observed – the two auxiliaries are used interchangeably, with will being far more common than shall. This is discussed in more detail in the following sections.



.

Exactly.

[CDM]

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

The $163,000 was owed to VEEGA for distribution to its participating member teams in the form of an appearence payment, so if there were 20 cars that qualified for the minimium prescribed round's then that would have equated to approximately $8,000 per car.

Thanks for that because I actually never knew what the poo-fight was actually over.... So then how much have these teams that switched to V8ST's been paid out in appearance monies etc from V8ST's since their inception?

[RogerH]

This from the best practice guide to document drafting :

1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.

2. MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the
definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.

4. SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed
before implementing any behavior described with this label.

I didn't realise motor sport could be so academic

[Mark Petch]

Originally Posted by CDM

Thanks for that because I actually never knew what the poo-fight was actually over.... So then how much have these teams that switched to V8ST's been paid out in appearance monies etc from V8ST's since their inception?

With respect I think you are missing the point, it was not about how much money a team got in the way of appearence monies, it was all about integrity.

No V8ST team was ever promised appearence monies, and no appearence monies have been paid, what V8ST offered its competitors was a franchise sytem modelled on the Australian Supercar system, which at one stage was worth a lot of money to the Aussie teams.

Unfortunately even the Australian model has suffered dramatically with the financial crisis and 2 franchises have been turned in, just prior to the end of last year because there were no buyer to be had. Hopefully one day the V8ST franchises may be worth something, but I dont think any bodies 'betting the house on it' happening any time soon.

[Ugy]

Sounds like the ST is going to be an expensive flop for some people.

Looking before you leap comes to mind.

[Ugy]

Double post

[JamesK]

Towards 2015 Strategic plan also states

"Criteria have been established for access into and retention of Category status to ensure that all involved make best endeavours to present a racing class that can capture the support of competitors, entrants, sponsors and spectators."

This statement is then followed by a pyramid graph ( I cant paste) showing the path to championship status, Starts with Clubmans to Sanctioned to Championship status.

This same document states,

For MotorSport NZ to consider status for a first or subsequent Championship the class must have been able to demonstrate the ability to have at least 15 vehicles contesting 75% of the previous seasons scheduled rounds of the series.

No "shall" here, only a "must" and a "previous"

[Jerico]

Originally Posted by Ugy

Sounds like the ST is going to be an expensive flop for some people.

Looking before you leap comes to mind.

Thank you for your input. It has been noted, and appreciated. As always you speak with great knowledge and wisdom. I speak for everyone when I say thank you for your lattest contribution.

[Ugy]

Well it's not looking to good is it, just saying.