Archer Capital Gone

[blaarg]

Deleted post

[Mixer]

The tinfoil is strong with that one.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by one five five

Something which should never have been allowed to happen

You need to go back to the start, how coch0 got a gig in the first place.

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

As Mr Dane said (paraphrased) on the Ingall/Morris show.. anyone coulda done it, but not everyone did...

If Mr Penske buys the control of the series, then he did what others did not, with the same opportunity in front of them. Same as if Mr Dane takes an increased equity position.

Or if the REC holders kick in about $10m per REC and maintain their ownership position equally on a per REC basis with every other REC holder....

Has Penske ever gone down the ownership path in his worldwide motor sport competition history?

[cavvy]

TCR v Supercars for the extra event at Bathurst.
https://www.touringcartimes.com/2019...athurst-event/

TCR forces now include ex Wilson chief (John McMellan), Brian Boyd (Payce) & James Warburton, some of whom were previously involved in an Archer Capital buy out.

Archer has disposed of its fast food interests very recently.
https://www.touringcartimes.com/2019...st-event/rcher

Are Supercars are part of the future for Archer 2.0
https://www.afr.com/business/banking...0190407-p51bn4

Plenty of moving parts.

[Umai Naa]

TCR is underwritten by Boyd and McMellan.

Who do you think bought all the cars, and paid for all the stars?

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

TCR is underwritten by Boyd and McMellan.

Who do you think bought all the cars, and paid for all the stars?

Given all that has been shown so far I don't see change from $5m, it is a serious show, but these guys have been around a long time and have form. I hope it pays off for them.

[Gaz170]

No problem with the team owners being part owners of the series, as long as they all have equal shares (or equal to the number of recs they have). No team owner should have a majority stake though.

[Speedy400]

Roland probs won’t own a team soon though...

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Gaz170

No problem with the team owners being part owners of the series, as long as they all have equal shares (or equal to the number of recs they have). No team owner should have a majority stake though.

Not getting in your face but what is the thought behind that? Obviously we've seen it work in such series as AGT and Supertouring and there are definitely pros and cons but I feel that ownership by people who understand the sport would deliver better outcomes than ownership by a company such as Archer, with no real understanding of the sport, other than the balance sheet.

[blaarg]

Originally Posted by Tourer

Not getting in your face but what is the thought behind that? Obviously we've seen it work in such series as AGT and Supertouring and there are definitely pros and cons but I feel that ownership by people who understand the sport would deliver better outcomes than ownership by a company such as Archer, with no real understanding of the sport, other than the balance sheet.

It really depends on individual motivation.

Do they have a vision for the series?
Do they want to improve the sport for all stakeholders?
Do they care about the fans?

If it's just an investment vehicle for Roland, how is it going to be any different from Archer capital?

[Tourer]

Based only on his past history in the business world, the passion he's shown running his team and even the recent chat with Enforcer and the Dude, I don't see Roland treating it as an investment vehicle in the same way as Archer (if indeed the rumour is true that he's looking to buy Archer out).

He has too much knowledge of and passion for the sport to do that.

I'd have to answer "yes" to all three of the questions that blaarg raises in the post above in regard to Roland - although not all might agree with with his vision, he certainly possesses that along with a genuinely caring about the fans and wanting to improve the sport.

It must be said though that running a series is different to running a team or even from sitting on the board that overseas the series. I can't imagine that it would all be plain sailing IF the rumoured buyout happened.

[Mixer]

I'd rather see someone who has so much experience in the sport owning it - and you can't ignore the fact that Roland Dane upped the game for engineering and presentation for the whole competition.

Clearly he has quality procedures and an eye for talent, and there's no doubt if he had more involvement in the sport's administration, I don't see how anybody could see it as a negative.

Unless you believe he's the boogie man, which some people obviously do.

[Forda]

Originally Posted by Gaz170

No problem with the team owners being part owners of the series, as long as they all have equal shares (or equal to the number of recs they have). No team owner should have a majority stake though.

Great to see at least someone can see the light.


Interesting ownership of the Super Tourers category by a team owner was sighted as an example of how 'successful' this concept can be.

Mysteriously enough that owner's son managed to win that championship more than any other competitor.

And now that same son is pals with Mr Dane, and part of the current rumoured buyout team.

If any of this actually happened, of course.

[HDTVKSS]

Originally Posted by Forda

Great to see at least someone can see the light.


Interesting ownership of the Super Tourers category by a team owner was sighted as an example of how 'successful' this concept can be.

Mysteriously enough that owner's son managed to win that championship more than any other competitor.

And now that same son is pals with Mr Dane, and part of the current rumoured buyout team.

If any of this actually happened, of course.

so what happened the other 6 years? statistics are wonderful without the full context.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Forda

Great to see at least someone can see the light.


Interesting ownership of the Super Tourers category by a team owner was sighted as an example of how 'successful' this concept can be.

Mysteriously enough that owner's son managed to win that championship more than any other competitor.

And now that same son is pals with Mr Dane, and part of the current rumoured buyout team.

If any of this actually happened, of course.

Nice (mis) use of stats there dude re super touring. Winning the overall championship is not the only marker of how competitive a series is but to go with your logic, BMW won the series 7 times over 10 years of the Oz series but only 4 of those BMW wins were by the series owner's son.
Worldwide BMW won 45% of all the super touring series during the same years.
On similar short, bumpy tracks to ours here (quite different to the euro tracks where FWD tended to be more competitive) in NZ BMW also won the series 7 times out of 10 years.

All of which is irrelevant to your argument in any case as the Australia series used technical rules developed in Europe, cars designed in Europe and other countries, ballast and parity measures followed Europe completely and the series owner didn't impact on those at all.

[Umai Naa]

The other 2 years were won by the team, co-owned by another investor in the series...

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Umai Naa

The other 2 years were won by the team, co-owned by another investor in the series...

There were actually 6 other years - 10 years of super touring in Oz & Mr Morris won the series 4 times.

Regardless, the tech rules & parity measures weren’t set here but in the UK so hard to see how the tin foil hat approach fits.

[one five five]

There were nine championships for 2L cars over the 1993-2002 period, remembering that there was a combined 2000/2001 series, 7 of the 9 being BMW won

I didn't agree with Morris and Adderton being series owners and team owners, but I guess they had to to get manufacturer-backed cars on the grid, Adderton almost locked in a Honda deal for the 1998 series too

In my view entrants have no place having an ownership of the series they race in. Name a major championship outside of V8s that allows this? Competitors should stick up competing and let the owners operate it, there should be no mixing of the two or conflicts of interest.

Dane himself as one of the series owner itself could be a good thing for aussie Motorsport , time would only tell if he benefits aussie racing or falls with all the other employees of AVESCO/Supercars over the last 20-odd years who's only interest seemed to ever be benefitting the category with no regard or seeming passion for motor racing as a whole

[GTRMagic]

And again, the manager of a class of Motorsport is not responsible for the health of any other category of Motorsport other than the ones it owns and controls.

The governing body is the one you should be taking aim at, not Supercar.

Oh, and Supercar is doomed.

[Mixer]

Originally Posted by Forda

Mysteriously enough that owner's son managed to win that championship more than any other competitor.

Klark Quinn won 3 Australian GT titles too. Was there impropriety there?

I really don't know whether baseless mudslinging is going to get you anywhere.

Businesses have procedures in place to make sure Directors of Companies and so on can't make decisions that advantage themselves.

Most professionals will excuse themselves if decisions have to be made that directly affects them.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by Mixer

Klark Quinn won 3 Australian GT titles too. Was there impropriety there?

I really don't know whether baseless mudslinging is going to get you anywhere.

Businesses have procedures in place to make sure Directors of Companies and so on can't make decisions that advantage themselves.

Most professionals will excuse themselves if decisions have to be made that directly affects them.

Further to the para that I've bolded above - the Australian Corporations Act has some strong measures in place that penalise Directors for taking advantage, particularly if shareholders are disadvantaged.

I'm with you Mixer, the "Reds under the bed" hand-wringing on something that was rumoured to happen on here but which so far doesn't seem to have any substance is quite incredible.

[one five five]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

And again, the manager of a class of Motorsport is not responsible for the health of any other category of Motorsport other than the ones it owns and controls.

The governing body is the one you should be taking aim at, not Supercar.

Oh, and Supercar is doomed.

Not responsible, but what about category owners taking aim at fellow Aussie categories? Did you have an issue with that?

I would think the major Australian motor racing series has a duty, if run by enthusiasts, to do something positive for all racing, to raise all tides, not pick fights with other categories and actively elbow them out of the way ( as we are seeing now with TCR and Adelaide, and previously with other categories and events)

CAMS are certainly not blameless either, they created the current monster

[cavvy]

Originally Posted by GTRMagic

And again, the manager of a class of Motorsport is not responsible for the health of any other category of Motorsport other than the ones it owns and controls.

The governing body is the one you should be taking aim at, not Supercar.

Oh, and Supercar is doomed.

Do CAMS have to approve any changes of ownership of categories?
If so have CAMS ever commented on any changes on the health of motorsport more generally?

Digressing the ARG takeover of TCM appears more about bargaining power to me.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by one five five

Not responsible, but what about category owners taking aim at fellow Aussie categories? Did you have an issue with that?

I would think the major Australian motor racing series has a duty, if run by enthusiasts, to do something positive for all racing, to raise all tides, not pick fights with other categories and actively elbow them out of the way ( as we are seeing now with TCR and Adelaide, and previously with other categories and events)

CAMS are certainly not blameless either, they created the current monster

Other than the "war" with Super Touring that is getting to be quite ancient history now (and in which both sides of the fence "took aim"), not convinced that supercars HAS taken "aim at fellow Aussie categories" really.

Supercars has also done a lot of things that has benefited other motorsport categories here, due to the flow-on effect of the changes made.

I know that you see the organisation as the devil incarnate and I don't think that anything I or anyone else says will change your view but you're entitled to your view and anyone else is entitled to not agree with your view or to challenge it.