Motorsport NZ does Historic Racing need them.....
In reading some of the comments regarding red tape, officialdom, hidden agendas, etc, what about some logical reasons for needing MNZ if Historic Meetings were to be run as a seperate identity similar to what the drags do with NZDRA? I`m only asking, not looking to open a can of worms, so intelligent comments would be appreciated.
Becomes very difficult due to Motorsports link with FIA. VCC is running some pre 1960 events but M Sport is holding on to post 1960 Historics very tightly and would make life very difficult. VCC currently doesnt have the structure to do it at the current level. Interesting that you should mention the drags as they have also had their problems and heaven forbid M Sport looked at taking that over as well.
Can of worns ? . I don’t know all the details but basically Drag racers got sick of a self servicing NZ official body so told them to stick it where the sun don’t shine and aligned themselves with an American organization and do there own thing for there own good. MSNZ take over dragracing . Yeah right ! Wouldn’t even make a Tui’s billboard. I’m with Steve on this one. We should look at setting up our own governing body. I don’t know all the in’s and out’s of past history but it seams that we owe it to ourselves to do better than what’s been dished up from Welliwood. Lets bounce this around a bit !
It crops up every year or two! As recently as Saturday, the question was raised at Pukekohe in a group that included one or two posters from this board.
The feeling is that with classic and historic meetings raking in the levies from over 200 competitors for a two day race meeting, plus many one dayers attracting over 100, we must surely be contributing rather a lot to the MSNZ pot? Add race licences, permit fees, roll bar homologation fees etc and it must add up to a fair proportion of the MSNZ overall income.
What most of us are then asking, is what does the classic really movement get in return? We already organise and administer our own meetings, series, championships, etc., so MSNZ does very little more than apply rubber stamps and red tape!
I am not sure that with running older cars, any technical changes are really necessary, particularly if the cars are as they were in their day or are covered by series technical rules. (HMC, Alfa, BMW, ERC, Classic Trials etc.)
So why not an alternative movement? Probably, it comes down to circuit owners running a mix of of MSNZ events and any Outlaw meetings and not really being in a position to have a foot in both camps, without some form of sanctions being applied.
Maybe we need circuit owners to comment?
Then it comes back to who or how to administer it, given that if we adopt the Issigonis theory of "a camel is a thoroughbred horse designed by a committee", on the one hand; or, you get the strong, dictatorial leaders, who get off their chuffs and actually create something, such as Mike John with Targa and Mark Petch with Super Tourers, both of whom have their critics, but also their supporters and who have challenged the establishment head on.
What is quite clear is that the Classic and Historic movement has several strong personalities and groups, who have seen what the movement needs, particularly in the north island. This includes Tony Roberts and Chris Watson with the whole Hampton Downs project, plus their affiliated club, HRC and the various series regularly running at their events. Add in other classic meeting organisers who are now running a mix of "pure" CoD classics and non-conforming series, and the support is much stronger than the traditional clubby meetings.
The south island also has a its own very strong classic movement, with several drivers happily crossing the ditch whenever they can.
Yes, open the discussion...
Last edited by ERC; 10-08-2012 at 09:31 PM. Reason: typos...
There is something here I dont understand..To have a roll cage homologated needs MSNZ.To get a log book needs MSNZ.When there was the bad accident at Queenstown MSNZ stepped in to save the volunteer marshalls from charges. So it is accepted that MSNZ has a use-the buck stops here-am I correct?
Do MSNZ have any use at all you are asking
?If so what?
Or are you saying that all responsibility for what goes on at HD is solely HD and they carry the can. For example decibel noise is enforced only by HD and their standards.
Also there would be no Clerk Of The Course as MSNZ rep?
And so on with each track and directors?
Last edited by John McKechnie; 10-08-2012 at 09:29 AM.
There was some discussion at Puke last weekend on the effectiveness of MSNZ. In my opinion to breakaway from msnz is not practical.
I doubt if a breakaway group would be allowed track hire. There would be some very expensive litagation, the lawyers would love it.
The answer is to get msnz to change, this means going to the AGM, putting up remits, electing professional directors, having proxy voting, questioning msnz changes to rules. Such as the double clips on fire extinguishers, my virtually brand new extinguisher hasa to be replaced. Not a huge amount of money, but it all adds up.
So get your club to make a submission to the review, read the HRC submission. Attend trhe next AGM of msnz. Write to msnz expressing your concerns about the sport. Nominate and vote for the best office bearers, forget all the political in fighting. Motorsport
politics make Maori politics simple.
We might not like them but we need strong people like Bernie Ecclestone, Tony Cochrane, Mark Petch and Mike Johns.
I find this a most interesting discussion. As one,who with a group of like minded people, managed to run Wings and Wheels at Ruapuna and Wigram for 10 years or so I can state that one does not need MSNZ. Oh they will threaten you with all sorts of dire consequences,cancellation of licenses,etc etc. But as I have already posted on here before there is a Commerce Comm. finding that makes it quite clear that nobody can dictate who a track owner can rent their track too, or who a competitor can race with with. They will say you cannot get insurance bit you can and so on and so forth. What annoys me most is the underlining dishonesty of the organization. They have known for years of case 242 and yet carry on as though it never happened. What we all need is a group of people who have the time and inclination to get a better, fairer deal going. I would be prepared to be part of this and contribute what I have learned so far.
Maybe someone should talk to the people who run AASA (Australian Auto Sport Alliance Inc) at some (not all) circuits on Eastern seaboard of Australia.
At AASA events CAMS and AASA licenses recognised however CAMS does not reciprocate.
AASA events very well patronised and license fees considerably cheaper.
You are right Dave. Reassuring to see an experienced hand like yours going up in a discussion like this.
Last edited by John McKechnie; 10-08-2012 at 10:44 PM.
John, I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick here. Case 242 is where the Speedway Control Board took Outlaw Racing and one other body to the Commerce Comm. to stop them running a rival series. To there chagrin they were sent packing on all counts. MSNZ were represented at said hearing by Smithard and Snellgrove as observers.
Last edited by Dave Silcock; 10-11-2012 at 10:53 PM.
A very interesting topic.
The first step is - do we need FIA for most domestic racing? I think the answer is no. For 99% of the racers in NZ the FIA is next to meaningless and it only really applies to those racers who want to compete in overseas jurisdictions who operate as an FIA ASN.
Sure, the FIA has certain standards that MSNZ applies to items such as helmets and harnesses but this usually results in artificial cost increases and illogical restrictions on use life of non "FIA Approved" items - for example the MSNZ imposed life of a FIA harness compared to a SFI harness. These FIA standards could be dispensed with and acceptable international standards (such as Snell and SFI) used at no additional cost to a competitor.
The next thing is do we need MSNZ in NZ? MSNZ is quick to state that they have the exclusive right for motor sport in NZ. However this is incorrect. They may have the sole right as a ASN to represent the FIA in NZ but that does not give them the sole right to administer or regulate motor sport - such action would be against the Commerce Act provisions for a start.
The issue of insurance is bandied about as being a huge problem that only MSNZ can solve. This is also incorrect. There is no monopoly for MSNZ in getting insurance cover for events. A combination of sensible cover and legally binding indemnities signed by drivers, marshals etc could be easily obtained by an independent party. In the US many organisations run their own thing and that is the land of litigation. For example see this successful historic and classic group that issue their own competition licences, rules and series : http://www.hsrrace.com/About-HSR.html
Essentially many clubs and event promotors run their own events here and I know that they feel that they are only paying a "tax" to MSNZ for the so-called privilege of putting on an event.
I agree with Ray's comments regarding the growing dissatisfaction from the historic and classic fraternity that they are not getting a fair shake from MSNZ. I understanding that the historic and classic group are the largest single group of competitors within MSNZ and the income derived from this group is the largest from any competitor group. Against this background, I have experienced a lack of affinity (or possibly worse) with historic and classic racing from MSNZ Executive. There has been no representative from H&C on MSNZ Executive for many years. These situations tend to grow over time and eventually it gets to a stage were there is a revolt.
I don't think there is any legal or structural reason why a group of competitors can't get together and hire a track and run an event. If MSNZ tried to stop it they would most probably be up for action under the Commerce Act. All it needs is the correct structure, organisation and legal/insurance/indemnity protection - this is not an insurmountable imposition only solvable by MSNZ.
Last edited by RogerH; 10-09-2012 at 12:26 AM.
Dave,
My most sincere apologies to you ,I absolutely have got the wrong end of the stick here.I have edited it accordingly
Last edited by John McKechnie; 10-08-2012 at 10:46 PM.
No worries mate.
I am not sure why there is a need to have a seperate body for Classic and Historic Racing. We already have one, MSNZ. It is just that it dosent work properly for C&HR.MSNZ is there to administer ALL facets of Motorsport, not just the top teir. C&HR needs to decide what it is that they require to be changed within MSNZ, how this can be acheived, and then set about doing it. To this end MSNZ (as our administrative body) could set out to identify competitors in C&HR, and then formulate a questionaire that can be E Mailed to these competitors for their opinions and views. It is then up to those competitors to respond. Perhaps the setting up of a stronger C&HR presence within MSNZ would also help get better representaion and a fairer slice of the pie. MSNZ shouldnt be viewed as an autonomous body, it is there to serve its members, which it dosent seem to be doing in the case of C&HR and therefore needs changes made. Unfortunately there are those who are competitors who just want to compete, and then there are those who are politicians and who like to tell us how and when we are allowed to compete.
The rumbling from the Classic & Historic sector has been building and building and the structure of MSNZ is such that they just don't seem to listen.
We are going over old ground here, but to repeat what has been said before either on here or other message boards, a club gets one vote at conference, whether they represent 300 active racers or none at all, historic or modern, therein lies the major problem with trying to get change passed through the existing structure.
I could think of a perfectly feasible and acceptable group of (local) people who I'd be happy to work with and it is not rocket science to select an accurate representation. I am sure the South Island could do likewise:
Circuit owner(s)
The Motorsport Club (volunteers and officials) - including a Clerk of the course.
One rep from each valid race series plus a rep from the VCC.
A member from each race promoting club.
An accountant with a motorsport background
A solicitor with a motorsport involvement
Possibly an insurance specialist?
A member of the press/PR industry.
A member of the medical profession with a motorsport background
A Current scrutineer
A Certified engineer with a motorsport background
An administrator/secretary with a motorsport background
That may be a largish group but I could happily fill in names for many of those part time/advisory positions straightaway and with the usual sub committee structure, there is nothing there that couldn't guide and run classic motorsport effectively for the long term benefit of the competitors.
I throw that open for comment but I fail to see why rules and handbooks need up-dating every 5 minutes, particularly for the classic sector, where the rules should be now be set in concrete, only needing an update every 5 years or so.
Grelley ----
Unfortunately over the years it has been proven that the undemocratic constitution of MSNZ prohibits necessary change and it is this situation which has lead to this thread.
ERC ---- “MSNZ does very little more than apply rubber stamps and red tape!”
Dave Silcock ----- “But as I have already posted on here before there is a Commerce Comm. finding that makes it quite clear that nobody can dictate who a track owner can rent their track too, or who a competitor can race with with.”
RogerH ----” The first step is - do we need FIA for most domestic racing? I think the answer is no. For 99% of the racers in NZ the FIA is next to meaningless and it only really applies to those racers who want to compete in overseas jurisdictions who operate as an FIA ASN.
The rumbling from the Classic & Historic sector has been building and building and the structure of MSNZ is such that they just don't seem to listen. Etc.”
Thank you gentlemen for not standing by so many and pissing into the wind! I am too old to be closely associated with current problems, but remain vitally interested due to close long standing involvement from over fifty years back and the nasty Frosty years, when the current undemocratic constitution became firmly cemented in place.
As democratic means do not exist, sport as such must be put to one side and all approaches based strictly on the commercial aspects involving motor racing. It is here that there is meat in the sandwich. N.B. We now have the commerce act which is dedicated towards preventing monopolies. Clearly MSNZ operate a monopoly reliant on their sole representation of the FIA. Seemingly they have no other leg to stand on. This situation could very well be challenged, but in any event those wishing to compete internationally, could continue membership of a MSNZ associated body. The cost involved would surely be negligible when stacked up against relative overall expenses.
What actual and absolute obstacles exist preventing the formation of an alternative motor racing association? When entering the discussion, please avoid blow back and accept a strong wind particularly when hot air is involved.
This forum as well as other internet facilities, provide a practical means towards assembling the troops, something not available in my time. Where there is a will, there is now a way.
Trevor.
Last edited by Trevor Sheffield; 10-09-2012 at 03:39 AM.
Beowulf has touched on one of the most frustrating parts of the structure of MNZ. It is the clubs that have the voting power at AGMs etc not the competitors who are paying for the "priviledge" of being associated. We have discussed in the past how a club of a few members has the same voting rights as a club of hundreds. Perhaps the answer is for more Historic and Classic clubs to be formed and affiliated. In the past three or four clubs have all paid a levy on my behalf but effectively I have had no say. Yes we need a few Bernies and Tony Cochranes amonst the Historic fraternity to keep them in line.
Does anyone know offhand what the levy structure is? (Too late to go and find out!!)
With badminton for example, if you are a member of more than one club, only one affiliation fee is payable to the national body, so you pay a reduced fee to the second club.
Each club pays MSNZ an "Member Club Annual Subscription" fee of $5 for each club member. If an individual belongs to several clubs (as many do) then each club that person belongs to pays $5 for that person - if you belong to three clubs then MSNZ gets $15 from you (which you actually pay as it is a component of your club's annual membership fee).Originally Posted by ERC
On this basis the number of MSNZ affiliated clubs members is overstated as there would be many double-ups.
Hi Guys, there has been a thread -The state of New Zealand motor sport-running for some time on virtually the same theme.
How many threads on the same topic ?
Its all good stuff , but is not so effective if the topic is spread around, and good stuff from the past is overlooked if the thread is not continually used
Steve H -your take please.
Last edited by John McKechnie; 10-09-2012 at 07:46 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote