now who owns CAMS

[NewsStalker]

Originally Posted by B24

It sounds like more than a name change.
If it is something that will effect people who will support and operate within CAMS,perhaps its should be discussed.
Doesnt matter who has raised the issue but what has been raised.

Will it cost more money to competitors if there is a change?
Will it end up in the hands of oversea's investors?
Will it allow CAMS to almagamate with AASA?
Could AASA buy into then have a controlling interest in CAMS which may have positive and negative effects on events?

This subject is not closed

The first issue raised (the so-called 'name-change') is a non-event therefore why discuss it or even raise something that happened 27 years ago (and, if looked into properly, is not even closely related to the current CAMS. So for this part - closed.

The second issue of CAMS looking into the future - agree. This is something all organisations should be doing from time to time - they would be negligent if they didn;t do this especially in todays climate.

If, as a result of this, they go 'public' then, of course, anyone can buy into the business - AASA, RACV even BHP-Biliton - and they can't control that either. They could try and ensure they don't lose control of the organisaiton to another motorsport body - but at the end of the day, this is something they have to weigh up when they potentially make any decision about this.

At the same time, you can bet your bottom dollar, that even AASA regularly reviewing itself - maybe they aren't making things as public as CAMS, but again, they would be stupid not to be doing so.

But the problem in all of this is that CAMS has already shown that it isn't a club for the 'members' or at least, the 'members' aren't the prople who think they are.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

But the problem in all of this is that CAMS has already shown that it isn't a club for the 'members' or at least, the 'members' aren't the prople who think they are.

Thats the issue with CAMS that should be open for scrutiny NewsStalker, versus what happens at privately owned Calder.

[Trevor]

Good point cavvy

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

If, as a result of this, they go 'public' then, of course, anyone can buy into the business

So is now the time to start the "Bob Jane to buy the privatised CAMS" rumours

[Trevor]

Originally Posted by PVDA

So is now the time to start the "Bob Jane to buy the privatised CAMS" rumours

[Matthew Ronke]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

Matthew - have you checked undet the bed lately (or should that be - how many times did you heck under the bed last night?)?

You do realise that if ANY of the businesses you are involved in ever decide to change their names the word hypocrit will spring readily to mind?

I believe that is the very point I was trying to make in my first post. Hypocracy!

Anyway if my crystal ball has past the relevant weights and measures tests. I think I could be in for a reward on this one.

you can kiss good bye to this document Link if my crystal ball is correct.

Which brings me back to my orginal question: Who own CAMS?

[NewsStalker]

a) Membership of CAMS shall be divided into the following categories:
(i) Category A Members;
(ii) Category B Members;
(iii) Category C Members;
(iv) Category D Members;
(v) Category E Members; and
(vi) such other categories as are created from time to time under clause 13(h).

There is no dispute over who 'owns' CAMS - whether you, I or Trev like it, this IS the CAMS Constitution and as such it quite succinctly defines CAMS membership.

The answer to 'fixing' this is to have the CAMS Constitution changed - again, that is spelt out as to how to do so.

I am surprised, however, Matthew that the one thing you haven't picked up on yet - and, As I understand this, it may well be contrary to the Act - there is no mention in the CAMS Constitution about HOW the organisation can be wound up. It mentions what happens to assets, but NOT how they can go about it.

s491 & s494 of the Corporations Act deals with this. And maybe s501 might cause them a few problems
Maybe one for you to sink your teeth into?

[NewsStalker]

Originally Posted by cavvy

Thats the issue with CAMS that should be open for scrutiny NewsStalker, versus what happens at privately owned Calder.

I wouldn;t argue against this at all. But in the context of this thread there is no issue with CAMS either having changed its name or - from what I can see - even contemplating changing its name OR structure at this point in time. They have - as I said before, like all responsible businesses (CAMS responsible?? That's an oxymoron isn't it??) proposed a way of looking forward to see what they SHOULD be doing. For that I'll grovel and acknowledge they are doing the right thing.

[peckstar]

Originally Posted by PVDA

So is now the time to start the "Bob Jane to buy the privatised CAMS" rumours

or even better Laree Jane (using what used to be Bob's money of course). Now that would be fun

[Aquarius]

Maybe Bruce could jump in and make an offer

[Matthew Ronke]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

There is no dispute over who 'owns' CAMS - whether you, I or Trev like it, this IS the CAMS Constitution and as such it quite succinctly defines CAMS membership.

The answer to 'fixing' this is to have the CAMS Constitution changed - again, that is spelt out as to how to do so.

As usual you are 100% correct. here is some light reading Link

The Board resolved to decline to take any further action in relation to the proposed constitutional changes resubmitted
by the Sport and Club Development Council (Victoria).
The Board has now considered and discussed this matter on several occasions cognisant of its responsibilities, the
thoughts of the membership and the actual value of constitutional changes driving the recognised need for a new
relationship.

If you start to put the pieces together.

1. The Board proposed changes which would of distance itself from the members.
2. State Councils voted down the proposed changes
3. Victoria proposed Changes so the board could not proceed again with their proposed changes.
4. The Board declined to accept the changes.
5. 1st of April the Board changes the name of a old company (I think it may have been a 27 year company?) to Motorsport Australia a company not bound by the current Constitution of CAMS.
6. Members from the Councils that voted down the changes were invited to a summit in September were they brained stormed some names one of which was Motorsport Australia (company registered 1st April).

The Future

7. CAMS is rolled into a new body called Motorsport Australia
8. The members of the council discover that the constitution that they were fighting to preserve is no longer effective towards they day to day operations of CAMS.

And who owns Motorsport Australia Pty Ltd - I haven't spent my hard earned $40 with ASIC document services but it will be 100% owned by CAMS limited (the members).

But the how do the members and Motorsport Australia interact will be the big question. And hence who really will own CAMS?

[NewsStalker]

Matthew - according to ASIC there has been NO change to the name of ACN 005 972 403 since at least 2007 (I don't have access to further details as I don't subscribe to their service - you may have access) - IOW Motor Sport Australia Pty Ltd (under that name) has been around for many years. In fact, acording to ASIC, this company hasn't lodged any returns since at least Jan 2007 either - a dormant company waiting to be re-activated? All they have done is change oficeholders (normal practice ensuring the company is not wound up by ASIC).

But - either way - winding up CAMS is not going to be a straight forward process UNLESS they go into administration - and if they do that, it is a totally different ball game to the one you are playing out here (mainly because the current 'office holders' and employees would have no real say in what happens to the business - unless of course a CAMS stalwart is appointed administrator or liquidator..)

[applecart]

So...out of curiosity, will anyone from here be attending the "special meeting" on 30th November?

[Trevor]

don't upset the . . . . . . . .

[Matthew Ronke]

Here is a summary of the meeting

Link

So last night over 50 Victorian clubs voted unanimously that the board of CAMS should be spilled.

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ronke

Here is a summary of the meeting

Link

So last night over 50 Victorian clubs voted unanimously that the board of CAMS should be spilled.

A very thorough summary from David in the link.What was clear -and I mean really clear-- that the President & CEO are on another planet and simply should not be in those positions.

The whole CAMS structure is overdue for a complete re-structure and must go to a simpler constitution that puts the real power in the hands of it's members.

What struck me last night is that in that room were the people that actually organise( representing their organisations and generally democratically elected) & compete in motorsport-- so why do they effectively have no say in how it is managed? You could get rid of the entire structure above those people and you would not know they were gone!! ( slight exaggeration but I am sure you get the point) .Equally as a collective-- this group( plus interstate equivelents included eg the national collective of clubs) should have direct access to the board at a meeting or meetings annually.In other words-- be directly accountable for absurdities.The board needs to come from those member clubs. From there the skinnier beareaucrats can administer the necessary.
Last-- I was really please to see the fire & passion from a group of people I had little confidence in to pursue these issues( yes--it is years too long coming) -- last night saw those people really get stuck into the dismissive attitude of the Board and Administration. Many issues and principles were raised ( at least a reasonable cross section) as examples of Cams incompetence.
The board should have the decency to get very serious constitutional reforms in motion (not misguided lip service in the interests of self preservation) and clearly state they are caretakers and will not be continuing past a set date. If not-- the sword will not be pleasent.
For those in other states--you need to mimic the Victorian initiative and apply the pressure for a return to a democratic institution.This is the time for action-- not sitting back and leaving it to someone else!

[Matthew Ronke]

The meeting is being covered by rallysport magazine.

Rally sport mag article

Hopefully Auto Action or motorsport news will cover this event.

[dmcl]

what a night it was too, I had the opportunity to be there and whilst not surprised that people are unhappy, I was amazed that the people were prepared to air it, we have seen time and time again, rumours of disquiet from the masses, but when the visit to the State Council from those on high occured, the room chilled and emotions werent let out - this time, the emotion, anger and need for change was clearly expressed by all those present.

Over the last number of years we have been told that the Board is all about corporate governance. If this was a public company, and the shareholders turned up at a meeting with this level of grievance, the Chairman and Board would have but only one option, lets see what happens next....

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ronke

Hopefully Auto Action or motorsport news will cover this event.

Highly unlikely unless we can come up with a link to V8Supercars

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ronke

The meeting is being covered by rallysport magazine.

Rally sport mag article

Hopefully Auto Action or motorsport news will cover this event.

The meeting was about motorsport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nero]

Matthew, thank you for this information. Unfortunately Race Magazine has just gone to print so I cannot use this. However I will put a good writer on it.
Re CAMS shares, are these not listed at ASIC?

[Silver 3]

Intersting reading in Mathew's link above. Forum participants seem mostly NSW based and do not seem to have the total disdain of the Cams board seen in Victoria.
Maybe it is the distance from Dandenong road?
I think it essential that now some momentum has been created that every body with elected representatives makes sure that a new deal is achieved-- and I do not mean weak kneed compromises. This board needs total removal-- and a bulldozer
thru the paid beauracracy .The constitution needs total reform-- not fiddling with the edges and a proper democracy created.
It needs constant educating the apathetic and disinterested of why this needs to happen urgently.
The process should come from everywhere to create the pressure needed.The rage needs to accelerated and maintained.
If we go thru the process it may be possible to answer the question Mathew poses in the thread title.!

[PVDA]

Originally Posted by Silver 3

Intersting reading in Mathew's link above. Forum participants seem mostly NSW based and do not seem to have the total disdain of the Cams board seen in Victoria.

BMSC is the Brindabella Motor Sport Club based out of Canberra.

Although mainly a rally based club they have several vocal members who have seen the light especially since AMSAG appeared and of course AASA at nearby Wakefield Park.

Keep an eye on that thread over there as there seems to be a ground swell growing up there as well.

BMSC seems to have a few senior people blindly favouring CAMS just like a couple of Melbourne based clubs but the members of those clubs down here are slowly making themselves heard.

[gts300]

Originally Posted by Silver 3

For those in other states--you need to mimic the Victorian initiative and apply the pressure for a return to a democratic institution. This is the time for action-- not sitting back and leaving it to someone else!

We've been fighting the same battle here in Tasmania over the past months (our State Chairman still wears the battle scars from Torquay), what we do need is more resolve from the other States, get along to your State Councils, make your Elected Directors responsible for this whole sorry mess.

There has to be a way forward, it probably can't include the majority of the current administration.

[Silver 3]

Originally Posted by gts300

We've been fighting the same battle here in Tasmania over the past months (our State Chairman still wears the battle scars from Torquay), what we do need is more resolve from the other States, get along to your State Councils, make your Elected Directors responsible for this whole sorry mess.

There has to be a way forward, it probably can't include the majority of the current administration.

The action taken in Victoria is at the highest level in Victoria( with overwhelming support from the member clubs)-- what is required is other states to take equivelent action-- and if State will not then the next level down etc should be forcing their removal.It is crucial that Victoria gets support for the removal of the board and that real constitutional reform is undertaken- now.
This is not the time to sit back and leave it to others-the mess of CAMS administration MUST be cleaned up .The opportunity is NOW and conservative leave it to others " she'll be right" attitude has no place if people genuinely want a permanent fix. The current CAMS direction has been condemmned by a huge number of members-- something has to be done in every state.