The State of NZ Motorsport.

[Chris Read]

I have been a continuous MANZ/MSNZ Int race/rally licence holder for nearly 50 yrs. I raced in MANZ events and historics often at the same meeting. In 1989 I heard of a threat to Historic organisers who would not line up with MANZ (one being Country Gents) and wrote a much publicised letter to MANZ (Refer:Skidding the Tyres in Classic style-Eileen McMillan). They replied (also published) to their credit, but it did not dispel the notion I held that GP motorsport as we new it was loosing its appeal to the regulars and we had to accommodate new ideas. About that time Motorsport News (Aug 1990) recorded that circuit owning clubs would ban from their venue any non MANZ member club or group! That left historic racing in a bit of a bind.
MANZ at the time was pointing out that motorsport as we knew it was not working, but clubs were springing up that were. Although clearly each club made their own decision the influence of MANZ was there and the remedy was wrong.
My reasoning was that a GP at Ruapuna in those days pulled say 5000 spectators and a Country Gents at Wigram - (able to be run by a non sanctioned club because it was not at a MANZ sanctioned venue) pulled say 30,000 spectators over two days.
Fast forward to today...have we learnt anything....it is all becoming too difficult and no wonder we have the commentary above. Chris Read- Arrowtown. Have to say Arrowtown and not Queenstown anymore, as that's where we live and my wife comes from Arrowtown and...... you get the picture.

[RogerH]

Attention RogerH,

The details you have provided in post #12 surely raises serious alarm. It is not uncommon for attendance at formal meetings to be limited and loaded by the standing executive. What is the situation in respect of proxy votes?

This forum provides TACOC representatives with the opportunity to attend the meeting well armed. With the GM so close, this possibility should not be overlooked.

MSNZ does not allow proxy votes. As a result TACCOC have submitted the following remit :

REMIT TO 65TH ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING 2012



We, the Thoroughbred and Classic Car Owners Club Inc (TACCOC), wish to place the following remit before delegates at the appropriate meeting forming part of the 65th Annual General Council Meeting 2012.


1. Rule No./Schedule or appendix affected: MSNZ Inc Constitution Section 8.5

2. Remit: That MSNZ Inc amend its Constitution to provide for Members complying with Section 5 of the Constitution to exercise their democratic right of representation through a proxy vote.

3. Reason :

• MSNZ's Constitution provides a fundamental objective that MSNZ conducts it's activities for the collective and mutual benefit of all Member Clubs and acts in the interests of all Member Clubs.

• It appears inconsistent with the constitutional objective (Section 3.10) that MSNZ "... at all times ... act on behalf of, and in the interests of, the member clubs ...", that Section 8.5 of the Constitution specifically limits the exercising of votes to only those Member Clubs that attend the annual Council meeting.

• There are a number of valid reasons why Member Clubs may not be able to attend Council (including the geographical location of a Member Club in relation to the location of the Council meeting) and it seems both draconian and undemocratic that these Member Clubs are accordingly disenfranchised by excluding them from exercising their right of participation in the voting process.

• Remits are circulated to all Member Clubs prior to the Council meeting so Member Clubs who are unable to attend Council have the opportunity to discuss the remit and come to a view which could be exercised through a proxy voting process.

• To be consistent with it's objectives, MSNZ should take every opportunity to encourage participation by Member Clubs irrespective of them attending Council or not and the introduction of proxy voting would assist in facilitating this objective.

[RogerH]

Roger, At one time the two companies had different balance dates to Motorsport NZ and used that as an excuse not to have to present current company accounts to the Motorsport AGM. This is frowned upon by the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants and should have been highlighted by the Auditors. Is that still happenening.

Yes, you are right Graeme - MSNZ has a balance date of 31 December while TMC has a balance date of 31 March. Of more concern is the refusal of MSNZ to consolidate the activities of TMC as MSNZ is a 60% shareholder in TMC. This is despite the MSNZ auditor tagging the MSNZ accounts and stating :

" Motorsport New Zealand has not consolidated its interest in Rally New Zealand and The Motorsport Company Limited. This is a departure from the Financial Reporting Standard No. 37 "Consolidating Investments in Subsidiaries", as these entities are controlled entities under the scope of the standard and therefore should be consolidated. The financial effect of this departure has not been quantified "

[Trevor Sheffield]

Thanks Roger,

Nothing has been learned. I have been observing this same commentary for 60 yrs. Dare I say comedy? Now, is THE time to rally the/your troupes.

“Section 8.5 of the Constitution specifically limits the exercising of votes to only those Member Clubs that attend the annual Council meeting”
.
Exactly the problem which existed 60 years ago with the original Association of New Zealand Car Clubs. Nothing has changed. I recall as secretary of the Northern Sports Car Club, the cost and difficulties involved in arranging effective delegates to attend the annual GM of the ANZCC, which overall held the purse strings. I called the outfit, “The Treasury.” Obvious who were the tax payers.

The organisation has never and will never under the current set up, -----

”be consistent with it's objectives, MSNZ should take every opportunity to encourage participation by Member Clubs irrespective of them attending Council or not and the introduction of proxy voting would assist in facilitating this objective.”

Unfortunately I do not have access to the current MSNZ Inc. constitution and others with a valid interest could very well be in the same boat. If this can be scanned and posted here, it would present a concrete basis for truly effective discussion.

Involvement in commercial activity surely falls outside of the functions of the organisation as was originally intended. Is the constitution so vague that anything goes? Are loop holes being worked? Exactly what is gong on from a legal point of view? Is the organisation in any way corrupt? Are there stray dividends floating about? Who is serving who and what is being served? There is no question as to who is paying!

Trevor.

[markec]

I have sent you a personal message Chris Read, check the notification button link along the top of the page.

[RogerH]

Unfortunately I do not have access to the current MSNZ Inc. constitution and others with a valid interest could very well be in the same boat. If this can be scanned and posted here, it would present a concrete basis for truly effective discussion.
Trevor.

Don't get me started on the MSNZ Constitution !! It can be accessed here : http://www.motorsport.org.nz/content/constitution

The powers granted to the MSNZ Executive are in reality somewhat irrelevant as any challenge is usually batted off with the justification of the "famous" clause 19 :

19. Matters Not Provided For:
19.1 Any matters which are not provided for in this Constitution shall be decided by the Executive.

This effectively gives the Executive the power to do what it wants.

The other fault with the MSNZ "system" is that for whatever reason the representation process for Executive has resulted in no person north of Hamilton being on MSNZ Executive for at least 10 years. Additionally, there has been no Executive member from the historic and classic fraternity (probably one of the largest competitor groups) for probably 12 years. This lack of representation from two large interest groups may explain the basis of so much dissatisfaction with MSNZ.

[AMCO72]

Hey you fellas, don't you think you are on the wrong thread for this. I think most of what I am reading here belongs in yards & YARNS. I can scarcely believe what I'm seeing here. Where has Mr Cranch/Crunch gone. He was going to answer all our questions, was he not? Is the VCC 'ruled' by MSNZ now. I seem to remember years ago that the VCC was a big enough organisation to operate without the 'help' of MSNZ. We have obviously struck a raw nerve here.

[RogerH]

Hey you fellas, don't you think you are on the wrong thread for this. I think most of what I am reading here belongs in yards & YARNS. I can scarcely believe what I'm seeing here. Where has Mr Cranch/Crunch gone. He was going to answer all our questions, was he not? Is the VCC 'ruled' by MSNZ now. I seem to remember years ago that the VCC was a big enough organisation to operate without the 'help' of MSNZ. We have obviously struck a raw nerve here.

I think the structural issues with MSNZ are at the root of the competition issues so they are probably linked.

VCC is a separate entity from MSNZ although there is meant to be a mutual use of documentation (competition licences etc) for motor sport events with VCC catering for up to 1960 cars. For example, I understand next weekends Roycroft meeting at Hampton Downs is being run as a VCC event (which probably annoys MSNZ).

[Carlo]

The prime reason why there has been no Executive member/s north of the Bombays for some time and why there has been no "Historic" executive member is simply becasue no one from those groups or areas have put their name forward as a nomination. Yes they are successful at the Advisory Commission level but no one appears to want to step up and/or come from outside of the commissions

Has anyone from TACCOC, or any other Historic or Marque clubs from north of the Bombays been nominated this year? There is elections for both an Executive member and a vice President

There is a party of thought that some of the executive should be elected and some appointed so as to overcome such percieved lack of geograpical or area of interest representation.

I am one of the many who attend conference to represent my club at my own expense, a number of us do it becasue we believe that it is important that the views of our club are represented there.

There have been some times in the past when I have attended with very strict instructions on which way to vote on a subject but as one does a little research amongst delegates one learns of other thoughts and reasons of an opposing view one has learnt that our clubs stance may not be in the best interests of the sport and a quick phone call back home has allowed me to vote in the other direction. Proxy voting does not allow for that.
I am also concious of the fact that there will be some groups or individuals who will actively seek out the proxy votes of non attending clubs to use for their own ends.

MSNZ role is one of Governance of the sport not Management of the sport and this is something that has not been identified by many people seeking office in the past and is the cause of some issues today. I think that it has been a people problem rather than a constitutional problem. In the past we have been blessed with some great guardians of our sport and we have had some very good well meaning people who have been a little out of their depth at Executive level.

Lets hope that this year things will be a little different and that we get some really passionate well equiped people standing for office

[jim short]

Yes Amco ..not sure I wish to partake with these so unhappy chappies seems to me the ten tenths site was roger h causing all the moans.. then he belongs to taccoc Now hes started here I had a good day at Taupo met the poms who build the Juno ..50 so far just happen to mention this site Oh no you are a BLOGGER going by there support bloggers are considerd a joke!!!!.

[RogerH]

The prime reason why there has been no Executive member/s north of the Bombays for some time and why there has been no "Historic" executive member is simply becasue no one from those groups or areas have put their name forward as a nomination. Yes they are successful at the Advisory Commission level but no one appears to want to step up and/or come from outside of the commissions

Not quite correct Carlo - for example, Tony Roberts unsuccessfully put his name forward for Executive last year and he's from Auckland and an historic/classic competitor.

[AMCO72]

OK Jim, you stick to subjects you know something about. Go back to Daves Jags and tell us about the D type. Please!!

[Dave Silcock]

I have been a continuous MANZ/MSNZ Int race/rally licence holder for nearly 50 yrs. I raced in MANZ events and historics often at the same meeting. In 1989 I heard of a threat to Historic organisers who would not line up with MANZ (one being Country Gents) and wrote a much publicised letter to MANZ (Refer:Skidding the Tyres in Classic style-Eileen McMillan). They replied (also published) to their credit, but it did not dispel the notion I held that GP motorsport as we new it was loosing its appeal to the regulars and we had to accommodate new ideas. About that time Motorsport News (Aug 1990) recorded that circuit owning clubs would ban from their venue any non MANZ member club or group! That left historic racing in a bit of a bind.
MANZ at the time was pointing out that motorsport as we knew it was not working, but clubs were springing up that were. Although clearly each club made their own decision the influence of MANZ was there and the remedy was wrong.
My reasoning was that a GP at Ruapuna in those days pulled say 5000 spectators and a Country Gents at Wigram - (able to be run by a non sanctioned club because it was not at a MANZ sanctioned venue) pulled say 30,000 spectators over two days.
Fast forward to today...have we learnt anything....it is all becoming too difficult and no wonder we have the commentary above. Chris Read- Arrowtown. Have to say Arrowtown and not Queenstown anymore, as that's where we live and my wife comes from Arrowtown and...... you get the picture.

As you probably know Chris,I was one of the group lead by Allan Bramwell, that started Country Gents and was a President for a couple of years. The threats we received from Manz as it was,then were on going and heavy. When we shifted to Wigram at the encouragement of Colin Rudd,[ Base Commander RIP] we even had a plot brewed by an Air Force officer, based in Wellington, who was involved with motor sport where by he instructed my liaision officer to tell me unless we joined MANZ the following year we would no longer have the use of the base.On referring this to Colin we were told that it was not Air Force policy and said junior officers where reprimanded . These threats were made while they knew the could not be upheld in any court. This is the bit MSNZ do not want us to know. The decision made on14 dec 1989 before the Commerce commission re Speed way Control Board VNz outlaw Racing Inc and the Circle Track association of NZ Inc. The Speedway Control Board had gone to the Commision to prevent the opposing groups from running a parallel operation. They lost on all counts It is decision 242 and A J Smithard and I Snellgrove were there for MANZ. They could not carry out their threats to cancel licenses for drivers and track owners and they knew it. The trouble we had was we were unaware of this at the time. A copy of this decision is readily obtainable from the Commerce Commission

[Chris Read]

We do need a Motorsport structure for safety, co ordination etc but one stop shop often does not apply. Non MANZ/MSNZ Classic racing grew on its own as the 'rules' did not always apply - Schd K etc went some way to appease and allowed classic racing to operate under MSNZ. But many like myself were happy to run at a MSNZ Nat race or rally but when it came to classic racing did not need the overkill.
Example: presented my 1955 Historic single seat for scrutineering. Roll bars pre '60 are not mandatory mainly as the cars do not have the chassis points to properly attach. But nearly all of us with some innovative welding have them fitted best we can however they cannot meet certification standards in many cases. A MSNZ technical officer present said....if you have one it must be certified even if you are not required to have it. If it is not certified you can't race but I could take it out and race.
Now I sorted this out by making sure this well meaning fellow saw the error of his ways but classic racing does not need this.
Disclaimer: there is only one instance where the safety factor is outweighed by aesthetics - you would not put a roll bar on a 250F! Chris Read-Arrowtown

[jim short]

Amco I know plenty I was one of the first members of taccoc ..started out so well I thought they would control all motorsport one day then no this.no that replicare not wanted ect where are they today what was said when I bought the remains of the Paton {$400} Oh no hes not going to join taccoc with that my kids overheard Lady ?????? say then more important where we go to dinner ect ,But have no wish join the negative folk on here I am sure most car lovers know, well Jaguar lovers know about that D Type Jaguar Jack Shelly imported it 1956-7 Bob Gibbons drove it{ex hillclimb champion and cooper driver also deaf as a post}Angus Hyslop was next painted over the pale blue with white paint fitted a 3.8 mtr and so until John Riley owned it in 1960 it sat beside his v8 powered Monza on the front of his yard just before Westfield at the back lay the squalo Ferrari out in the open ,The steering wheel went missing then the gauges finally became the Morriari..Some yrs later John was going to start a race at Puke in his Lotus?/ when a Dutch farmer confessed he had taken up going to church and could not sleep would it be ok to return the wheel!.... The D was then bought by Noel Foster who lived at the top of Peach hill Ramarama! a very steep hill a couple of hillclimbs were held on it before it was decided that to much damage was been done I think that was the reason?/Noel used to take the car to work in Pamure quite often.the biggest problem ws the clutch .After he passed on his son and daughter sent it to auction in Eng sold close to two mill. nz $???

[markec]

The situation is much like many others, everything is fine until a human being becomes involved.Over inflated ego's have been the cause of most of the dissent throughout history, it would seem the operation within MSNZ is no different. The big negative is the perceived power of those who are appointed to do a specific task take on the role of god almighty then perform in such a way that, reason, common sense and where applicable,the application of the technical regs in a fair and just manner.
How often is it that little Hitlers worm their way into crucial positions and cause havoc amongst the competing membership.I personally know of 3 people, who after a minor unnecessary conflict with officialdom have walked away from the sport, 2 of which were quite significant sponsors to other competitors who also lost that sponsorship.The effect of one officials stupidity can have far reaching consequences.

[Carlo]

Not quite correct Carlo - for example, Tony Roberts unsuccessfully put his name forward for Executive last year and he's from Auckland and an historic/classic competitor.

Sorry you are right Roger, Tony stood last year and achieved 24 votes against some very strong candidates, do you know if he is standing again this year as he should be a shoe in if he is for he was the highest poling candidate for the Historic and Classic advisory commission

[Dave Silcock]

I certainly have not heard such rumours, in fact I hear the very opposite and that includes the role and position of TMC in the future. The role of Motorsport NZ does not include running meetings and/or series and sometimes people get the role & title of TMC (The Motorsport Company) and MSNZ mixed.

However, I for one would love to see one ot two true historic classes run as part of the Summer Series alongside of Formula Toyota, FF, and NZV8

In the light of what has been posted here do you still stand by your assertion that MSNZ and TMC are separate entities?

[RogerH]

Sorry you are right Roger, Tony stood last year and achieved 24 votes against some very strong candidates, do you know if he is standing again this year as he should be a shoe in if he is for he was the highest poling candidate for the Historic and Classic advisory commission

I understand that Tony is not standing for the Executive this year which is a pity as in my opinion he fits your criteria of being "passionate and well equipped" a bit better than some of the incumbents.

[RogerH]

Disclaimer: there is only one instance where the safety factor is outweighed by aesthetics - you would not put a roll bar on a 250F! Chris Read-Arrowtown

Surprisingly someone has :