years ahead

[racer69]

How long do you see V8 Supercars continuing in its current form before CAMS writes new rules. History shows that Touring CAr categories rarely last more than ten years. eg Group C, 1973 - 1984 & Group A, 1985 - 1992. I think the costs are already starting to get out of hand, and how long do you think Ford and Holden will stay interested.

[Amaroo Park]

I dont think CAMs can re write the rules they sold the rights to Touring Cars to AVESCO.

[Crash Test]

Yep...motorsport these days is getting further and further out of CAM's reach...oh well...

[racer69]

All CAMS did was sign a contract for AVESCO to run the ATCC for an amount of time. Just like the way Alan Gows company was contracted to run the BTCC on behalf of the RAC MSA ( British equivalent to CAMS ), and CAMS would never let themselves lose control of the main category in Australia

[Crash Test]

CAMS would never let themselves lose control of the main category in Australia

-D'oh!

[RaceTime]

Crash - the comment is correct - all they have done is hand/contract the management of the contract out to someone else other than CAMS. The rules are ultimately set by CAMS, NOT AVESCO.

All it needs is someone with guts in at CAMS to start getting serious about motor racing - Peter Hansen is getting close BUT he still have the 'volunteer' crowd around him and the 80's entrenched people working at CAMS.

He has started to move and shuffle people and responsibilities (to wit Schenken is no longer Motor Racing Manager within CAMS) but he is still coming up against obstacles.

Example of this is the recent change of CAMS President - no one has really stated WHY the sudden change mid term....

How long will the current rules last? Personally I reckon 5 years. Within the next 2, 3 at most, the caegory will start to self destruct under immense costs and dropping crowds (this is already happening whether AVESCO like to acknowledge it or not). No amount of double head counting is going to be able to alter the fact that there are spaces along the fences at some of the race meetings.

Why will this happen? For starters - over exposure. The Konica series, whether they like it or not, is a second rate series compared to the main series. AVESCO would like V8SC to be like F1 - in AVESCO's case, 32 cars or 16 teams on every grid. But what AVESCO fail to recognise in this area is that the mystique of F1 is that it only comes to each country once a year - here the V8's are everywhere within relatively easy reach every 2nd or 3rd weekend plus on TV PLUS the Konica series. Rising entry fees are starting to kill off the crowd (crowd figures over the last 2 years HAVE dropped despite official figures)

TOCA have tried to circumvent the drop in crowds by catering to the corporate market - but even that couldn't save 10 and 12 car grids.

OK get off my horse - but food for discussion I hope.

[Wrex]

hmmm, how does your theory explain NASCAR in the US?

[Ray Bell]

CAMS have sold the rights? Given them away, actually, or effectively so. And don't think AVESCO won't be pulling the strings, after all, the last change of the category rules was more or less at the behest of Mike Raymond... yes, that bloke, the commentator on TV!

Check Bruce Polain's take on the deal from the last HRR NewsletterURING AUSTRALIAN Motor Sport’s turbulent 2000, CAMS CEO, Peter Hansen, announced “wonderful
plans for the future”, including something called the “CAMS Foundation” and an enterprise called the
“CAMS/Mercedes Benz Driving School – all to come into effect after he “sold the farm”, ie. the disposal to
AVESCO of the management franchise of the ATCC Super Cars.
All was to be wonderful and buoyant, with riches and services beyond belief flowing to the ever-patient
and loyal membership of the kindly CAMS organisation.
And so it looked come January, with the New Year (and the real Millennium) arriving with widespread
reports of multi-million-dollar deals being signed by Holden and Ford and numerous other teams in the
mega-rich V8 Supercar Series, and various drivers on contracts that will set them up for life.
Writing in the “Sydney Morning Herald”, Joshua Dowling said that motor racing is no longer just about
driving cars fast around a racetrack, now that “V8 Supercar racing has grown into a $100-million-a-year
business”.
At the same time, unconfirmed reports claim that the income of Series Promoter AVESCO could
basically double to as much as $15-million a year from the Series.
Quickly, tell us how much our share would be worth!
Sorry - with all this largesse being spread around, it’s rather galling to learn that CAMS handed over the
complete ownership of the Series for a paltry $2-million down and another $2-million to be paid in
instalments over the next ten years.
This was nothing like the original deal between the AMSC and AVESCO, in which the AMSC granted
“management rights” of the Series to AVESCO in return for a franchising fee of 10%, with TEGA (Touring
Car Entrants Group) receiving 67.5% and managers SEL (Sports Entertainment Ltd) the balance of 22.5%.
Despite the deal, there was continuing conflict between the two parties. It was all over “management,”
and to my mind if you grant someone “management rights,” then that someone is entitled to “manage.”
Not in CAMS’ book, though, for it wanted to retain many and varied decision-making processes, hence
the conflict.
Why CAMS should want to do this defies logic, for the income from the franchise arrangement had
grown rapidly from an original $70,000 to a whopping $700,000 and was going along swimmingly. To
ignore this obviously growing financial bonanza indicates pretty clearly that the conflict was not over the
“big picture”, but was more of a nit-picking exercise by the CAMS.
AVESCO Sues CAMS
In an attempt to regain control of something it had already franchised, CAMS decided to go to Court to
establish who owned the “intellectual property”. This, of course, created quite a furore with the AVESCO
people, who said they no longer wanted a business partner who sued them. And, unless CAMS sold them the
“property” outright, they would break away from CAMS.
At this point the FIA stepped in - presumably horrified at the possibility of the Court’s ruling that CAMS
did not own the intellectual property, which could well impact on the sport world-wide, affecting the likes of
Bernie Ecclestone, the ownership of F1, etc.
The FIA then appointed its Sydney-based Vice-President, John Large, to act as mediator. The two parties
met, not to decide who could run the category – AVESCO had already taken issue on that point by giving its
legal team a bagful of money (shades of Bob Jane’s victory over CAMS) – but whether CAMS would “sell
the farm”. Obviously, CAMS had little choice.
Plans Fall Flat - AVESCO Reduce Offer
A deal was struck, but AVESCO declined to pay the agreed $4.8-million as a lump sum and instead
offered $2m down and the balance on terms. This certainly did not please Mr Hansen, who wanted the big
dollars up front in order to start his “Wonderful Plans”.
There was also agreement on $3.5m-worth of shares should AVESCO decide to list on the Stock
Exchange. In a fallback position, Hansen tried to exchange this for an additional $2m up front – but again
AVESCO stuck to its original offer, being not all that enamoured of the idea of floating a company.
The incredible then happened – while August 14 had been set as a deadline for the parties to finalise the
agreement, CAMS’ lawyers reinstated the Court case on August 11! This most assuredly negated the
outcome of the mediated agreement.
It is history that Justice Mandie threw the CAMS case out of Court – although he did give them time to
resubmit. This never happened, though, as the FIA came down on the CAMS like a ton of bricks and
mediation resumed!
In the interim, AVESCO claimed it had “lost” a million-dollar deal due to the unfavourable publicity, and
made a pre-mediation statement that this loss would be reflected in its renewed dealings.
And, indeed, it was, for AVESCO not only stuck to its maximum $2m deposit, but also insisted that the
balance be reduced to $2m and the terms extended to ten years! In short, apart from servicing costs and
interest, etc., CAMS will receive, over the next ten years, a paltry $4-million!
Had CAMS not decided on Court action and had delegated to AVESCO the various controls that should
have gone with the management rights (and which now have, since the sale), then the franchise deal would
have continued as before.
On current trading alone, the return to CAMS/AMSC from the 10% franchise fee on a conservative
estimate would have been a healthy $8-million over the 10-year period. What it would have grown to - and
not only the income, but also the value of the shareholding - with reports claiming AVESCO will gross $17m
this year, is anybody’s guess!
Regrettably, as one Director put it, it’s finished and we’re not allowed to talk about it.” Which made me
wonder just how much he and the Board were involved and who, indeed, actually researched and approved
the outcome.
But again, why sell in the first place, when experienced “insiders” place the value of what was sold for
$2-million closer to something between $5m and $8m?!

* * * * * * * *
IN AN ATTEMPT to obtain a full disclosure of these dealings, I have written twice to NSW CAMS Board
Member Colin Osborne, the second letter also going to the other five Directors of the CAMS.
Osborne replied inadequately to the first letter, and in his response to the second (which took six weeks
to reach me, as he’d overlooked posting it!) he advised he didn’t intend to correspond further, and “there are
more productive ways than looking in the retrospectoscope”! (In an effort to recover the money, I’d like him
to name just one!)
I have also written to Mr Hansen (with copies to the six Directors), again without response.
In my letter to Mr Osborne, I asked that the Board make a full disclosure of the dealings and that those
responsible be brought to account. After all, this is gross mismanagement of members’ finances. Obviously,
this option does not appeal to the Board, who I suspect have declared the matter to be “confidential” in order
to avoid the inevitable revelations of inept management.
How far is CAMS divorced from reality when, despite . . .
· The aforementioned financial disaster,
· A trading loss of over $80,000 in 1999, and
· A decreased workload thanks to the V8 Supercar sale,
. . . there appear to be no staff reductions or cost-cutting?
In fact, in an unprecedented move, CAMS has given its CEO a substantial salary increase based on
“productivity”.
No Budget Yet!
This, despite Hansen’s failure to obtain Board approval of a Budget within the normal time frame (ie,
November, 2000). At the February Board Meeting the budget was still not approved, so Hansen was granted
a two-month extension – until April. At this rate it won’t be long before the year is over and we won’t need
a budget!
Incidentally, it hasn’t been easy to amass a lot of this information. While our CAMS
servants are reluctant to be open and accountable on the surface, my widespread
enquiry net has eventually produced the “big picture.” Mind you, if one is out by only a
dollar the hierarchy will claim one is totally wrong!

Sounds good, but does it
have any foundation?

BRUCE POLAIN