Posts
12478
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
AZ
US
Edited Date/Time
1/27/2012 4:16pm
Looks like The MX promotor was the main helper in the demise of the Irish GP and MXoN
[b:v4legsrv]The show claims the company’s involvement in Motocross biking events may have sowed the seeds of its destruction. [/b:v4legsrv]
Funding of £50,000 was approved by the body’s board of directors for the Motocross Grand Prix in 2005, but it ended up with an overspend of £369,000 for the event, the documentary claims.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/12m-de ... 3786769.jp
Sure we want this in USA
Wake up people
[b:v4legsrv]The show claims the company’s involvement in Motocross biking events may have sowed the seeds of its destruction. [/b:v4legsrv]
Funding of £50,000 was approved by the body’s board of directors for the Motocross Grand Prix in 2005, but it ended up with an overspend of £369,000 for the event, the documentary claims.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/12m-de ... 3786769.jp
Sure we want this in USA
Wake up people
x2
They ran the business into the ground long before MX.
Oh, you forgot this part, Jay
[b:3f6wr2e6][i:3f6wr2e6]Other overspends listed by the show include £100,000 on the Circuit of Ireland International Rally, £75,000 on a Coca-Cola film and TV festival for young people and £173,000 on running costs and professional fees between 2005 and 2007. [/b:3f6wr2e6][/i:3f6wr2e6]
But hey, why worry about facts when you have an axe to grind or an agenda
The Shop
I pasted the whole article what do you want ? sure seems like you have an AXE to grind the other way
I have no vested interest either way.
I just want more and I want better, and however we get to that goal, so be it.
Unlike you, I have no bias.
I am willing to look at and discuss all options openly and evenly
Unlike you, I have never said I do not want the any particular company running the show.
I have actually said the opposite, that I'd prefer the NPG, I just want to see a better set up
Here's where a little transparency in what the AMA asked for would help. The line of argument is this: YS demands a fee for the right to run a GP ($300K according to GL a couple years ago). It also controls significant revenue opportunities from the event, and that limits the event organizer's opportunity to recoup its expenses. So the Irish debacle is held up as an example of how YS strip mines revenue from the GP franchise to the detriment of a stable event base. There's a reasonable basis for the argument, and that YS's economic model is better for YS than it is for the sport.
But it also begs the question of whether YS would be allowed to operate the US Nationals under the same economic structure. Knowing what the AMA was asking from its future promoter and what target YS and NPG and other entities would be shooting at would go a long way to keeping folks on track.
to be honest i think youthstream would be good for the nationals with the market you guys have over there
[quote:1j7fjlvr]Sounds like company mismanagement. They should have decided they couldn't afford it before they went forward with the event.[/quote:1j7fjlvr]
anyone can put on a gp if they have enough money, wether or not they make a loss is down to more then youthstream like you say the irish promoter got in too deep and made a big loss which seems like it wasnt new to them
YS claims 1 million was made by budds creek at MXoN Budds Creek (rumor) lost 150K
The Irish company in this report that claims the GP was a big money loss.
heck according to how great the GP's are they should have made atleast 500K
Face it Youthstream numbers don't add up
Not saying this happened, but if I give myself a fee of $500,000, but the event "loses" $500,000...did I really "lose" $500,000?
Aside from all that, you're basing your premise on a mismanaged company, the Irish promotions group.
Remember the old computer saying, garbage in-garbage out
x2
[b:35xlg332]The show claims the company’s involvement in Motocross biking events may have sowed the seeds of its destruction. [/b:35xlg332]
Funding of £50,000 was approved by the body’s board of directors for the Motocross Grand Prix in 2005, but it ended up with an overspend of £369,000 for the event, the documentary claims.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/12m-de ... 3786769.jp
Sure we want this in USA
Wake up people[/quote:35xlg332]
The USA is covered. You have the Dinger cleaning up corruption and abuse. When he gets done here, send him over. " title="Smile">
The new AMA can kick some ass.
SHILL!!
SHILL!!
It's common practice in all forms of racing.
When a NASCAR race is held at Bristol, Bristol pays a fee to NASCAR for the event
When F1 races at Silverstone, they pay a fee to F1
When a National is held at Southwick, Local 338 (owners) pay a fee
It's nothing unusual.
Jay, care to dispute any of Stefan's comments or are you just going to poo-poo it with no facts at all to back it up?
Pit Row
What I think is worth asking is whether this sort of buy and sell the rights middleman type of arrangement is the best one to grow the sport. It is no different from what AMA Pro Racing was set up to do, and it failed according the AMA.
I think the fee issue is almost a sidebar, it's seems to me more about how event risk gets spread.
thats pretty ironic coming from the biggest npg suckler on the planet .
If I want to open a Dunkin Donuts, I pay a fee and have to follow their rules and regulations
If I want to run a National or a GP, I pay a fee and have to follow their rules and regulations
My fee does not change if my Dunkin Donuts loses money or fails, nor do the rules and regulations.
Dunkin Donuts will not absorb my losses nor pay my debts in the event of failure, regardless of reason
It is the risk you take in business.
Operating a race is the same thing.
You take a business risk
The franchiser collects their fees, risk is on the franchisee
Here's a simple shift of risk: if the AMA and its ultimate promotional partner wants a track, they should rent it at the rate the track operator believes he can get a fair rate of return for his work in preparing the facility to standard for the event, and the AMA and promotional partners who are supposed to get people to the gate get the gate and promotional revenue. It's only half a flip from the current YS model.
Seems much easier to me, business wise, and looking at it from both sides, to just say "If you want a race, you must do it like this and the fee is this"
Pay your fee, follow the rules and whatever you make is your profit.
Do it right and do it smart, you can make a lot of money
Do it poorly, you don't
If it rains, you should've insured the event (which you can do) to cover losses.
Your way means I have to split my profit for the event at my track.
My way means I get to keep all my profits, no matter how I work my books.
I take more risk, but I increase my opportunity to make more.
Actually, you don't at all. You pay the track owner a contract rate for the facility (if the parties agree), and then the promoter runs the race and collects the money without having the accounting issues at the end of the day, or the ridiculous issues we have today in the AMA series about who is a series sponsor, a presenting sponsor, an event sponsor and so on, and the issues with whose money is what at the end of the day.
Now, an organizer has to pay the series promoter, who controls some of therevenue from the event along with the risk free payment of the fee for the right to run under the sanction, and the organizer bears almost all of the individual event risk with limited revenue sources. And on top of that you're asking the event organizer to expend a bunch of front-end capital on facility improvements for the privilege of getting handed the event specific risk.
Nope, I think what I propose is much clearer (which equals less chance of disputes once a deal is done) and much more equitable.
So, should we shift to why in the world the promoter runs the MXdN as a pure commercial profit event while riders and teams are supposed to show up and race for pride? This is wicked ass-backwards sport sometimes.
That's lawyer-view
LOL!
They rent the facility from the track owner or rent a building and build a track and control everything inside the fence, the Track owner gets the concessions and the parking.
ABA sells Vendor Spots inside
As far as structure and organization ABA kicks ass compared to any Motocross association.
Surely they can pay healthy sums to the riders or teams to offset costs ? Why is it the riders are expected to donate their time while everyone fills their pockets with money ?
Surely they can pay healthy sums to the riders or teams to offset costs ? Why is it the riders are expected to donate their time while everyone fills their pockets with money ?[/quote:20l26knh]
Jay, who pays the purse, the promoter, track or the AMA?
Post a reply to: Interesting News about who caused the Irish GP demise