CAMS Track licences and insurance

[RaceTime]

(Yes another thread - but different topics - so read on..)

I understand that under the terms of the track licences CAMS are issuing, because of their secretive nature* no one is really able to confirm the licences or how similar they are.

One whisper I have heard is that most have a clause saying that if any insurance payments over and above that currently being made by a track, that track will be liable for the cost of such excess?

As I understand it, this clause is not very well marked and I am aware of at least one track owner who was not aware of this clause until it was pointed out to him by someone totally unconnected with any motor racing track...

The same informant has suggested that it is quite feasible that no two track licence documents are the same - this would seem to bear out why Winton and QLD Raceway have been singled out for action and why they are questioning items no one else is (for example - I believe Mick Ronke from Winton queried, in early January, 14 points on the licence to which the CAMS response was basically 'Not telling you' - I find it extremely odd that other tracks owners - and they are very definately not fools - have not raised similar questions. The questions were along the lines of 'what does this wording mean' and 'if this happens what hapens next')

[Big Trev]

Racetime, do you believe that it would be in the best interest of CAMS to get out of the insurance game once and for all, and just let the tracks worry about it. CAMS could have a process of audit, so that they could check to see that the tracks have adeqaute cover for any CAMS sanctioned events. This way CAMS wouldn't have to have all the people running around conducting track inspections as part of the CAMS risk managment process. The risk management becomes the problem of the track owner/management, by the way where I believe it belongs. CAMS seemed to have created a monster for themselves.

Did CAMS got into the whole insurance shee-bang coz they believed that they could purchase it for the group cheaper? - I don't know.

Oh, how silly of me, I think I have just realised why they got into it, it was to make a PROFIT, you know that's where you buy a product for a price, then sell it to someone else for more than you paid for it. DUH - Trev

[Onlooker]

What a mess,and what a co-incidence that the two test tracks of the V8's are at the top of the list??? Makes you want to buy a 7 poster or at least go O/S and use one.
What would happen if HRT etc declined to dynamically test at all and did it all statically on a 7 poster and still won??????????????????????????

[Dirk]

Originally posted by Big Trev
Oh, how silly of me, I think I have just realised why they got into it, it was to make a PROFIT, you know that's where you buy a product for a price, then sell it to someone else for more than you paid for it. DUH - Trev

CAMS the non profit organisation? Do they need to make a profit to pay their greatly increasing wages bill? I know I have spoken about their wages in the past but last I heard they had employed another 2 people. Do they really need 60 odd people working for them?

[RaceTime]

The way I see it - CAMS are trying to force tracks to make every conceivabe change to cater for every little thing that can possibly go wrong.

The best (worst) example of this was given to me recently when a particular circuit, during their last track inspection, was 'requested' to consider putting up continuous fencing around all spectator areas (or at least in one particular area). This was to be 'just in case'

On site that day was an engineer who, it was reported, happened to notice a plane flying overhead and pointed out that the people flying in that plane knew that there was an extremely small risk in flying - yet they, the manufacturers of the planes, the airlines and govt safety bodies all acknowledged this risk - but could do no more to make it safer - and thus everyone flying knows they have this small risk they cannot eliminate.

Apparently the CAMS track inspectors were not impressed.

I would also point out that if we took the CAMS attitude (and it does appear to only take place at certain tracks) what CAMS would make of the lump of ice that fell, in December, from a plane and crashed through the roof of a house in New Zealand.

Having heard that that can happen, would CAMS require all houses in Australia, to be covered with crash proof fencing to prevent this one in a few million chance from happening???

[Dirk]

Originally posted by RaceTime
The way I see it - CAMS are trying to force tracks to make every conceivabe change to cater for every little thing that can possibly go wrong.

Do CAMS not understand that everyone who attends motor racing knows that it is a dangerous sport. On the tickets, on the official sign on sheets, on the gate, there are all signs expressing that motor racing is dangerous. Only a fool would enter the circuit thinking that there was not a small degree of risk. Hell thats why most of us enjoy the sport!

[Big Trev]

Originally posted by Dirk
CAMS the non profit organisation? Do they need to make a profit to pay their greatly increasing wages bill? I know I have spoken about their wages in the past but last I heard they had employed another 2 people. Do they really need 60 odd people working for them?

Dirk, my old son, I believe CAMS to be a "not for profit" organisation. I used to work for a NFP company and yes they are expected to make a profit, but that profit has to be returned to the company to update, etc. any equipment, facilities etc.
(we do see this from CAMS with the quality and amount of their vehicles - )

NFP organisations don't have share holders or "owners" to return the profit to. I will stand corrected on this, but feel pretty confident.