>From the Evo digest:
In a message dated 6/14/02 8:50:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
mark@markchiles.com writes:
> Phil, et al...
>
> Here's a more information on the structure of the SEDiv SOLO II Series.
> When I took over the position as SEDiv Solo II Steward in late 1995, the
> SEDiv SOLO II series had become nothing more than glorified regional
> one-day
> events. I envisioned structuring the series more along the nature of the
> just emerging National Tour Series. Previously the divisional events in
> the
> SEDiv had been structured as Phil Osborne mentioned:
>
> Phil Osbourne writes:
> >"Site rental, and
> >other incidental costs are borne by the Region putting on the event, and
> >they should decide if the lot and associated expenses are cost
> prohibitive.
> >If a region wants to put on the event, and they know they stand to lose
> >money, that would be their decision...Kinda like Texas Region and their
> >Texas Motor Speedway National Tours...we always lose money, but the region
> >is large enough to absorb some loss."
>
> Also at this time Yokohama was sponsoring the Divisional Series and the
> hosting regions would share in the sponsorship monies. ($1,000 for each
> division, not each divisional) What had been occurring was the larger
> regions (those with more cash on their balance sheets) would host the
> divisional events and the smaller (less affluent) regions didn't because
> they couldn't bear to loose money on the event.
>
> When I took over the position of steward in late 1995, I proposed to the
> SEDiv Regional Executives (REs) a plan which would (1) provide incentive
> for
> less affluent regions to host the event and (2) make the SOLO II Series a
> distinct entity within the SEDiv similar to the SEDiv Race Program. The
> SEDiv REs approved the plan and provided "seed money" to get the SEDiv SOLO
> II Series started. Later, when Yokohama dropped out of sponsoring SOLO
> events I was able to procure sponsorships from BFG and others, which help
> defray the expenses of the series and was able to return the "seed money"
> to
> the SEDiv.
>
> During my reign, each SEDiv Regional Executive and/or Regional Solo Program
> Director received a bid packet at the beginning of each year at which time
> they could decide whether or not to bid on a divisional for the year. A
> contract was signed with the hosting regions in which each region was paid
> a
> flat $500 hosting fee, $100 for the Friday night welcome party, and $350
> for
> the Saturday Night Social. The Series pays for everything else: site
> rental, porta-potties (ask me about how expensive they can be!), sanction
> insurance (a continuing escalating cost), event mementos (cup cozy, mug,
> dash plaque, etc.), event trophies (not often thought of as a major
> expense,
> but is one of the larger ones), forms, event flyers, year end trophies and
> others I've forgotten. If the region was able to procure additional
> sponsorship outside of the ones procured by the Steward for the series, the
> region could keep that sponsorship and were well within their right to use
> that sponsorship money as they pleased. This plan was to have been a
> financial "win/win" for all SEDiv regions, especially the less affluent
> regions since they would not have to dip into their funds to pay for the
> event. It was TRULY anticipated that more regions would step up the plate
> to volunteer to host a SEDiv event and thus provide more sites to run
> within
> the division. That didn't necessarily hold true, as smaller regions were
> somewhat cautious about taking on hosting such a large event.
>
> Regions were expected to provide the timing equipment, cones, and safety
> equipment. The steward and staff handled centralized registration, timing
> and scoring and pointskeeping for the series. Additionally, regions were
> asked to provide the names of people who would fill the Chief Worker
> positions: Chief of Safety, Workers, Impound, Tech, etc.
>
> I envisioned the SEDiv Series as a series in which all events would be
> uniform and prestigious and similar in format to a National Solo II event.
> For instance, if a competitor attended any SEDiv event in the division that
> competitor should expect the same format and level of "quality" at any
> other
> corresponding event within the SEDiv. A side benefit for a competitor
> would
> be that anyone who attended a SEDiv event would know what to expect in
> event
> format when they attended a National Tour or Nationals in Topeka. Three
> runs on each of two days, formal impound procedures, and of course, the
> occasional protest.
>
> Even in the early days of the centralized SEDiv Series, I had to make
> financially based decisions on which sites to run. While everyone enjoyed
> running AMS it got to be too expensive and as Mark Sipe discussed in one of
> his recent posts, darn hard to work with. IMO I believe AMS has made it
> difficult/costly for us to run there because they really didn't need our
> money.
>
> I ended up the SEDiv Steward, in part, because I complained very vocally,
> about how the once prestigious SEDiv SOLO II Series had been run into the
> ground. I was challenged to "Put up or shut up".
>
> I challenge everyone who is complaining on this forum about the way certain
> events are run, to quit complaining and get involved. If you don't like
> the
> way events are being run and you are not involved, you have no one to blame
> but yourself.
>
> Mark Chiles
> SEDiv SOLO II Steward Emeritus
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|