Alan Dahl wrote:
> Yes but there are accounting tricks going on that in my opinion
> understate the revenue generated by solo.
We're all in agreement there. A financial statement is the
accounting equivalent of a political campaign promise: you can
make it say whatever you want, and then pretend next year that
you really said something else. Internal cost and revenue
allocation is always arbitrary to some extent.
However, the "National Solo" program really ought to be able to
operate within the unambiguous revenue stream provided by entry
fees for Tours, sanction/insurance fees for Regional events, and
the sale of rulebooks. Larry Steckel makes an excellent point
regarding independent clubs. We have an independent club here in
Dallas (Equipe Rapide) that has operated a successful
autocross-only program for many years.
If it's cost-prohibitive to send a truck, driver, and whatever
number of paid national staff to Tours, then stop doing it. The
national office should transfer the program back to the Regions.
> Also in region after region their race programs only survive
> because they "borrow" money from the income generated by Solo,
BTDT. We're talking National here, though.
> I know
> that has been the case here in the Northwest region in the
past. Take
> Solo out of the SCCA ala RallyAmerica and watch SCCA membership
plummet
> by over 50% and Regional revenues drop by even more.
Agreed. However, if the attempt to sustain a "National level"
series is what's pushing the program into the red, we have ample
precedent to show that such a series is not really a necessity.
> On the ProSolo front the answer is more sets of timing
equipment, a
> Regional ProSolo feeder series and making regions responsible
for
> putting on National-level ProSolos.
I say make the same change with Tours. I have no idea if the Pro
format will survive at the local level, but we know from past and
current experience that Divisional Solo2 events are viable.
Jay
|