ITMN 'Dirty Air'

[Maddog]

Happy to see that published. I spoke to James at the open house and could tell he wasn't happy with what had taken place.

Are we going to hear from the Board on this matter? :cool:

This might be considered 'stirring the pot', but IMO, the paying membership needs to know.

[craig]

Happy to see that published. I spoke to James at the open house and could tell he wasn't happy with what had taken place.

Are we going to hear from the Board on this matter? :cool:

This might be considered 'stirring the pot', but IMO, the paying membership needs to know.

The board has already been heard from at the CASC-OR Presidents' meeting. That meeting was held on the weekend before the Open House.

You should be able to get the details from your club's President, either directly or via whomever he/she delegated to attend.

[Sober99]

Wow!!!

I received my "mag" in the mail yesterday. Fair enough to say there are some ruffled feathers! It will be interesting to see what our board and club representatives have to say on this matter! Public image is important!

[Maddog]

The board has already been heard from at the CASC-OR Presidents' meeting. That meeting was held on the weekend before the Open House.

You should be able to get the details from your club's President, either directly or via whomever he/she delegated to attend.I don't feel I should be chasing people to get information that should be readily available to the membership. Isn't it why we have this forum, for communication?

[Adam Lipcsey]

What is the synopsis of that article?

[tanney]

I don't feel I should be chasing people to get information that should be readily available to the membership. Isn't it why we have this forum, for communication?
You know it. I have attended every President's Meeting since 2002 and club Presidents never seem to pass on the information to it's membership.

There are communication issues from top to bottom and has been for years and years and years.

[ADAM]

well some one post the article up so we can read it..

[Adam Lipcsey]

Maybe it is a ploy to buy the magazine!:D

[craig]

I don't feel I should be chasing people to get information that should be readily available to the membership. Isn't it why we have this forum, for communication?

I belong to (at the moment) two CASC-OR clubs. One club discussed it at a meeting; the other posted a precis on their website.

Nobody is being paid to serve you in the way that you appear to feel that you are entitled to. If you aren't happy with that outcome, then you have the power to change it.

[Maddog]

Nobody is being paid to serve you in the way that you appear to feel that you are entitled to. If you aren't happy with that outcome, then you have the power to change it.

Really? I thought the fact that we pay membership dues was for paying someone to serve the membership? If that's not the case, why am I paying said dues?

[craig]

Really? I thought the fact that we pay membership dues was for paying someone to serve the membership? If that's not the case, why am I paying said dues?

Not for what you requested; and nobody can answer your latter question except yourself.

[Maddog]

Interesting. Seems to be a lack of transparency...you would think it was being run by a Liberal government. :rolleyes:

I guess James what right about the lack of communication.

[sjd]

Interesting. Seems to be a lack of transparency...you would think it was being run by a Liberal government. :rolleyes:

Yes, because the Conservatives are so transparent...:rolleyes:

Not that I'm Liberal. I have a problem with most, if not all, Politicians.

We recieve ITMN here at work and I just read the rant. It's very interesting to say the least and as a member I am curious about the CASC's stance on the matter.

[inoverdrive]

as a member I am curious about the CASC's stance on the matter.

Yes, me too. How about it Mr Ellsworth, don't leave it in the closet. :rolleyes:
Tell us all about it. :)

Ken.

[Bubblecar]

I would suggest that these forums may not be the most appropriate place to discuss this topic.

As explained in the official announcement, a new media partner has been signed for 2009. The decision was reviewed and ratified by the full CASC-OR Board of Directors and presented in detail to all of your clubs' representatives at the annual President's Meeting on March 29.

Club executives should have more information for you, or you can ask one of the elected CASC-OR board members (off line).

Respectfully

Nick Majors

[Fentin_fury]

Is not this forum restricted to those who have met the requirements? I am sure the executive has the power to remove anyone who chooses to post inappropriate material. Therefor I would suggest that this is an ideal forum to hear from the members and the executive.

I've read the article - don't take offense to it - it is an opinion. The executive should also have an opinion - and vocalize it. | suspect that there must have been a better alternative- although I am unaware of it.

I am also a member of two CASC-OR affiliated clubs and pay my dues and did not hear from these executives on this matter (maybe it was not important). I was not aware of this until the open house. It would be good to hear from the CASC-OR board directly rather than through individual (off line) responses - specifically what was presented by the CASC-OR board of directors at the AGM.

IMHO.

[Sober99]

On the lighter side, yesterday I received my ITMN magazine with a not so friendly CASC-OR article in it. Today I received a free PRN magazine with a friendly CASC-OR article in it. Coincidence? I think not!

[Doug P]

On the lighter side, yesterday I received my ITMN magazine with a not so friendly CASC-OR article in it. Today I received a free PRN magazine with a friendly CASC-OR article in it. Coincidence? I think not!

I have seen that a couple of members have received a PRN that they did not order. Is a PRN subscription being provided to all members?

[DEK]

I believe it actually says in the PRN that CASC members are receiving, that CASC members are receiving a "free" subscription.

DEK

[ellswrth]

I have seen that a couple of members have received a PRN that they did not order. Is a PRN subscription being provided to all members?
To most members, yes, and to all who want it.

We ran the sponsorship announcement for about three weeks on the forums but we probably should leave it up a while longer in view of the discussion and the fact that the issues are beginning to be delivered. The announcement read in part;

Each issue of PRN will now be delivered to all CASC-OR club members (6 issues per year), and will feature expanded coverage of the CASC-OR and all its disciplines. (These issues will only be mailed to those members who have agreed to accept sponsor offers when they joined their CASC-OR club)

This is in accordance with the CASC-OR privacy policy which states;

CASC-OR does not provide an individual's personal information to third parties for marketing or other purposes without the individual's express consent, although CASC-OR may use the information for its own business purposes, including promotional or marketing activities, and may share it on request with its member clubs for similar purposes.

For those who may be concerned, your address will not be used for any other purpose than to deliver the magazine. If anyone receives some other mail which they think has originated from the same source, we'd like to hear about it.

As to the rest of the questions and discussion, my e-mail address is president at casc dot on dot ca and I plan to be at the Autoslalom school this Saturday. I'll be happy to listen to and respond to reasonable questions.

[racecartech]

I don't think the members want to choose sides or point fingers, I hope for the most part want information and the best coverage for selves and sponsors. Many of the sponsors are in the classifieds of ITMN. Was that considered? Why would there have to be an exclusive media partner? Can't all media sources recieve articles and let the editors decide what they want to print? I personally have been through this kind of situation on a oval track front and it was settled very well.

Please lets do what is best for Racing, Sponsors and the racers themselves.

Thank You

[nrg3k_civic]

wow! politics are certainly NOT in recession here. Amazing how much people expect from unpaid volunteers... club membership fees usually only pay for insurance fwiw. just an opinion (apparently we need more of these lol).

DJM:>

[Adam Lipcsey]

I have read the “rant” , but it is not a rant. I know a rant when I see one.
This one was a child’s temper tantrum. Not a rant. It should be called 'Hot Air'.

I am writing this as a reader, a spectator, a fan of racing. I have no current FIA and CASC affiliation. Neither have a subscription to ITMN. I don’t know Mr. Neilson, and I know a little bit Mr. Ellsworth.

Inside Track, with the publication of this article, has done a far greater damage to itself and to the sport in general, than to a club or organization or a person in particular.
All this done because of a “relationship” not being renewed. We are not even talking about a breach of contract of anything similar sort!

An intelligent person will see through this piece and shelves it for reference how not to engage in the public realm.

All executive boards of any of the Canadian racing organizations covered by ITMN will now have gorunds to fear of an attack coming from ‘left field’ for whatever reason.

Inside Track front page heading states “The Official Publication of Canadian Motorsports”. To me this means that they have taken upon themselves the even-ballanced coverage racing, including the activities of CASC-OR. CASC does not need any “exclusive deal”, the product will take care of the publicity.

I could go on and analyse the article point by point, as there are so many wrong assumptions and technicalities, it could take pages. Maybe for the entertainment of others and for just representation, I should get into the nitty-gritty.

I am sure that Mr. Neilson already regretted that this went into the press and is now available at most news stands and bookstores.

[Adam Lipcsey]

“…we had heard nothing from CASC-OR President Scott Ellsworth about our coverage last year.”

Is this a reason to go on an attacking campaign?

“…long-time and supportive media partner”
Why is this used as an argument?
Mr. Neilson talks about “ending an agreement” , but of what?
Who’s benefiting more from the coverage: CASC or having the CASC sponsors paying to ITMN for ad space?

“…by ending this agreement and generally deserting their biggest and most loyal media partner, they have done a disservice to their members.”

It is a presumption, but Mr. Neilson assumes it is a fact that the members have been shorted. He could only claim this as a fact, if he were a CASC member, and if he is, he should have mentioned it somewhere in the tantrum.

“…Scott Ellsworth hands-off approach with our publication has been frustrating for us”

This, again, was not substantiated by an actual example, therefore the reader will think not more than that it is only a personal attack just to blacken a name.
Now, a “hands-off approach” is subjected to condemnation. This is a first! The CASC President, ladies and gentlemen, is not interfering with a publication.

Isn’t that’s how things should be?

“CASC-OR is not NASCAR or Formula 1”

Ahem…

“From comments on the CASC-OR Forums and our own conversations with CASC-OR Board of Directors members Scott Ellsworth and Nick Majors, it appears they have lost touch with their membership”

Mr. Neilson is embarking on several fronts on a personal attack, and on CASC in general, but with no reason – the real ‘meat’ of the issue – provided. What should the reader think?

“CASC-OR is treading a very dangerous ground…”; “…a big mistake…”
Are we talking about a threat here, Mr. Neilson? Or it is a genuine worry coming from someone who no longer feels involved? What is the point here?



“You simply can’t go and alienate the media…”

It is ‘MEDIUM” at the most , Mr Neilson, in a singular tense!

[inoverdrive]

Adam...You have way too much time on your hands. LOL
You should of been a lawyer. LOL
Ken

[Maddog]

No doubt there are holes in the story because James probably assumes that people know what happen, but the fact that CASC is not providing any information (or making members go through hoops to get it) doesn't show well for CASC either.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Adam Lipcsey]

Just for clarity, we are discussing what appears on page 32. in the May 2009 issue of Inside Track Motorsport News (Volume 13 Issue 2).

[Taylor]

Meh, I've read it and am pleased to see someone (Adam) get the same out of it as I did. The whole thing reeks of sour grapes and is probably far more detrimental (if anyone actually read it) to the image of grassroots motorsports than lack of ITMN's coverage ever could/will/might be.

I'd go on, but what's the point?

BTW, does sound like it was handled rather clumsily but at the end of the day, this is a volunteer run organization (even though I'm not sure it should be quite to the extent it is). It's sad there's a double standard but there is.

[Nick Majors]

Simply put . . .

We received a proposal from PRN to be our media partner. It provided for considerably more in benefits to our organization including an increased financial component, improved coverage, printing services, advertising space and complimentary member subscriptions.

Despite any personal feelings or relationships with either publication, the proposal was accepted as being in the best interests of our member clubs and CASC-OR participants.

Unfortunately . . . a member of our Board made a mistake (yes it does happen) and Inside Track was not advised in an appropriate manner and they were not given a chance to respond before the new agreement was signed.

Inside Track was understandably upset, with both our decision to change partners and with the manner in which the change was implemented.

Subsequently there was considerable concern expressed by some of our existing sponsors which we have done our best to address.

A meeting of the Board of Directors was convened to review our new agreement and it was unanimously ratified as being a significant improvement to our previous sponsorship and despite poor execution, was in our interest to accept. Only time will tell if that is true.

A week later, full details were disclosed and discussed with all club representatives at our annual Presidents' Meeting and many of those clubs advised their members of the change. (So there was indeed transparency on CASC-OR's part)

Since that time there have been efforts at fence mending with various parties and frankly, discussions like this do not help the matter at all.

Certain issues, like sponsorship negotiation, are delicate and confidential matters and not open to public debate. It makes us look very bad - not just to our existing sponsors, but also to potential new ones. If you want details, ask someone, or go to a meeting, - or better yet - participate in the process.

I note that I have not personally received any email requests or phone calls from anyone who has posted to this thread (or the other one) asking for details of what happened. I can sometimes understand why the other regional sanctioning bodies across Canada are so opposed to public forums as a potential source of embarrassment (most refuse to host them).

I am not in the habit of defending my actions (or those of other board members) in random postings or against what I feel are sometimes cheap shots from the hip. We have a process of communications and if used it works very well.

Respectfully

Nick Majors

(I am now going to close these threads - and suggest that if you have further concerns, you contact me, another Board Member, or one of your club representatives)