Clear Channel squeezing out competitors?

This seems like a case where you make the data fit the conclusion. Board track car racing was even more popular than the bikes and had as many, if not more, terrible accidents (sidenote, the cars were driven by two people, one driving, the other was a mechanic that watched for other cars and performed whatever other tasks they could from the passenger seat).

The closest thing to board track racing right now would be stadium seating in concrete ovals, like, oh, say NASCAR.

In otherwords, I don't think there is any possible correlation between the death scandals with board tracks at the beginning of the century and current relative popularity of various types of motorsports.

 

lizard84:
"control of their own series" ? That is exactly what is at issue here, who "owns" the series? The promoter that risked large sums of money or the sanctioning body?

Mongo:
See above. CCE can claim that they took the risks, did the promotion and created the SX series. The neat thing about the US is that anyone can sue anyone. It is up to the courts to decide the validity of the case. Edmondson won because he presented a case that the AMA "stole" what belonged to both of them. CCE can make the exact same case.

The AMA went to racetracks and coerced them into reneging on existing agreements with Edmondson. The AMA has no existing agreements with the stadiums. CCE established an exclusive agreement based on providing additional income to the stadiums not the threat of taking away income. If you go into McDonald's you can only buy Coke products. Coca-cola has an exclusive agreement to provide McDonald's with soft drinks. Is this restraint of trade? What are the chances of success if Pepsi sued Coca-cola and McDonalds for the right to compete against Coke in McDonald's restaurants? Slim and none, and Slim left town. The very fact that we are debating the merits of what the AMA has done indicates the likelihood that the legal system will become involved.

Which brings us back to my original point. I don't care if the AMA was justified or not in attempting to take ownership of SX. The way they did it shows poor business planning and decision making. Know your market and know your competition. Anticipate your competitors moves. At the very least the AMA should have had agreements in place with the stadiums and agreements for television coverage. They should have taken into account the legal challenges they could face. The loses that could be sustained by an organization that recently suffered a substantial loss.

A more prudent approach would have been to negotiate with CCE. Take on more of the risk in return for more of the profit. Setup all TV and stadium agreements to include both the AMA and CCE as partners in the agreements.

Which brings me to the most important point of all. Do we pay our $39 membership dues to a non-profit organization to fund risky for-profit business dealings? I say no. The AMA should remain a sanctioning body. Let the promoters take the risk and the reward/loss.

 

I think the point being missed in all this is that the AMA attempted to lock up the stadiums first. Only, they didn't have their collective ducks in a row - no statements of support from the factories that they'd stay AMA, etc. Then CCE fought back and their clout was large enough to pull off exclusive deals. Hearing the AMA crying now is very amusing.



[This message has been edited by texasF4 (edited 12-10-2001).]

 

Hmmm... From the press releases from both sides and the way JU has spun it, I was under the impression that the AMA's decision to pick up JAM promotions came as a suprise to CCE, which would imply that there were not ongoing but unsuccessful negotiations.

I donno if there was some kind of behind-the-scenes conflict going on, like maybe CCE was (or the AMA brass perceived it was) trying to muscle the AMA around or even take over AMA proracing all together. But givin the AMA's recent track record, I'm inclined to believe this was just another bone-headed move on their part, driven purely by greed...

------------------
James Greeson
Senior Wannabe,
GS Posse

 

Call it "perception". The AMA has a habit of underhandedness and you have to admit that this is smells kinda fishy as well.
I can understand where CCE is coming from as well. It's like they are trying to say to the AMA "We'll show you" like a jilted ex or something...
I personally don't give a crap about little bouncy motocrossers, and JU probably only a little more.
This is politics, I think he is just using this to highlight his campaign issues. Namely that the AMA is run by a bunch of Boobies (you knew that was coming )


------------------
James Greeson
Senior Wannabe,
GS Posse

 

I'm not defending their behavior, I just don't think the AMA deserves any sympathy for getting beat at their own dirty tricks.

No venue should lock out viable, profitable events. If a venue refuses to take profitable business, shareholders ought to call them on it (or tax payers). I race in a region where politics keeps us from racing at a local track (Oak Hill). I know first hand this type of thing is not good for racers or racing.

 

Well I think the reasoning behind some limits of use of a venue for similar events within a certain time period is the dilution of profitable events. As such then it would not be in best interest of venue. Oversaturation of the market place.

The more consumers you have for an event the more times you can hold same type of event. Baseball fans will come back for more events than monster truck fans and even more so than SX fans. Not saying that is always the case as expense of event I am sure comes into it. Baseball field facilites are permanent setup low operation expense per event. Monster truck may be done with some other tie in or set up is less than SX or revenue is much higher per seat sold etc etc.

 

OK...I've held my tongue long enough. We are now making statement of facts based on perception. What kind of crap is that?

Personally, at this point, I would be more likely to listen to Mongo than JU. Although I love RRW and can never wait for the new issues, I tend to side with Mongo's accessment of JU's AMA viewpoints.

JU, it seems to me that lately that all you seem to do is find something negative to say about the AMA. I think that they have some major changes to make, and I think that you have some good ideas on some directions that they should take. However, I get the feeling that at this point, they would never be right in your eyes unless they say "Yes, John. You are right", or "whatever you say John." I really believe that your rage has gotten you a little tunneled-visioned.

It's like before I ever became manager. I used to complain about some of the decisions that were being made until I became manager. I still did not agree with some of the things, but at least I knew why some were being decided as they were. I learned witch battles were worth fighting and witch ones weren't for the overall picture. I changed things from within, not by butting heads but by working within, establishing trust, and allowing them to hear and understand me. There is something about people that don't allow them to hear you if you are allways calling them idiots. Sometimes you've got to look at both sides.

And before you ask JU...
No, I've never run a Motorcycle team...
No, I've never launch the career of any motorcycle racer...
and no, I've never been editor, owner, writer for any racing publication.
But my opinion is still the same.

My .02



------------------
Michael Roberson #66
Robey's Racing

 

Read the top question over & over again until you WAKE UP!

The AMA owns the series, the promoter wants to profit, so he assumes the some risk, to make said profit.

If you still think thats not the case. Then why didn't CC sue the AMA?

Why?, because they knew they had no case. They decided to go head to head thinking they would win the SX's wars.

But again, who do you think the factorys will back? The AMA perhaps? Who is going to lose? maybe no one, its a big pie. Maybe the Arenacross guys?

All that said, Mongo & I seem to be in complete agreement & yes, Hell has indeed frozen over

 

People have very short attention spans. Even the AMA admits that only a small percentage of the membership votes in the elections. So, if you are an outsider who wants to get inside to change things for the better, how do you overcome the voter apathy? You point out, over and over if necessary, how the status quo isn't good enough. You don't keep overlooking poor management decisions. You try to get it into every voters head that it's time for a change. Certainly, the AMA is doing the opposite they're taking credit for the good things that have been accomplished and trying to ignore their failings (at member expense).

 

Note: I never said that the AMA was flawless. On the contrary, I said that they had problems, and that JU had some good ideas to change it. However, when a lot of what is coming out of your mouth is negativity, it gets to be monotonous. I, for one, hate negative campaigns by our political politicians. I have even seen some loose there campaign because they have reduced their campaign to this.

There are various ways to get this information out without "negative campaigns. I know that JU gets out the facts, but at times, becomes as much of a spin-doctor as the AMA. In my opinion, his facts become tainted with distain and negativity, not just facts.




------------------
Michael Roberson #66
Robey's Racing

 

So do I,

Thing I don't believe in are things like voting a straight ticket, I'll vote for anyone I think will do a good job but telling me things like, Vote for these guys who support ME & will vote MY WAY rubs me the wrong way. I want to vote for the guy who has his own reasons for running for the board & votes his own mind. Not someone that you have said is going to vote lockstep on every issue with you so you can take over.

My idea of change does not involve throwing out one dictator who says "My way or the Highway" just to install another

Another issue, Why does almost every story on something the AMA puts out that you print on your site say the "AMA does not mention or defend the roles played by Reynolds and other trustees in the Edmondson vs. AMA lawsuit"

Well, no shit John, its a press release. The only guy that keeps bringing it up is you.

Where the outrage?

At Cycle news, Cycle World, or the other Motorcycle info sites.
I guess no one at those rags are running for office

I know you have done many great things for racers, my hats off to you for that.

Just don't stand too close, because those six arms of yours that you insist on patting yourself on the back with might take out an eye

 

Kevn Schwantz, Jeff Nash and I got together and formulated a unified position. You give them no credit with a theory that I am leading them around--we have joined an attempt to make things better.

Are you as AMA members better off or worse off than you were when the current incumbents took office? Dues have been raised from $29 to $39, the association is light $3 million, the Trustees do stuff members never hear about until it's too late, etc. The Supercross deal will affect every member, just like the Edmondson road racing deal did.

Repeating old news, talking about history? Yeah, and trying to avoid repeating the same mistakes by doing so. Trying to, instead of just complaining, get in office and do something about it. Trying to make the AMA all it should be, responsive and representative of all members.

This is a campaign. And pointing out the opposition's mistakes, why they should be replaced, and the differences in position, is part of a campaign.

I still say, Take Back The AMA. Reform it, make it better. Those guys have had their shot, it's time to give somebody else who is willing to actually make something happen a shot.

John Ulrich

PS: Don't put words in my mouth and apply that never did this, never did that deal to areas that it doesn't apply to, that wasn't ever my intent. And Mongo, nobody has or can argue that you and Ev are not racing people with racing expertise.

Give me, Kevin and Jeff a shot at this. If we fail to perform as promised and make the AMA better, blast us on the BBS and throw us out in the next election. That's fair, right?

[This message has been edited by John Ulrich (edited 12-10-2001).]

 

fair enough.

BTW- I think they are assuming you are "fearless leed'ar" of this little revolution, because you are the only one here that argues back, and that you are high profile...

 

I told the other guys I'd take the point on this expedition. They're good men, but they don't really spend much time on a BBS...

 

Well, of course, in the RW 600 comparison that everyone reads (according to the log files)
http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/issues/dec00/600s.htm

The Suzuki wins. But, I think in hindsight we can see from the race season that we were right in picking the GSXR over the R6.

Of course, now that Suzuki's quality has been sacrificed on the alter of the a sub $8,000 price tag, we might have to revise for next year unless Suzuki can prove that they can still make a valvetrain.

If only they still paid contingency on the 1998s...

Sam
AOD