The direction of TGTC?

[malcolm]

Ok, a lot of discussion and debate seems to stem from where the series is going. Obviously, if the major populus wants a club level series, which is sprints on toyos and with a few rules, then everyone's suggestions could be much more useable. Same goes for if the series' direction is aimed toward a "mini Speed World Challenge" like how I heard Mr. Bondar describe it when he first told me the idea of the series in late 2002.

So which direction does the online population of CASC want TGTC to go?

Edit: if ANY of the people involved in the operation of the series (ie. John Bondar) wants to speak up and give a definite aim of the series, please do! :)

[John Powell]

Malcolm. I think that your poll is a very good idea, but I have some problem with the wording of your choices regarding sponsorship. I think that it's not a question of lesser or greater sponsor appeal, but the type of sponsorship involved. A Pro (National) series would have greater appeal to fewer but larger sponsors, such as those who would sponsor the entire series or flagship events, including prize funds, and large or high-profile teams. On the other hand, an Amateur (Regional) series would be more attractive to a greater number of smaller sponsors who may be willing to support individual drivers or provide small contingency awards such as discounts on parts or services, as is currently the situation at local circle-track events. Such is the case with my sponsor, who provides me with shop facilities, technical support and free or discounted parts. That being said, your poll will still be very useful, and the number of respondents so far is very good for a voluntary survey.

[malcolm]

sorry, but if you are going to have a bigger series, you need bigger sponsorship.

Those 10 sponsors that bring $1000 each (numbers used for argument's sake) will still be there if the series gives more return, or remains the same as they are now. However, increase the appeal of the series to the media, and you will likely attract another big sponsor in addition to the 10 smaller ones. It's not like those associate sponsors are just going to walk away from everything.

Big series' attract big spenders. You will need tighter regulations, to prevent someone with more money than god to come in and jump through all the little loop-holes and build a demon car. No one will want to sponsor a series where one car just leaves everyone behind all the time. Increased regulations comes with lower accesibility to newcomers.

It's all connected.

[Rich]

No one will want to sponsor a series where one car just leaves everyone behind all the time

Unless, of course, you are talking about F1.......

[Steven Scala]

No one will want to sponsor a series where one car just leaves everyone behind all the time

Thinking about this on the way in to work today...the matter may not be that simple. There are, of course, different types of sponsorship schemes available, and it might literally pay off for a series boss to take a strategic approach to sponsorship arrangement:

Suppose a touring car series had what I like to call an 'honest' ruleset: one completely standard for all models, that seeks to define rather than to handicap. The basically superior packages would rise to the front. So let's say the top four positions would usually be populated with Integras on Toyos, for example. Honda/Acura would have reason to want to show off. So they pay for series exposure. Media buys, TV, magazines, spectator attraction, et cetera.

With said exposure, H/A's competing manufacturers could score a coup if they win races while H/A is footing the media bill. Nice incentive, isn't it? Given the odds involved, it would make much more sense for such manufacturers to add incentives than to subsidize odds-on losers, so the sponsorship here works in the form of contingency awards. Same could go for tires, supposedly. (Quebec/Ontario problem solved, ha ha!)

Again, hypothetical. As for further implications, I'm still thinking about it...

SS

[malcolm]

Good point Steven, but think of all the series that Porsche has killed. They dominate so much that they ARE the show. Then, after winning the specific series for x amount of years, they pull out. Porsche was responsible for the popularity, so when they leave, the series dies. Can-Am, FIA Group-5, European Hillclimbs, etc, etc.

Right now, Canadian rallying is suffering a similar fate. From what I understand, Subaru did quite well, and was supporting the series for a while. They won't want to support it forever... When they do leave, it will be a major loss to rallying in canada, and it could cause some major problems.

Following your example of Honda supporting the series... what do we do when they grow tired of supporting it? They'd want to move elsewhere after a year or two, and we'd be left high and dry.

I believe the TGTC could have more success than CGTCC had, mainly because we wouldn't be relying on a donation. What the CGTCC *should* have done was scale back prize money a bit, and then pay someone to look for sponsors to replace the donation source when his interest waned.... They could have quite easily gone to several larger companies and presented sponsorship proposals, and I am sure there would have been more than a few bites.

If the TGTC *does* get a big sponsor, we CAN'T take them for granted, and we would need to work with them on a regular basis to see what we could do for them in return for all they would be giving us. From what I have heard, taking sponsors for granted and then losing them has been a recurring theme in CASC's history, and hopefully we could build up the TGTC to reasonable proportions and not let it follow the same fate.

[Region Office]

The Subaru case is indeed a prime example of the effect of manufacturer pullouts. In this case it was because no other manufacturer would come to the table to compete. (The intention was to wind down at the end of '05 even before the CARS/RDG issue arose.)

However, I'd note that rallying is a slightly different case: given the high competitor cost, the contingency sponsorship strategy for competing manufacturers would understandably have been more difficult to realize. I suspect it's less difficult in road racing due to the higher grid size.

Still, I do acknowledge the 'Porsche effect.' There are, however, stages to a series' growth, and a number of strategies available to address these kinds of developments. (JGTC/DTM-style manufacturers' councils, for instance.) I'd put that kind of issue in the 'let's get there first' file, though.

SS

[malcolm]

I'd put that kind of issue in the 'let's get there first' file, though

true :D