> Okay, so how would you like to compensate for the lost revenue from
> online rulebooks? Entry fees? Membership fees? Reduce insurance
> coverage? Reduce advertising budget? The money has to come from
> somewhere...
>
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed -- I'm just pointing out that
> you've got to make a tradeoff somewhere.
Good point and no, we certainly can't make the insurance any weaker than it
already is. I am speaking of course of the decision to make the SCCA
insurance secondary, even if you are hurt at a track as a volunteer. I
shudder to think what my cheapo HMO is going to say about that. Sure, they
will eventually have to pay but have you ever fought with a sizeable
bureaucracy for a couple of months to get your money back? I did a couple of
years ago when I got a physical that included an EKG for racing. All sorts
of red flags went up even though I said I'd gladly pay for the EKG outside
of the regular 2 year exam the insurance provider allowed.
I'd start with cutting costs. If we no longer own Enterprises (Nick Craw is
trying to purchase it...), and we no longer sanction pro events then we
don't need a lot of the staff we have in Denver. And then we wouldn't need
an expensive CEO anymore either.
Then I'd raise the dues of the participants. I think club racers should pay
more than autocrossers or road rallyists because their sport requires more
overhead with licensing, volunteers, more expensive insurance costs, and
such. I see nothing wrong with paying the actual costs.
Paul Foster
|