Jump to content


Photo

Wakefield Park v CAMS - event cancelled


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 February 2007 - 06:31

'NO FRILLS' Event Cancelled
Disappointingly, it is necessary for the HSRCA to advise the cancellation of its one-day event planned for Sunday 11th February 2007.

As of 9:00am today (Friday 9th February 2007) the new owners of Wakefield Park and CAMS have not been able to come to an understanding regarding the track license agreement for 2007. This situation prevents CAMS from issuing the HSRCA a permit for the meeting and we therefore have no choice but to cancel this event.

Please note: this situation does not affect the HSRCA Family Day planned for Saturday 10th February which does not require a CAMS permit. This event will take place as planned.

All competitors affected by this cancellation will receive a full refund of their paid entry fees.

We will do our best to inform everyone planning to attend this event but if you are aware of anyone intending to go, especially those without access to facilities such as email, we would appreciate your help in getting the word out.

HSRCA Race Committee

Advertisement

#2 The Chasm

The Chasm
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 09 February 2007 - 07:31

And now there are four - one in each state of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.

AASA racetracks rule !

#3 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 09 February 2007 - 07:41

What is the reason???????

#4 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 February 2007 - 08:20

Originally posted by The Chasm
And now there are four - one in each state of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.

AASA racetracks rule !


Hi there Chasm....care to explain why AASA racetracks rule !

Can you divvy up the benefits for racers, fans, circuit owners, and officials please....much appreciated :up:

#5 The Chasm

The Chasm
  • Member

  • 115 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 09 February 2007 - 22:35

facetious - amusing, comical, droll, funny, humorous, jocose, jocular, merry, pleasant, waggish, witty.

#6 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 09 February 2007 - 23:26

SASWBMBBWWNHM.... :p

....nothing up his sleeve but his arm :

#7 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 10 February 2007 - 11:43

Wakefield Park have run independently of CAMS since the day the circuit was built... so I don't understand what the issue is here.

Except that the organisers of the event, the HSRCA, might have some need to run under the CAMS.

#8 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 February 2007 - 22:51

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Except that the organisers of the event, the HSRCA, might have some need to run under the CAMS.


Of course they do, that is what CAMS affiliation is all about. I'm not going to get into the debate about who is right and wrong, but it is a sad day when the motor racing infrastructure in this country goes to hell in leaky boat....like it or not CAMS is the FIA appointed goverining body, no CAMS (or similarly accredited body) and no international events....and its the club level racers who are being hurt and inconvenienced by this kerfuffle (witness the HSRCA cancellation....hell, I was put out by it....although the brownie points from not attending will come in handy :D ).

CAMS also sits above a bunch of other bodies like ANDRA, Karting Aust and the Off-Roaders etc etc (and whilst they are basically laws unto themselves sanctioned by the CAMS....who is going to step up to that plate if CAMS is brought down?

I believe part of the current problem is that AASA (FOR EXAMPLE :rolleyes: ) are alledgedly accused by CAMS of stealing there IP....that is; Supp Regs, officials hiearchy/job descriptions/responsibilities, safety rules etc etc......as another EXAMPLE (and to the best of my knowledge).....CAMS accredited/trained officials are not covered by insurance at events other than those sanctioned by CAMS. Basic OH&S/Workers Comp claims might work if you were injured in this PC world....but, not many would have the money to fight such a court case (unless you fanagled a union into assisting). For this reason alone, I know of several officials who refuse to attend non-CAMS sanctioned events.

#9 2Bob

2Bob
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 10 February 2007 - 23:04

So what IS the situation with Wakefield Park and competing or officiating there? And what other tracks are in the same boat (AIR?).

Not knowing the answers to the above.... Is the situation similar to what it used to be (and maybe still is) with speedway and CAMS? In the late 60s I ran a Mini under CAMS but also for a couple of meetings ran a Mini (different one!) at Rowley Park Speedway. To do this I had to have a speedway licence and CAMS did NOT approval of doing that. RDA (speedway Racing Drivers Association) was quite good about it and I had an RDA licence under an assumed name. (Please don't tell CAMS they might ban me still). I imagine that there were quite a number of other people doing the same thing in those days.

#10 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 10 February 2007 - 23:17

Originally posted by 2Bob
So what IS the situation with Wakefield Park and competing or officiating there? And what other tracks are in the same boat (AIR?).

Not knowing the answers to the above.... Is the situation similar to what it used to be (and maybe still is) with speedway and CAMS? In the late 60s I ran a Mini under CAMS but also for a couple of meetings ran a Mini (different one!) at Rowley Park Speedway. To do this I had to have a speedway licence and CAMS did NOT approval of doing that. RDA (speedway Racing Drivers Association) was quite good about it and I had an RDA licence under an assumed name. (Please don't tell CAMS they might ban me still). I imagine that there were quite a number of other people doing the same thing in those days.


Yep...thats the way it is still....WP operates its own meetings using WP licences, AASA meetings using something else and up until this cancellation has hosted CAMS sanctioned events.

[edit: WP is now owned by the non-affiliated Winton, the paper clip is no longer CAMS affiliated...dunno about AIR)

#11 Andrew Fellowes

Andrew Fellowes
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 11 February 2007 - 21:03

Rather than start a new thread its worth mentioning that the Paperclip now has a 60 year lease on Lakeside with plans to provide a tunnel access to the pits, plus a host of up-grades. Noise restrictions will be tough with monitors around the perimeter to record the levels. Certainly no V8s and seems a Tasman Revival would be unlikely either. GEAR could run but not perhhaps with some of the cars that turn up now!!

Its welcome news that the track will survive.

Andrew

#12 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 12 February 2007 - 09:18

I didn't think my latest e.mail from the Supporters was that positive, Andrew...

#13 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 13 February 2007 - 20:58

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
.....as another EXAMPLE (and to the best of my knowledge).....CAMS accredited/trained officials are not covered by insurance at events other than those sanctioned by CAMS. Basic OH&S/Workers Comp claims might work if you were injured in this PC world....but, not many would have the money to fight such a court case (unless you fanagled a union into assisting). For this reason alone, I know of several officials who refuse to attend non-CAMS sanctioned events.


Because they, like you, don't have the facts...

All the insurance cover that CAMS has is equalled or bettered by AASA insurance, except (perhaps) upper limit stuff, like when it's a top cover of $20,000,000 or $200,000,000 and the like.

Another fact that has wafted before me today is that there was no problem with this meeting. The organisers simply pulled the pin on it... CAMS and Wakefield Park had everything in place.

#14 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 13 February 2007 - 23:26

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
.....WP is now owned by the non-affiliated Winton, the paper clip is no longer CAMS affiliated...dunno about AIR)


Not so...

Recall that Winton run a round of the ATCC... sorry... V8Supercars... they couldn't do that without some kind of CAMS involvement.

And who is it owns AIR? That might tell you why there's no CAMS involvement there.

Just been brought right up to speed on this whole thing. A track licence has no validity in law, it is not necessary to have one to operate under the CAMS or any other jurisdiction.

This business was totally unnecessary and the thought that there was any dispute is wrong. Muck raking has caused the whole mess.

#15 Paul Hamilton

Paul Hamilton
  • Member

  • 303 posts
  • Joined: February 04

Posted 14 February 2007 - 01:13

Sorry Ray, but the real problem here went a little beyond muck raking and may not yet have gone away.

Firstly CAMS insurance arrangements are dependant on issue of a CAMS track licence and all that goes with that so no CAMS permitted event can take place on a circuit which does not have a track licence. Wakefield Park has always had a CAMS track licence right back to the Paul Samuel days and that is still current. However, with the recent change in ownership CAMS quite reasonably sought a simple statement from the new owners acknowledging their acquisition of the circuit and the existence of the track licence but could not get that and still may not have it.

During the week prior to the meeting I understand that all telephone and fax messages left with Mick Ronke seeking a response to that request were unanswered and CAMS felt that it sould not issue a permit for conduct of an event at a circuit no one would acknowledge ownership of. They decided on Friday afternoon that they would waive the requirement and issue the permit although I personally would not think that was a wise decision. Unfortunately it was by then too late as HSRCA had already pullled the pin.

This was I agree a totally unnecessary situation but not one of either CAMS or HSRCA's making. It does not bode well for future relationships with the new owners who after completion of the event also sought to add $1000 to HSRCA's bill for the Saturday HSRCA family day which did not require the CAMS permit and was until then unaffected by the dispute. HSRCA has so far refused to pay.

#16 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:42

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Because they, like you, don't have the facts...

All the insurance cover that CAMS has is equalled or bettered by AASA insurance, except (perhaps) upper limit stuff, like when it's a top cover of $20,000,000 or $200,000,000 and the like.

Another fact that has wafted before me today is that there was no problem with this meeting. The organisers simply pulled the pin on it... CAMS and Wakefield Park had everything in place.


Terse stuff Raymond...and you obviously have not attended the officials briefings I have attended where the Chief made it abundantly clear that this was not a CAMS event with all the associated rules/benefits, whatever and we were there of our own free will. No statement was made about insurance or even "don't worry, if you are injured, we will look after you somehow!". Stay safe out there was about all we got.

I would say you are probably the victim of a strategic disinformation campaign...not uncommon...but I would have thought hardened journos could smell those sort of shenanigans a mile off.

#17 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 February 2007 - 07:47

Not so, Mick...

In fact, when AASA started their personal accident limit of $50,000 was about double what the CAMS insurance provided. This is for all people at the circuit, includes officials.

CAMS changed their insurance mid-year because they were being shown to be deficient in this area.

This information is freely available from the AASA, why not give them a call? And by the way, IIRC, they use the same insurance company as CAMS does.

#18 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,707 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 14 February 2007 - 08:00

Where would we be without CAMS? :cool:

I gave up wasting my money with them long ago.

#19 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:13

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Not so, Mick...

In fact, when AASA started their personal accident limit of $50,000 was about double what the CAMS insurance provided. This is for all people at the circuit, includes officials.

CAMS changed their insurance mid-year because they were being shown to be deficient in this area.

This information is freely available from the AASA, why not give them a call? And by the way, IIRC, they use the same insurance company as CAMS does.


This is going nowhere....you working for the AASA Ray??....why aren't they shouting that sort of stuff from the rooftops to make officials rest easy (instead of the opposite vibe that I have experienced).

Why should Volunteer Officials have to ring around and worry about this sort of crap anyway....I've said enough.....back to you spin doctors to try and dress up something that smells and is concerning a great deal of volunteers. Until I hear other Officials saying "isn't this great!!" or "Good, they are looking after us!" I will remain sceptical.

Advertisement

#20 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 February 2007 - 10:16

Mick, there are a number of Wakefield Park meetings that are held without either CAMS or AASA involvement... do you concern yourself with the insurance at them too?

#21 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 14 February 2007 - 11:54

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Mick, there are a number of Wakefield Park meetings that are held without either CAMS or AASA involvement... do you concern yourself with the insurance at them too?


Since you ask....no...because I choose not to attend them for just that reason (apart from the odd track day)....If you think this is something the current crop of marshals take lightly.....maybe you better think again....is that the 20 questions ? :down:

#22 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 February 2007 - 12:05

And did you ever enquire about the insurance coverage under the CAMS?

#23 2Bob

2Bob
  • Member

  • 405 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 14 February 2007 - 12:22

Can't we stop snipping at each other and for %$^%^&* sake get on with running some motor races??? I don't give a damn whether it is CAMS or some other mob as long as it is well organised and the officials and entrants have a reasonable chance of being looked after if needed. I guess CAMS has some sort of record of achievement but why do we have to be so scared of competing at other events? Doesn't seem to me that CAMS is always (ever?) acting in the best interests of the small guy.

#24 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 14 February 2007 - 12:36

You're right, but there is a constant stream of misinformation from CAMS-oriented sources challenging AASA and others...

Two years ago it wasn't even possible to peruse the CAMS insurance policies. But AASA's policy was available to anyone who wanted to go look at it.

I guess nobody did.

#25 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:04

Originally posted by Ray Bell
And did you ever enquire about the insurance coverage under the CAMS?


Of course I [..........] did :) .....what sort of a dill do you take me for :rotfl:

the whole structure of a CAMS run event, including the information provided (eg Supp Regs) is out there and gives you a bunch of confidence that that meet is well organised.....

you take your chances on anything that involves insurance...but CAMS stuff is freely available.....do AASA have website??? (not that that is any measure).

Perception...perception :rolleyes:

#26 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 5,707 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 15 February 2007 - 09:18

Mick, when I was doing the FIV driving/trackside medical work I enquired as to the coverage from CAMS and they just said "don't worry, you are covered" That didn't inspire a great deal of confidence so I took it further and found out that of all the volunteer officials at the meeting I was the only one not covered. :rolleyes:

There is a great deal of misinformation out there and it all comes from CAMS.

From my experience I have found that CAMS will say a lot of things to keep you happy but to get them to commit it to paper it an entirely different thing.

#27 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:03

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
Of course I [..........] did :) .....what sort of a dill do you take me for


If I were to judge you by that, I would have to consider you a dill, wouldn't I?

After all, I was a competitor at six different circuits and waved flags at another four... and I never once made such an enquiry.

.....the whole structure of a CAMS run event, including the information provided (eg Supp Regs) is out there and gives you a bunch of confidence that that meet is well organised.....

you take your chances on anything that involves insurance...but CAMS stuff is freely available.....do AASA have website??? (not that that is any measure).

Perception...perception :rolleyes:


Are the Supp Regs for an AASA meeting not the same?

As I said, a couple of years ago someone did ask to see the CAMS insurance policy and they weren't able to get access to it. But they could see the AASA one, and it had better personal cover than the CAMS had to admit they had.

Perception? Yeah, CAMS believe they are divinely decreed to be the governing body. They actually believe they have some sort of charter under the UN, but they don't!

#28 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:22

Originally posted by 2Bob
Can't we stop snipping at each other and for %$^%^&* sake get on with running some motor races??? I don't give a damn whether it is CAMS or some other mob as long as it is well organised and the officials and entrants have a reasonable chance of being looked after if needed. I guess CAMS has some sort of record of achievement but why do we have to be so scared of competing at other events? Doesn't seem to me that CAMS is always (ever?) acting in the best interests of the small guy.

HERE-----HERE---------please stop the GUTTER snip ping...................

#29 Robert Bailey

Robert Bailey
  • Member

  • 212 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 15 February 2007 - 10:43

Originally posted by Paul Hamilton
Sorry Ray, but the real problem here went a little beyond muck raking and may not yet have gone away.

Firstly CAMS insurance arrangements are dependant on issue of a CAMS track licence and all that goes with that so no CAMS permitted event can take place on a circuit which does not have a track licence. Wakefield Park has always had a CAMS track licence right back to the Paul Samuel days and that is still current. However, with the recent change in ownership CAMS quite reasonably sought a simple statement from the new owners acknowledging their acquisition of the circuit and the existence of the track licence but could not get that and still may not have it.

During the week prior to the meeting I understand that all telephone and fax messages left with Mick Ronke seeking a response to that request were unanswered and CAMS felt that it sould not issue a permit for conduct of an event at a circuit no one would acknowledge ownership of. They decided on Friday afternoon that they would waive the requirement and issue the permit although I personally would not think that was a wise decision. Unfortunately it was by then too late as HSRCA had already pullled the pin.

This was I agree a totally unnecessary situation but not one of either CAMS or HSRCA's making. It does not bode well for future relationships with the new owners who after completion of the event also sought to add $1000 to HSRCA's bill for the Saturday HSRCA family day which did not require the CAMS permit and was until then unaffected by the dispute. HSRCA has so far refused to pay.

YAWN.

#30 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:29

Originally posted by Catalina Park
Mick, when I was doing the FIV driving/trackside medical work I enquired as to the coverage from CAMS and they just said "don't worry, you are covered" That didn't inspire a great deal of confidence so I took it further and found out that of all the volunteer officials at the meeting I was the only one not covered. :rolleyes:

There is a great deal of misinformation out there and it all comes from CAMS.

From my experience I have found that CAMS will say a lot of things to keep you happy but to get them to commit it to paper it an entirely different thing.


Thanks Mike....prolly because medical para-professionals/professionals would be expected to have their own cover....isn't meditrack (for example) a business anyway???

#31 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:35

Originally posted by Ray Bell
If I were to judge you by that, I would have to consider you a dill, wouldn't I?

After all, I was a competitor at six different circuits and waved flags at another four... and I never once made such an enquiry.


So now we descend to the lowest form of argument ....personal attack to take the spotlight off the issue...mate....you might have been involved years ago but you certainly ain't doing the current fraternity any favours with some of the bile you have been espousing....end of story for me...I'm sticking to the subject and all your baiting will get you nowhere :cool: :up:

Yours in Motorsport, Mick

#32 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 February 2007 - 12:41

That's all right, Mick...

You're allowed to be wrong. You're allowed to form conspiracy theories and you're allowed to conclude that the truth is fiction any time you like.

I don't think I have at any time taken the spotlight off the issue. You have sunk to suggesting personal attacks, not me.

I spoke with Garry Willmington today for the first time on this subject, he assures me that the CAMS made no contact whatever with Winton regarding the transfer of the track licence (note it was a transfer, not a new licence) before Wednesday last week. He assures me that Mick signed off on it on Thursday of last week and that they had their paperwork complete by Friday... in other words, well in time for the meeting.

It was the HSRCA who pulled the pin on the meeting.

If you phone Garry tomorrow he'll tell you the same story as he told me. Phone Mick Ronke too, if you like.

#33 Andrew Fellowes

Andrew Fellowes
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 15 February 2007 - 21:56

Originally posted by Paul Hamilton
.......... However, with the recent change in ownership CAMS quite reasonably sought a simple statement from the new owners acknowledging their acquisition of the circuit and the existence of the track licence but could not get that and still may not have it.

During the week prior to the meeting I understand that all telephone and fax messages left with Mick Ronke seeking a response to that request were unanswered and CAMS felt that it sould not issue a permit for conduct of an event at a circuit no one would acknowledge ownership of. .........This was I agree a totally unnecessary situation but not one of either CAMS or HSRCA's making. ..............

Ray its quite clear that the HSRCA did pull the pin, from Paul's remarks I don't blame them either.

#34 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 15 February 2007 - 22:15

That's right, Andrew... except for a couple of things...

There was never any suggestion, for one, that the meeting would not be able to go ahead.

And Paul doesn't seem to be aware that the CAMS never asked for that transfer of licence until the Wednesday prior to the event.

And what everyone is ignoring is that the transfer went through with just one hitch... that Sandra Lordanic unwittingly put some detail into the transfer that meant it was unacceptable to Mick Ronke.

But when Mick got to it on the Thursday and found those errors, he immediately arranged for them to be corrected and signed the licence transfer on trust, accepting that they would be fixed on the final licence form!

So who's at fault?

Not Wakefield Park (see the thread title), as they set about complying with the CAMS request as soon as they had it.

Not the competitors, they are the victims.

Not Sandra Lordanic, from the CAMS' Finance and Administration staff, she simply set about providing what the client wanted. She even stayed back late after Mick phoned her on the Wednesday to get it done in time, so it's probably easy to excuse her for making those errors.

Not Mick Ronke, who went so far as to sign a blank piece of paper to make it happen.

Not... not... well, where do we go from here?

Note that I'm ready to capitulate on this should you get any of the people involved to refute what I have explained. But at this time, having been in touch with a couple of people in the know, I believe the above to be true.

#35 seldo

seldo
  • Member

  • 1,622 posts
  • Joined: June 06

Posted 15 February 2007 - 23:38

Popcorn!... Popcorn!.... Fresh popcorn!....
I'll just settle back and watch....This is getting interesting...:)
Your call Sir!

#36 cosworth bdg

cosworth bdg
  • Member

  • 1,350 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 16 February 2007 - 01:42

Originally posted by seldo
Popcorn!... Popcorn!.... Fresh popcorn!....
I'll just settle back and watch....This is getting interesting...:)
Your call Sir!

Very well put, Seldo

#37 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 05:17

AASA....the words of a QR competitor.....

The AASA don't have a heart, only a bottom line they are only doing this for one reason the Australian dollar.

While I can't quote on the other operators, QR used to cost $1,200 for exclusive use for a whole day when Lakeside was up and running in the past, the day after Lakeside closed QR "had to pass on increased costs", what the?. They haven't spent a cent on the place unless it was to patch repair the track to get an event because CAMS had not passed it on safety concerns. Those increased costs weren't 10-20% but 300% overnight and 1000% within 6 months. Last time I checked QR cost over $16,000 for the day and I'm not sure but the last quoted price to hire it for a day was over $22,000. If you wanted flaggies you have to pay extra, if you want the flaggies to have flags, you have to pay extra, you can also hire the tracks fire extinguishers, brooms and buy any kitty litter you need to use. To use the scrutineering bay cost extra, to get the gates opened before the event (so you can do scrutineering, paperwork and actually start racing when your track hire starts) costs $2,200 an hour extra.

AASA went it alone to pocket the money they would normally pay to CAMS for event fees. That is the money CAMS uses to meet official's costs (Travel, accommodation etc) and more importantly insurance for the drivers whilst on the track, something you don't get with AASA.

Initially when I first read about the AASA a few years ago I thought "what a great idea" as I too am sometimes frustrated by CAMS (especially when I was running/organising 12 events a year), but seeing what you don't get with it I eventually got put off by it.

By comparison to run a CAMS sanctioned inter club event elsewhere in SE Qld costs around the $7,000 mark for a two day event, all the required officials and gear are supplied and that includes the track hire. By the time you run (actually limit) 100 competitors it cost $70 each for two days and more track time than you can poke a stick at, often competitors will load/leave early as they have run out of fuel or tyres or brakes or just too buggered to keep driving.

Try getting an hours practice at QR, around the $500 mark and you will be out with as many cars as they can jamb on the track at once. A full days private practice elsewhere cost $75 for the whole day.

AASA licences are handed out (for a price of course), from a previous post it would seem AASA reckon their license is equivalent to a CAMS C3 (bet that is for insurance reasons), a CAMS C3 allows you to race door handle to door handle including State and Australian Championships, to get it you need a medical, an observed driving event and 5 competition events where your skill and performance as a driver are assessed, you also need a couple of subjects and days as a flaggie/official.

A AASA license lets you risk your life with any clown with $55 bucks in their wallet who can drive straight off the street in their pimped out turbocharged V8 quad rotor testosterone fuelled sic mobile (that hasn't even had a basic safety check done on it before it is allowed on the track) regardless of their actual skill level.

#38 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 05:24

and so people don't think I have an axe to grind (cos I don't)....

From: "Qld Raceway Admin"
To: "QUEENSLAND RACEWAY - FULL LIST"
Sent:
Subject: ATTENTION: QR Racers

Dear Competitor,

It has been brought to our attention that some people have been deliberately
distorting the truth about the AASA insurance, the possibility of paying the
excess and QR's position in this regard. QR knows who the originators and
propagators of these distortions are, and they should take notice they do
form a basis for a civil action against them.

More than one of these people has had the truth explained to them and yet
they continue to do everyone a disservice by continuing with distributing
untruths, presumably for their own benefit. Motorsport does not benefit by
conducting forum conversations which are deliberately designed to hurt QR
and its attempts to grow motorsport to the benefit of everybody. At least
one person has even gone to the lengths of ringing a Victorian club to seek
support by spreading the untruths, and they were laughed at by the Victorian
club that has been conducting events under AASA sanctioning for some time,
after doing a diligence on the policy.

FACTS:

Being involved in a racing incident will NOT mean you have to pay the AASA
excess.
If you are acting in a responsible manner you will NOT have to pay the AASA
excess.
If you are inside the first line of defence you will NOT have to pay the
AASA excess

If you believe the AASA insurance policy is no good, then you have to
accept the CAMS policy is no good either, because they are both underwritten
by the same Lloyds of London syndicate.
The AASA policy was tested in Queensland at the very first race meeting QR
conducted under AASA and it performed completely to the satisfaction of the
claimant and we have a letter to that effect.

MORE FACTS:
We will not tolerate anyone who wants to spoil other people's fun for their
own selfish reasons.
If you deliberately endanger someone else's life or property at QR you will
be sent out the gate just as quickly as we can manage it If you deliberately
disobey an instruction from an official, especially one charged with
ensuring the safety of you or others, you will be sent out the gate.

If you are an idiot who does not want to play by the rules DO NOT COME TO
QR.

If you are intent on pursuing your own ends to the detriment of other people
DO NOT COME TO QR.

I have personally made it very clear to anyone that listens that QR is about
recreational motorsport, and should be seen as a fun park for people with
engines and wheels they want to enjoy with others. If this does not sound
like you, DO NOT COME TO QR.

Lets make it absolutely clear, despite the BS being spread around by people
who want to spoil it for you, - you have nothing to worry about in regard to
the excess unless you show intent to harm or wilful negligence in a public
area.

So can we now, please, put the nonsense behind us and get on with enjoying
the sport we all love.

Sincerely, John Tetley

#39 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 February 2007 - 05:39

What on earth have Queensland Raceway's ripoff charges got to do with AASA, Mick?

They weren't even using AASA for some time!

I know, you're only quoting from someone who has been silly enough to not draw the proper distinction between AASA and QR, but you should have realised that while you were reading that diatribe!

If you want a balanced view of AASA and QR, I will privately give you the name of the man to talk to... someone who helps organise some meetings for which they hire that circuit. Someone who knows the ins and outs of it all.

Advertisement

#40 Big Trev

Big Trev
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:35

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4
AASA....the words of a QR competitor.....

The AASA don't have a heart, only a bottom line they are only doing this for one reason the Australian dollar.

While I can't quote on the other operators, QR used to cost $1,200 for exclusive use for a whole day when Lakeside was up and running in the past, the day after Lakeside closed QR "had to pass on increased costs", what the?. They haven't spent a cent on the place unless it was to patch repair the track to get an event because CAMS had not passed it on safety concerns. Those increased costs weren't 10-20% but 300% overnight and 1000% within 6 months. Last time I checked QR cost over $16,000 for the day and I'm not sure but the last quoted price to hire it for a day was over $22,000. If you wanted flaggies you have to pay extra, if you want the flaggies to have flags, you have to pay extra, you can also hire the tracks fire extinguishers, brooms and buy any kitty litter you need to use. To use the scrutineering bay cost extra, to get the gates opened before the event (so you can do scrutineering, paperwork and actually start racing when your track hire starts) costs $2,200 an hour extra.

AASA went it alone to pocket the money they would normally pay to CAMS for event fees. That is the money CAMS uses to meet official's costs (Travel, accommodation etc) and more importantly insurance for the drivers whilst on the track, something you don't get with AASA.

Initially when I first read about the AASA a few years ago I thought "what a great idea" as I too am sometimes frustrated by CAMS (especially when I was running/organising 12 events a year), but seeing what you don't get with it I eventually got put off by it.

By comparison to run a CAMS sanctioned inter club event elsewhere in SE Qld costs around the $7,000 mark for a two day event, all the required officials and gear are supplied and that includes the track hire. By the time you run (actually limit) 100 competitors it cost $70 each for two days and more track time than you can poke a stick at, often competitors will load/leave early as they have run out of fuel or tyres or brakes or just too buggered to keep driving.

Try getting an hours practice at QR, around the $500 mark and you will be out with as many cars as they can jamb on the track at once. A full days private practice elsewhere cost $75 for the whole day.

AASA licences are handed out (for a price of course), from a previous post it would seem AASA reckon their license is equivalent to a CAMS C3 (bet that is for insurance reasons), a CAMS C3 allows you to race door handle to door handle including State and Australian Championships, to get it you need a medical, an observed driving event and 5 competition events where your skill and performance as a driver are assessed, you also need a couple of subjects and days as a flaggie/official.

A AASA license lets you risk your life with any clown with $55 bucks in their wallet who can drive straight off the street in their pimped out turbocharged V8 quad rotor testosterone fuelled sic mobile (that hasn't even had a basic safety check done on it before it is allowed on the track) regardless of their actual skill level.

That would have to be the biggest crock that I have ever read, what department of CAMS are you associated with.

I will not oblige to comment on the rambling rhetoric suffice to ask you to explain the difference required to get a CAMS L2 Licence versus a AASA Club Licence (which is the licence that you say costs $55.00)

A AASA license lets you risk your life with any clown with $55 bucks in their wallet who can drive straight off the street in their pimped out turbocharged V8 quad rotor testosterone fuelled sic mobile (that hasn't even had a basic safety check done on it before it is allowed on the track) regardless of their actual skill level.

All events ran by Winton require the competitors cars to be scuitinised, get your facts correct, people are watching, and yes I do have a lot to do with Winton and AASA.

#41 Big Trev

Big Trev
  • New Member

  • 3 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 16 February 2007 - 09:49

Originally posted by 275 GTB-4

I believe part of the current problem is that AASA (FOR EXAMPLE :rolleyes: ) are alledgedly accused by CAMS of stealing there IP....that is; Supp Regs, officials hiearchy/job descriptions/responsibilities, safety rules etc etc......as another EXAMPLE (and to the best of my knowledge).....CAMS accredited/trained officials are not covered by insurance at events other than those sanctioned by CAMS. Basic OH&S/Workers Comp claims might work if you were injured in this PC world....but, not many would have the money to fight such a court case (unless you fanagled a union into assisting). For this reason alone, I know of several officials who refuse to attend non-CAMS sanctioned events.

I though this tripe was put to be bed when a member of a significant Melbourne based car club sent one of the members (who happens to be a QC) to read through both the AASA and CAMS Insurance policies last year, he commented that he would be happy to compete under the AASA insurance, and after checking CAMS he informed them that their policy was lacking ins some instance, I will go on to say that the CAMS policy is now comparative to the AASA one.

Keep dragging up old news there 275 GTB-4 it is quite amusing.

Maybe some of the Qld and NSW competitors are unaware that this weekend signals the first round of the combined AASA/CAMS Victorian Motor Racing Championship being held at Calder as a twilight meeting, I understand about 140 entries. The VMRC for 2007 will consist of 10 round this year, 3 at Calder, 3 at Winton, 2 at Sandown and 2 at Phillip ISland, but you wouldn't want to share that good news 275 GTB-4 coz it would undermine your dribble. This was bought about by pressure from competitor groups and was brokered by Mick Ronke, the AASA ogre.

#42 Doug Nye

Doug Nye
  • Member

  • 8,341 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:29

I get the distinct impression that these squabbling colonials really need an English chap of the Officer Class sent down there to sort things out.

DCN

#43 Robert Bailey

Robert Bailey
  • Member

  • 212 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:44

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I get the distinct impression that these squabbling colonials really need an English chap of the Officer Class sent down there to sort things out.

DCN

Plenty of us have moved on and now doing other things as a hoby.Well done Cams!Gee what one of my lovely road cars will I take to the farm tomorrow.As for the Historic Car Commisssion cant wait till they all fall of the Perch. :clap:

#44 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 February 2007 - 10:56

Trev... I don't know if Mick will accept what you say or not...

I hope so, as his spurious arguments are clearly giving us a bad name with the Poms.

I don't seriously think that Mick would think that meetings under AASA are run without scrutineering.

#45 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:19

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I get the distinct impression that these squabbling colonials really need an English chap of the Officer Class sent down there to sort things out.

DCN


Douglas....try to keep a straight bat....and tell your countrymen to concentrate on doing the same...no..we don't need the Mother Country to intervene for what is essentially a storm in a teacup :rolleyes:

#46 David Shaw

David Shaw
  • Member

  • 1,724 posts
  • Joined: August 02

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:25

Originally posted by Doug Nye
I get the distinct impression that these squabbling colonials really need an English chap of the Officer Class sent down there to sort things out.
DCN


Is this reminiscent of the discussion that took place before Diggers with rusty blades were sent up and out of the trenches to tackle the Turkish bullets?

#47 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:33

Originally posted by Big Trev
I though this tripe was put to be bed when a member of a significant Melbourne based car club sent one of the members (who happens to be a QC) to read through both the AASA and CAMS Insurance policies last year, he commented that he would be happy to compete under the AASA insurance, and after checking CAMS he informed them that their policy was lacking ins some instance, I will go on to say that the CAMS policy is now comparative to the AASA one.

Keep dragging up old news there 275 GTB-4 it is quite amusing.

Maybe some of the Qld and NSW competitors are unaware that this weekend signals the first round of the combined AASA/CAMS Victorian Motor Racing Championship being held at Calder as a twilight meeting, I understand about 140 entries. The VMRC for 2007 will consist of 10 round this year, 3 at Calder, 3 at Winton, 2 at Sandown and 2 at Phillip ISland, but you wouldn't want to share that good news 275 GTB-4 coz it would undermine your dribble. This was bought about by pressure from competitor groups and was brokered by Mick Ronke, the AASA ogre.


Hey Big Trev....good to know the QC has rubber stamped the coverage (pity the average Official ain't aware of that :rolleyes: )

you may be right...BUT,,,,,where is the announcement covering this AASA/CAMS lovefest :

I think you are being a bit hard on me, no doubt spurred on by Razor...........to explain.....just like John Lennon, all I want is the truth.....I strongly resent the allegation that I dribble (forcefully, nay Bloody Forcefully).... although I am getting on in years!!

If what you say is true, then the Thicktorian cartel (AASA/CAMS) have been remiss in passing on this wonderfull news to the other states (not surprising)

#48 Ray Bell

Ray Bell
  • Member

  • 53,944 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 16 February 2007 - 11:53

Mick, the news has been out for some time about that series...

I'm actually not really in favour of it myself. When you tie a competitor to a series you put an unnecessary strain on his resources. But that seems to be the way it works these days.

As for me spurring Trev on, I don't even know who he is!

I think, also, that if you check back on early posts I made on this forum about AASA (in answer to a question that Doug Nye asked) you might find some reference to the Jaguar Club doing their due diligence and declaring CAMS offside compared to AASA.

#49 275 GTB-4

275 GTB-4
  • Member

  • 6,923 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 12:26

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Mick, the news has been out for some time about that series...

I'm actually not really in favour of it myself. When you tie a competitor to a series you put an unnecessary strain on his resources. But that seems to be the way it works these days.

As for me spurring Trev on, I don't even know who he is!

I think, also, that if you check back on early posts I made on this forum about AASA (in answer to a question that Doug Nye asked) you might find some reference to the Jaguar Club doing their due diligence and declaring CAMS offside compared to AASA.


Tallarook :up:

#50 Andrew Fellowes

Andrew Fellowes
  • Member

  • 709 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 16 February 2007 - 23:18

A couple of weeks ago I was talking to one of the competitors involved in the accident at the first AASA meeting at the Paperclip. He said that the service from the insurance was first class and was well aware of the general misconception that it might be lacking in any way, and he was keen to refute that allegation, so I am happy to pass on his views. If this is typical, it would seem that you can exclude insurance as being a point of difference between CAMS & AASA.

In light of the VMR Championship being a joint venture I assume that this means that any series or championship, can run at events sanctioned by either party -maybe subject to prior agreement? If CAMS policy is one of co-operation with AASA, and officials and competitors can work with both without the fear of reprisals, then that needs broadcasting. This is not the perception at the moment.

Edit. I've just been told some of the Queensland State Championships are at at mix of both organisations. I think its looking like the issue isn't a real problem merely a perceived problem... or am I getting confused?

Communication, or the lack of it, is often at the root of all conflicts. Neither CAMS, AASA or the circuit owners smell of roses to me and I suspect that’s just bad PR, an example being IMHO, Tetley’s letter.


& no DN, please don't let the War Office in London send some Eton/Harrow (over 60% of Harrow boys failed their literacy test last year?) educated pratt out to the colonies to teach us how to fight, they would just want to put boxing gloves on, takes all the fun out of it. :lol: