MSNZ & TMC - 'Wheels start to come off'

[E36ST]

Nice that the mainstream media is finally picking up on the discontent that has been around for quite a while now!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/n...ectid=10798978


P.S. meant to be 'TMC' not 'TMS' but I'm unable to edit it. Can a mod change please.

[on_to_it]

Originally Posted by E36ST

Nice that the mainstream media is finally picking up on the discontent that has been around for quite a while now!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/motoring/n...ectid=10798978


P.S. meant to be 'TMC' not 'TMS' but I'm unable to edit it. Can a mod change please.

Yes, and about time too. TMC directors have treated the sport, and the competitors, with utter arrogance and contempt for far too long. How can they present a set of accounts to their shareholders where all the detail (who was paid how much etc) and then when asked to, refuse to disclose further information. Absolutely unbelievable. There's no transparency at all, and I bet they would be too embarrassed to show their faces at a track if their wheeling and dealing became public knowledge.

[TrueBlueFlyer]

ahh the politics of motorsports

[harcey]

Originally Posted by on_to_it

Yes, and about time too. TMC directors have treated the sport, and the competitors, with utter arrogance and contempt for far too long. How can they present a set of accounts to their shareholders where all the detail (who was paid how much etc) and then when asked to, refuse to disclose further information. Absolutely unbelievable. There's no transparency at all, and I bet they would be too embarrassed to show their faces at a track if their wheeling and dealing became public knowledge.

yes , but will the clubs have the balls when it comes to conference and the vote......i have heard this before and when push comes to shove the clubs back down for fear of repercussions......i hope for the sports sake that they all stick together and force change...

[on_to_it]

The answer is probably no they won't. I'm told by those who have been around the sport far longer than I have, that the relationship between TMC and MSNZ (before the current presidency) was a little too "buddy-buddy" and no-one else wanted to take on TMC's role. MSNZ and the clubs have let this "transparency" issue slide in the past, so what will it take for this to change?

[mountainstar]

Glad it's now out in the media.

I've said many times and laid out the case for it, that a national FIA representative should not be involved with the commercial side of the sport due to conflicts of interest and the result being the loss of it's impartiality.

And you can see MSNZ basically admitting that.

I think Hampton Downs has a lot of potential but if someone like Tony Quinn can take it a step further, then it might be worth considering.

[Speedwayracer44]

This is a disgrace of major poportions and to read they are sticking their oar into ST and making rules to **** them off is below the belt and sour grapes. Harris and the executive have to go for not only abuse of power, they need to go for listening to TMC and the antics of Martin Fine. Have you ever heard anything like this in your time! Whos supposed to be running this ship? Good on the man that wrote this and NZ Clubs need to get behind this. This is as bad as FIFA?

[Goat Boy]

Originally Posted by Speedwayracer44

This is a disgrace of major poportions and to read they are sticking their oar into ST and making rules to **** them off is below the belt and sour grapes. Harris and the executive have to go for not only abuse of power, they need to go for listening to TMC and the antics of Martin Fine. Have you ever heard anything like this in your time! Whos supposed to be running this ship? Good on the man that wrote this and NZ Clubs need to get behind this. This is as bad as FIFA?

With the exception of a couple of posters who are no doubt directly involved with TMC and/or MNZ, I reckon pretty much everyone in the sport would agree with that article too. Things have got to change - hey how about we take a case to the FIA that MNZ no longer be the official governing body asnd replace them with some people who think in the interests of the sport, not like petty despots who are more interested in feathering their nests and protecting their patch than the furthering of the sport?!

[Trevor]

God, this reads like a CAMS thread - LOL and the article could read like a CAMS V8SC article

[speedreader]

I hope this is not a classic case of 'everyone want's change but is sitting back waiting for everyone else to work hard to get it...'

Dont all competitors have to be members of car clubs and dont these members vote in the executive at their clubs ? The same executive members that then vote the MNZ people in ? If so, why is it so hard to change MNZ ?

If new management is required it's got to start at 'grass roots' level & filter upwards but this involves a little committment of time and support at your local car club.

If everyone is that unhappy and does something about it, change should be achievable within 12 months.

[TrueBlueFlyer]

Originally Posted by speedreader

I hope this is not a classic case of 'everyone want's change but is sitting back waiting for everyone else to work hard to get it...'

sounds like the reason why I couldn't find temp work in NZ while here on a working holiday

[Goat Boy]

Originally Posted by speedreader

I hope this is not a classic case of 'everyone want's change but is sitting back waiting for everyone else to work hard to get it...'

Dont all competitors have to be members of car clubs and dont these members vote in the executive at their clubs ? The same executive members that then vote the MNZ people in ? If so, why is it so hard to change MNZ ?

If new management is required it's got to start at 'grass roots' level & filter upwards but this involves a little committment of time and support at your local car club.

If everyone is that unhappy and does something about it, change should be achievable within 12 months.

Attempts have been made before to unseat the current lot and their mates, but as someone said there is a voting bloc of car clubs mainly from the South Island that has managed to dominate for years, and their mates are the ones running the show. And in the past it has been a case of "show dissent and suffer the repercussions" - a bit like Gaddafi or Assad. People like the Hampton Downs guys have been given the cold shoulder, had spurious technical rules thrown at them (like the 2 warmup laps debacle) and other such childish things.

But, every dog has its day, and if there is enough discontent within the clubs when they see (or don't see as it seems to be) how much of their hard earned contributions are being wasted, then maybe there will be enough numbers out there to force the changes that need to be made.

Which is why articles like the Herald one, and discussion forums like this one that are used by competitors and officials, are good because they get the real issues out in the open where they can be debated rather than people just complaining to each other when they are out of earshot of Big Brother...

[E36ST]

The comment about the supposed 'Southen bloc' is an odd one. It's my personal view but I understand that the Canterbury Car Club wouldn't be against such a change. I haven't heard where South Canterbury Car Club & Southland Sports Car Club stand, although with the amount of business that the Tier 1 meetings bring to their circuits then they would no doubt be keen to protect that.

I also understand that as far as voting on MSNZ matters go, each of these car clubs only have 1(?) vote, but so do all of the other affiliated motorsport clubs (individual marque Car Clubs, rally clubs) all have a vote each too and so collectively these far outweigh the opinions & wishes of the circuit operating clubs.

I understand that this is why avgas was banned by MSNZ, because it was the large number of small clubs that thought 'we don't care as this doesn't concerns us but lets vote for it anyway', which caused a major headache for many circuit racers.

[smokin'joe]

i don't think it would matter if every member club had a vote, of if every licenced member, had a vote.......... the result would be the same.

people would still talk about change, but be too scared to help create it, unfortunately

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by E36ST

The comment about the supposed 'Southen bloc' is an odd one. It's my personal view but I understand that the Canterbury Car Club wouldn't be against such a change. I haven't heard where South Canterbury Car Club & Southland Sports Car Club stand, although with the amount of business that the Tier 1 meetings bring to their circuits then they would no doubt be keen to protect that.

I also understand that as far as voting on MSNZ matters go, each of these car clubs only have 1(?) vote, but so do all of the other affiliated motorsport clubs (individual marque Car Clubs, rally clubs) all have a vote each too and so collectively these far outweigh the opinions & wishes of the circuit operating clubs.

I understand that this is why avgas was banned by MSNZ, because it was the large number of small clubs that thought 'we don't care as this doesn't concerns us but lets vote for it anyway', which caused a major headache for many circuit racers.

I think you have correctly identified the basis of a representation problem with the MSNZ structure. There is no differentiation in voting between a small club that may actually have no members who are actively involved in motor sport and a large club who has many active competitors and also puts on competition events - this seems inherently wrong.
There is also the issue of significant active motor sport groups that have no representation at all. For example, the E30 and Open BMW Groups, the ERC Group (Arrows and AES series saloons and sports cars), the F5000s, the Formula Juniors etc. There are literally hundreds of active competitors in these groups with no specific representation at MSNZ because they fail to meet the criteria of being an Incorporated Society - again this is inherently wrong but the hierarchy at MSNZ are either oblivious to the problem or chose to do nothing about it.

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

i don't think it would matter if every member club had a vote, of if every licenced member, had a vote.......... the result would be the same.

people would still talk about change, but be too scared to help create it, unfortunately

At this coming conference TACCOC is actually doing something about it. They have put forward three remits - one on the issue of MSNZ as an administrative and regulatory body also being involved in commercial motor sport activities, one about bringing back proxy voting in order to widen representation and not restrict it to just those clubs who turn up at Council and one about the representation issues touched on in this thread.
TACCOC has taken this stand in order to follow the correct process and to get these issues debated. The fear is that the status quo will prevail and these remits will be voted down (as have similar ones in the past) and the MSNZ ship will keep steaming on the same course.

[smokin'joe]

Originally Posted by RogerH

At this coming conference TACCOC is actually doing something about it. They have put forward three remits - one on the issue of MSNZ as an administrative and regulatory body also being involved in commercial motor sport activities, one about bringing back proxy voting in order to widen representation and not restrict it to just those clubs who turn up at Council and one about the representation issues touched on in this thread.
TACCOC has taken this stand in order to follow the correct process and to get these issues debated. The fear is that the status quo will prevail and these remits will be voted down (as have similar ones in the past) and the MSNZ ship will keep steaming on the same course.

Roger, have seen your posts elsewhere, and the efforts of your member club are to be applauded, especially if even partially sucessful.

[Goat Boy]

Originally Posted by RogerH

At this coming conference TACCOC is actually doing something about it. They have put forward three remits - one on the issue of MSNZ as an administrative and regulatory body also being involved in commercial motor sport activities, one about bringing back proxy voting in order to widen representation and not restrict it to just those clubs who turn up at Council and one about the representation issues touched on in this thread.
TACCOC has taken this stand in order to follow the correct process and to get these issues debated. The fear is that the status quo will prevail and these remits will be voted down (as have similar ones in the past) and the MSNZ ship will keep steaming on the same course.

As always, well put by Roger. The difficulty lies in getting enough clubs to vote for the changes, as he says. So, I guess one approach could be to lobby your local voting member of your car club stating what the benefits are of such changes and the problems with keeping the status quo. It then needs someone knowledgeable and eloquent to stand up at the AGM and give an impassioned speech to that end.

But it would really help if the voting members who were going to go were briefed beforehand on the advantages of redressing the balance in favour of the men and women who love to go racing, or be involved in racing or the sport in general.

All power to you, I truly hope you succeed!

PS I was definitely not referring to CCC earlier, more some of the very southern ones...

[mountainstar]

Originally Posted by E36ST

The comment about the supposed 'Southen bloc' is an odd one. It's my personal view but I understand that the Canterbury Car Club wouldn't be against such a change. I haven't heard where South Canterbury Car Club & Southland Sports Car Club stand, although with the amount of business that the Tier 1 meetings bring to their circuits then they would no doubt be keen to protect that.

I also understand that as far as voting on MSNZ matters go, each of these car clubs only have 1(?) vote, but so do all of the other affiliated motorsport clubs (individual marque Car Clubs, rally clubs) all have a vote each too and so collectively these far outweigh the opinions & wishes of the circuit operating clubs.

I understand that this is why avgas was banned by MSNZ, because it was the large number of small clubs that thought 'we don't care as this doesn't concerns us but lets vote for it anyway', which caused a major headache for many circuit racers.

The CCC I would reckon is at a minimum neutral in the dispute. SCCC I would reckon would favor anything MSNZ would do because they bring Tier 1 and at the moment Supertourers isn't coming to Timaru. I don't know where the Southland Club would stand.

Sounds like a big mess to me and something that needs to get squared away. For one thing rally clubs or other car clubs that don't have anything to do with circuit racing issues, should not be voting on those issues.

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

For one thing rally clubs or other car clubs that don't have anything to do with circuit racing issues, should not be voting on those issues.

Another thing is that the various MSNZ Advisory Commission members are voted for by all clubs. This creates the crazy situation where, for example, the Historic and Classic Commission members are voted for by a majority of clubs that have either nothing or very little to do with historic and classic circuit racing. The same applies with the election of other commission members like rally, where the majority of voting clubs have nothing or little to do with rally.

What should happen, is that only the clubs affiliated to the various disciplines vote for the respective Commission Members - only rally clubs vote for rally Commission members etc.

[Tracie]

The voting restrictions have been considered before however it does get down to how do you consider what is a particular type of club to vote on specalist commissions

I am secretary of a car club which is predominately rally competitors however we do have a number of circuit racing competitors so consider that we should be able to vote in both areas

One major issue that has arisen is that the H&C commission appears to have taken over managment of historic rally cars so there could be an even larger interest in the historic and classic meetings which of course is not restricted to racing circuits

Interesting with all the discussion of dis-satisfaction is the number of people who are not offering themselves for election to various committees - it is far easier to fix something from inside the tent rather than simply grizzling from outside

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by Tracie

Interesting with all the discussion of dis-satisfaction is the number of people who are not offering themselves for election to various committees - it is far easier to fix something from inside the tent rather than simply grizzling from outside

The issue of grizzling and not offering yourself for election is an easy criticism to counter negative comments against MSNZ. It has been raised a few times and most recently in respect of there being no Auckland MSNZ Executive member for over ten years. It was pointed out that, for example, Tony Roberts from Auckland stood unsuccessfully for Executive last year. Additionally, I stood for a Commission position last year (again unsuccessfully) so having tried to fix things from inside the tent the only option seems to be "grizzling" from outside .........

[Tracie]

so you stand for a position once and miss out - how about some steel in the attempts and try again -it is called the democratic process

would have thought that with AGCM in Auckland this year and with the hype around Hampton that Tony would have had another crack and also yourself given I would have expected a high turnout of Auckland based clubs.

am interested in your clubs remit regarding the return of proxy voting - cant really recall when we ever had proxy voting at AGCM

[Icarus_nz]

Where turkeys lead, donkeys will follow. Sometimes you wonder if it is worth becoming another clown in the circus.

There is some good work done by some good people within MSNZ.

Pity about the the management

[RogerH]

Originally Posted by Tracie

so you stand for a position once and miss out - how about some steel in the attempts and try again -it is called the democratic process

would have thought that with AGCM in Auckland this year and with the hype around Hampton that Tony would have had another crack and also yourself given I would have expected a high turnout of Auckland based clubs.

am interested in your clubs remit regarding the return of proxy voting - cant really recall when we ever had proxy voting at AGCM

You sound very much like a MSNZ official "Tracie" - might be revealing if you came out and disclosed who you really are .....

Just as it is the democratic process to stand for election, it is also the constitutional process to place remits before Council.

With the proxy voting issue, it is really a democratic and representation issue - I think you will find that most entities with robust governance (like most public companies) provide for proxy voting.