RA's reply to my e-mail and Press statement

[Warlock!]

This is what I got back from my letter/e-mail to RA...

Thanks for your thoughtful letter, which I've shown to George Bruggenthies. I'm responding to the letters.

Because you raise so many points, I've interspersed our responses with your comments.

I'm also attaching a copy of the statement we issued today after we learned that CART had canceled the final race on our existing contract.

Thanks again for taking time to write.

Cheryl



Mr. Bruggentheis,

I would just like to voice my extreme displeasure about the fact that CART was forced to cancel its Road America race because of contract disputes. From all that I've read the blame seems to fall directly on your shoulders since you were unwilling to follow through on the payments that had been previously agreed upon. I have followed CART since their formation in 1979 and ever since their first race at your track in 1982 (which finally put RA into a global spotlight) each of the following 20 races has been eagerly anticipated. This year was no exception.

Thanks for your loyalty, both to Road America and to CART. Road America has long been a supporter of the series, through thick and thin.

We were negotiating in good faith, and to say that we were stunned this morning when we learned from a reporter that CART canceled the 2003 race is an understatement. We haven't been saying very much because of the pending lawsuit. We wired a payment last Friday, which today CART said it is returning.

CART has gone through some drastic changes recently and the health of the series was at an all-time low in 2002. Luckily Christopher Pook was able to resurrect what many considered a dead series, bringing 19 cars to the grid at a sold out season opener in St. Pete last month. Although things are looking up for CART, they are still rebuilding. From all that I've learned in business, I've found that it was unwise to kick someone when they're down. Your refusal to carry your end of the contract shows very poor taste towards a partner who has drawn major recognition to your business, especially when that partner needs your help.

We didn't refuse to "carry our end" of the contract, and as the lawsuit ensues, if it does, I think you'll be surprised.

I've attended several CART races at Road America, and this year I was also planning on supporting your track by traveling over for the ALMS race in August. Now that you have effectively "kicked CART while it was down", I will refuse to support your track in any way, and encourage others to do the same. The crowd that normally attended RA for the CART event was a knowledgeable group of race fans, and I doubt many will attend any "replacement race" by any other open-wheel league in the country, especially the IRL. If this indeed was your plan, I hope you can find some camera shots that won't show off the empty bleachers, as well as explaining to the local campgrounds, hotels, and restaurants why their business is no longer booming in August. Sadly, I expect CART will show you more courtesy when they return to the strength they possessed
a few short years ago. I, however, will not.


Contrary to numerous website postings, we are not and have not been in negotiations with IRL.

We hope that when this unfortunate episode is over that you will consider coming to Road America to see excellent racing-we hope it will be CART, but if not one of the other events.

Thanks again for taking time to write. -- Cheryl

Now, RA's statement on the cancellation...

Road America Statement
Grand Prix of Road America Canceled by CART



We were surprised and disappointed to learn of CART's recent statements and actions, especially CART's announcement today that they are canceling the Grand Prix of Road America, which was scheduled to be held at Road America on Aug. 3, 2003. Road America has a contract with CART and we have been preparing to host the fifth race under that contract in August. In fact, Road America has been attempting to negotiate a renewed contract with CART for 2004 and beyond. Road America has been acting in good faith in its dealings with CART and we have met all of our financial obligations under our agreement with CART.
Road America has supported CART since 1982, through the series' highs and lows, making CART's recent behavior even more disappointing.
Road America has been proceeding with preparation for the 2003 race and CART's sudden decision to ignore its contractual obligations causes inconvenience to not only Road America, but to all race fans as well. We have been assured by our legal counsel that the true facts of our discussions and understanding with CART will eventually be made known through the litigation process but we felt an obligation to our business associates and fans to assure them of Road America's continuing commitment to quality racing.
While the track management and board members remain staunch CART supporters and have every hope for an amicable resolution of this unfortunate turn of events, the issue in our disagreement with CART is the value of the series to race fans and sponsors.

Re-read the last thought... "...the issue in our disagreement with CART is the value of the series to race fans and sponsors."

To me that says, "Hey, CART ain't what it used to be so we ain't going along with the contract".

I'm curious to hear what's coming next.

Winter Warlock!

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by Warlock!
To me that says, "Hey, CART ain't what it used to be so we ain't going along with the contract".

I'm curious to hear what's coming next.


That's my take on it too.

Question is, in the co-promotion agreement, how much was RA's share lowered to?

And with the attendance & hospitality, could they still make money?

[RaceGrrl]

I received a similar email, with the same attachment. I don't see that they addressed the concerns in your well-reasoned letter any differently than they did my rant.

They are not going to say anything significant while the suit is still open, but as nrc mentioned in another thread, and you've pointed out here, the telling comment is the last one in RA's press release.

[cart7]

TG - Hello George, Tony here. Have I got a deal for you.;)

[pchall]

I've yet to get a response from RA.

On the other hand I was just politely [he can be polite?!!! ;) ] telling them that while I lived in WI went to RA for the CART race every year and when I was not in the state it was a good occasional destination.

They also know that I don't see any other US based series right now that might attract me as a race fan to travel 400+ miles each way for a weekend.

[JSR]

In the first post of this thread it says that RA wired the money to CART and that CART was going to return it. Why would CART return it? Isn't that essentially what is ending the race for 03? What am I missing?

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by JSR
In the first post of this thread it says that RA wired the money to CART and that CART was going to return it. Why would CART return it?

Nothing says that the amount wired equalled the amount CART says is due. It could be 1/10th of what the contract calls for.

This case is pending in the Federal Courts. There is a rule in the Federal Courts, Rule of Civil Proceedure 68 "Offer of Judgment" whereby, basically, if one party offers to pay what is due the other in a certain manner (which, by the way there is nothing indicating that RA followed the technical method to make this offer - in fact it appears they almost certainly did not) and such offer is refused, and at the end of the case the offer equals or exceeds what the court ultimately finds is due, then the party who turns down the offer has to pay the cost incurred.

Because of this rule CART could have been almost automatically be assumed to accept payment if it equalled what they say is due. It makes no sense for them not to accept it because of the risk of bearing all cost from this point on would then be on CART's tab.

The fact that RA appears to have not even gone through the motions of satisfying this rule tells you they know whatever they offered was a BS offer that is below whatever CART could be expected to win so why bother trying to satisfy Rule 68 and shift the cost of the remainder of the case to CART?

Lastly I would guess that CART was not going to hang on to a "partial" payment and apply it against what is due in the event the judge in the case would say that it somehow amounted to them waiving the right to cancel this years race due to failure to make all payments. I suspect that a payment of only part was an attempt to spring a trap like this on CART.

One last thing I find interesting is that RA knew the ABA routing number and account number they needed to make the payment to CART by wire transfer. You don't find those in an online search. Either 1) they had used it in the past and looked it up in their files (which I find to be a somewhat dangerous gamble for them to make without verifying the information was current so as not to be accidently wiring money to God knows who) or 2) there was a specific discussion about what was to be paid and at that time CARTs attorneys supplied the proper information (which BTW almost certainly would have beens CART's attorneys trust account, not a CART account) in response to which RA wired a payment which, presumably, did not meet the criteria that had been discussed when they were supplied with the appropriate routing numbers. If the latter is the case do you think that maybe, just maybe, CART has grown tired of what they see to be games?

[Spicoli]

Originally posted by JSR
In the first post of this thread it says that RA wired the money to CART and that CART was going to return it. Why would CART return it? Isn't that essentially what is ending the race for 03? What am I missing?

They didn't send the entire agreed upon amount due. If CART would have accepted it, basically it would have negated the contract in-force.

Perhaps some divine intervention can save this, but David Clare is a tough guy.

that's my understanding of the whole ordeal.

[JSR]

Wow Nap! Thanks for the response. How much of that am I supposed to be able to understand? :eek: :D

[DaveL]

Great post Nap.

RA is not dealing in good faith. That's the only conclusion I can come to. It's a shame.

[sundaydriver]

Nicely put Nap.

You have to wonder, why would CART cancel RA? They have way too much to lose. IMHO, this stinks to high heaven and it ain't CART's fault.

Based on what Pook has said regarding trying to appease all promoters, one can only go so far before there is no turning back. I suspect that if CART continued down this path, every other promoter would be beating CART's door down to take back money.

Road America needs to put up or shut up. This is my favorite race and place but if RA is going to try and f CART, then they can shove it.

[rabbit]

Thanks Napoleon. Great post!:thumbup:

[damiandoan]

To jump on the bandwagon, thanks Nappy! I learned something today. ;) :D

DD

[chop456]

The reply I received:

Thanks for taking time to write, and thanks for your
support in the past.

We were stunned when CART canceled the race,
we has been negotiating in good faith to wrap up
the financials for 2002-based on an agreement
we both had signed and to negotiate a more reasonable
sanctioning fee for 2003.

Road America looks bad right now, and we can't go into
details about the finances, but I think you'll be
surprised when the information comes to light in the trial.

We had every expectation that CART would race here
for at least the final year on its contract.

It makes no sense for Road America not to make a
big deal about the last year on a contract and to
have the series go out with a big finale. It would
be good for both CART and Road America--this
makes no sense.

CART is still having difficulties and we may be
a victim of their "rebuilding" process.

Thanks for taking time to write, we're as frustrated
as you are about the situation.

Cheryl

Cheryl Barnes
Communications Director
Road America
N7390 Hwy 67, PO Box P
Elkhart Lake, WI 53020

920.893.4206/direct
920.912.7223/cell
920.893.2581/fax
cheryl@roadamerica.com

[RARules]

Here's Cheryl's reply to my email. She's actually answering them one by one, as she's actually responding to my points.

She does say that the IRL has nothing to do with this. That doesn't mean that TG hasn't talked to them, but I take her statement to mean that the financial bickering has nothing to do with the IRL.


Subject: RE: A sad day today

Thanks for taking time to write and thanks for
your support in the past.

You're absolutely right and have summed up the
situation about as well as anyone can: it's a
lose-lose-lose downward spiral. Fans lose,
Road America loses and CART loses.

And worse, open wheel road racing loses.

We were negotiating in good faith with CART
and had no idea they would cancel the race.

To give you an idea of how sure we were that
we could come to closure on the sanctioning
fee differences, we just printed 375,000 brochures
to be distributed throughout the Midwest and
in the pages of Road and Track magazine.

If anything, CART may have created a collectible,
but for those of us, including me, who love CART
racing, it is truly a sad day.

Incidentally, the issue has nothing to do with IRL.

Thanks for taking time to write.

Cheryl

Cheryl Barnes
Communications Director
Road America
N7390 Hwy 67, PO Box P
Elkhart Lake, WI 53020

[Miljax]

This was my response I received from RA. I was polite and professional in what I said, and was surprised to get an actual (not canned) response: Thank you for taking time to write and thank you

for your past support.



We are very disappointed that CART canceled

the race and would not wrap up the 2002 race

financials and a reasonable 2003 sanctioning fee.



The situation is so difficult for everyone:

fans who love CART racing and fans who love

CART racing at Road America. We too are

huge CART fans and feel this is a real loss

for us, personally and professionally.



We hope that as the lawsuit unfolds you will take

our position into consideration and reconsider

your decision.



Thanks again for taking time to write about

a difficult situation.



Cheryl

[Lizzerd]

The reply I got...

Thanks for taking time to write.

First, the issues between CART and Road America have nothing, repeat nothing to do with IRL.

Second, our agreement with CART for 2002 included participation in the upside or the downside of the event. The 2002 CART race lost money, and we have been trying to come to closure on the books since last September, to no avail.

Third, we wired a sanctioning fee payment on Friday. On Monday we learned from cart.com that the race was canceled. Later that day CART called to say that they were going to return the payment.

Fourth, CART canceled the race and broke the contract with Road America.

Fifth, we believe we are in full compliance with our sanctioning agreements and have met our financial obligations.

I'm attaching a copy of the statement we issued yesterday.

We appreciate your support in the past and hope you will visit Road America in the future.

Thanks for taking time to write, I trust you have shared your concerns with CART.

Cheryl

Cheryl Barnes
Communications Director
Road America
N7390 Hwy 67, PO Box P
Elkhart Lake, WI 53020

920.893.4206/direct
920.912.7223/cell
920.893.2581/fax
cheryl@roadamerica.com

[RaceGrrl]

You wanna know what I'm seeing in all these responses? "WAAAAHHHHHHHH! Poor us! We, at Road America are just victims of CART..." I guess we'll see.

If RA didn't pay CART what was due, then they were wrong. It's just that simple, and no amount of spin can change that.

[mello]

Ok... simple but true take on this. If I don't pay my phone bill, they send me a notice to shut my phone off. I go ahead and ignore their request and they shut my phone off. Ok.. so in this case I now have a chance to pay up and get my phone back. Simple??? Wonder if this could be the case. Either way. I own money and they can't make a living off of someone that doesn't pay up. And I am going to say it finally!!!! I am sorry for those of you that lost RA for now. But to me RA is not the death of CART and RA is not the best race of the whole year. Their are those have just as much passion of other races too. If MO my home track would be gone tomorrow I would NOT leave CART! I would travel to see other ones. We still have the freedom to travel and do what we want. We just have to plan different. I would do that, because first and formost I love CART.

[pchall]

Originally posted by chop456
The reply I received:



We were stunned when CART canceled the race,
we has been negotiating in good faith to wrap up
the financials for 2002-based on an agreement
we both had signed and to negotiate a more reasonable
sanctioning fee for 2003.

The more this PR flack writes the clearer it becomes to me that RA was trying to pay even less than they had agreed to for 2002.

"...negotiating in good faith to wrap up
the financials for 2002..."

I'd like to think that "good faith" would be paying up on the agreement as signed.

[Gurneyflap]

Of course. What seemed reasonable to RA wasn't for CART. Plus, it fit into CARTs "direction" toward a new future. Has anyone gone beyond thinking that, at least for SOME fans, there are TWO bad guys in this affair? And, perhaps, THREE losers? Just gotta love that "business" world!

[Flywheel]

Originally posted by pchall
.

"...negotiating in good faith to wrap up
the financials for 2002..."

I'd like to think that "good faith" would be paying up on the agreement as signed.

Exactly what I was going to say!!

[mnkywrch]

I think it's coming down to lawyers.

CART's lawyers read the contract one way and think that RA still owes them money.

RA's lawyers read the contract a different way and think that they've done everything required.

It takes two dogs to fight over a bone, though.

[mapguy]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
I think it's coming down to lawyers.

CART's lawyers read the contract one way and think that RA still owes them money.

RA's lawyers read the contract a different way and think that they've done everything required.

It takes two dogs to fight over a bone, though.

I don't buy that for a minute. A dollar figure cannot be misinterpeted. Period. RA was trying to shaft C^RT. Maybe they should have asked Bernie first what happens when you play these games with Pook and Clare.

[damiandoan]

Originally posted by pchall
The more this PR flack writes the clearer it becomes to me that RA was trying to pay even less than they had agreed to for 2002.

"...negotiating in good faith to wrap up
the financials for 2002..."

I'd like to think that "good faith" would be paying up on the agreement as signed.

From the response Lizzerd received:

our agreement with CART for 2002 included participation in the upside or the downside of the event. The 2002 CART race lost money, and we have been trying to come to closure on the books since last September

It looks like RA's primary arguement is that since the race lost money CART owes them, not the other way around. It seems the contract CART had, may have been a little vague on the exact accounting for all of the reciepts for the weekend. When have we ever heard of disagreements over accounting practices? :rolleyes:

This little blurb about a "downside" is the first I have seen with these agreements. A sublte new angle to the picture perhaps...

DD

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by mapguy
I don't buy that for a minute. A dollar figure cannot be misinterpeted. Period. RA was trying to shaft C^RT. Maybe they should have asked Bernie first what happens when you play these games with Pook and Clare.

It boggles my mind that only one or two people have even considered the possibility that CART could partially be at fault in this case.

I mean, do I think RA is partially at fault? Probably. But I also feel that CART's got to be at fault to some degree. I doubt any of us know the exact details of the arguments of both sides - and we won't until the case comes to court, probably.

For instance, they could disagree on the amount that CART could possibly owe RA in the event of a loss.

CART could be saying something is 100% RA's responsibility to pay for. RA could feel that something is 50% RA's, 50% CART's.

[Spicoli]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
It boggles my mind that only one or two people have even considered the possibility that CART could partially be at fault in this case.

I mean, do I think RA is partially at fault? Probably. But I also feel that CART's got to be at fault to some degree. I doubt any of us know the exact details of the arguments of both sides - and we won't until the case comes to court, probably.

For instance, they could disagree on the amount that CART could possibly owe RA in the event of a loss.

CART could be saying something is 100% RA's responsibility to pay for. RA could feel that something is 50% RA's, 50% CART's.

Is your last name Wilke? Do you live in Alaska?

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by Spicoli
Is your last name Wilke? Do you live in Alaska?

Thanks to responding to my post.

No and no. If you don't believe me, ask around...

Haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express... yet, anyways. I might later this week.

I just don't think it's simple enough to say "CART is blameless. RA is 100% at fault." If saying as much makes me Wilke in your eyes, well, ...

[Spicoli]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
Thanks to responding to my post.

No and no. If you don't believe me, ask around...

Haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express... yet, anyways. I might later this week.

I just don't think it's simple enough to say "CART is blameless. RA is 100% at fault." If saying as much makes me Wilke in your eyes, well, ...

OK. ;) But are you sure you didn't stop by Toney Baloney's Kool-Aid stand?

RA is at fault 100%. Not having RA on the schedule completely sux, but loosing millions of dollars does too. and it sets a very bad precedent to other promoters.

RA is gone, just like that girl you dug in Somphmore year. Move on.

[nrc]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
I just don't think it's simple enough to say "CART is blameless. RA is 100% at fault." If saying as much makes me Wilke in your eyes, well, ...

I'm not ruling anything out until I get some real assurance that CART isn't just taking advantage of the situation to move in the "urban" direction. I would be much more concerned about that if I weren't seeing clear evidence (in the form of SEC reports and press stories) that CART is offering entirely reasonable deals to their natural terrain road course promoters.

None of these other promoters have had similar problems closing their books with CART. None of them have complained that they needed further concessions. As far as we know, none of them failed to pay the required first installment on their sanction fee. None of them have scheduled another big event just a week after their CART race.

Everything about Road America's behavior during this mess has made them look scheming, slipshod or clueless. That's why so many people believe they're at fault.

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by nrc
None of these other promoters have had similar problems closing their books with CART. None of them have complained that they needed further concessions. As far as we know, none of them failed to pay the required first installment on their sanction fee. None of them have scheduled another big event just a week after their CART race.


Maybe none of the rest of them lost money on CART in 2002.

Also, the remarks somewhere that CART or RA knew the race would be cancelled four months ago sure go a long way to explaining why RA scheduled a race the weekend after...

[KobySon]

Originally posted by mnkywrch
Maybe none of the rest of them lost money on CART in 2002.


I still find it hard to believe that RA LOST money on their cart race last year.

If the average 3 day ticket costed around $80, and only 25,000 paid attendance - that would be $2mil without parking/camping/concessions or sponsorship profits. I think that nrc has reasonably established that Cart charges the road coures around 1.7 mil for a sanction fee.

I contend that they are not making as much as they did in the past because of the lack of corporate sponsorship, but the race is far from a losing proposition.

It seems more likely that RA is trying, unreasonably, to find profit margins of old. I don't think the IRL could offer those #s either. Afterall it takes sponsorship and attendance to reach that.

CART seems to be doing their part here. I think RA is in the wrong.

[Lizzerd]

Not that it matters much, but the concession stands at RA are all unique and run by a local orginization of some sort (a church, charitable outfit, whatever). They might pay RA a percentage of sales or flat fee though, too. Don't know.

The three day ticket is more than $80, too. Don't remember exactly, but something like $150 sticks in my mind (I bought at the gate last year).

[RARules]

Originally posted by mapguy
I don't buy that for a minute. A dollar figure cannot be misinterpeted. Period. RA was trying to shaft C^RT. Maybe they should have asked Bernie first what happens when you play these games with Pook and Clare.
Well, one of tghe few things that is indelible in my mind from a couple of "Business Law" courses along the way is that when two parties interpret a contract differnetly because of ambiguity of the contract, the ambiguity is judged against the party that primarily wrote the contract.

The fact that I remember this after so many years says (to me) that there are often ambiguities in contracts.

I remember several years ago hearing that James Garner harly made any money at all off of "The Rockford Files". It seems that he got a percentage of the profit instead of a salary. But the production company wrote so much stuff off against the show that it rarely if ever made any "profit".

I guess this is often the source of these kinds of disputes.

[Napoleon]

Originally posted by Lizzerd
Not that it matters much, but the concession stands at RA are all unique and run by a local orginization of some sort (a church, charitable outfit, whatever). They might pay RA a percentage of sales or flat fee though, too. Don't know.

I assume the deal is the same one I see at Cleveland Indian games or at the Gund Arena here in Cleveland. The stand is owned by the venue, and the venue supplies the menue, equipment, supplies and food and the organization gets paid $x per man hour of work supplied by the organization and the organization gets to put up a sign at the stand. At Indians games you have churches and organizations doing the same thing. Mid-Ohio use to (still does?) have a similar set up where the Ohio Valley Region of the SCCA would recieve a payment for any of their corner workers who happen to work an event at MO


Originally posted by RARules
Well, one of tghe few things that is indelible in my mind from a couple of "Business Law" courses along the way is that when two parties interpret a contract differnetly because of ambiguity of the contract, the ambiguity is judged against the party that primarily wrote the contract.

That basically applies to consumer transactions, or transactions that are traditionally on a take it or leave it basis, like insurance contracts which can not be negotiated. I have a hard time believing that RA did not run the contract past an attorney and if they did that would pretty much blow any arguement they would have that the contract should be interpreted against CART (also note that it was "renegotiated" at one point which also blows the argument that it should be interpreted against CART).

[ncmlj]

The three day ticket is more than $80, too. Don't remember exactly, but something like $150 sticks in my mind (I bought at the gate last year).

last year they were $120 with a coupon on each ticket for $7 for the 4 mile store, and 1 Cart hat.

[JoeBob]

I assume the deal is the same one I see at Cleveland Indian games or at the Gund Arena here in Cleveland. The stand is owned by the venue, and the venue supplies the menue, equipment, supplies and food and the organization gets paid $x per man hour of work supplied by the organization and the organization gets to put up a sign at the stand. At Indians games you have churches and organizations doing the same thing. Mid-Ohio use to (still does?) have a similar set up where the Ohio Valley Region of the SCCA would recieve a payment for any of their corner workers who happen to work an event at MO

At Road America, each food stand supplies their own equipment, and has their own menu. (The only constant is that all of the brats are Johnsonville. Even the buns vary from stand to stand.) From what I understand, each organization pays "rent" for their spot on the grounds, and the rest is up to them.

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by KobySon
I still find it hard to believe that RA LOST money on their cart race last year.

If the average 3 day ticket costed around $80, and only 25,000 paid attendance - that would be $2mil without parking/camping/concessions or sponsorship profits. I think that nrc has reasonably established that Cart charges the road coures around 1.7 mil for a sanction fee.

I contend that they are not making as much as they did in the past because of the lack of corporate sponsorship, but the race is far from a losing proposition.

It seems more likely that RA is trying, unreasonably, to find profit margins of old. I don't think the IRL could offer those #s either. Afterall it takes sponsorship and attendance to reach that.

CART seems to be doing their part here. I think RA is in the wrong.

Sorry, catching up from vacation here...

If CART, from the series perspective, isn't bringing in the series sponsors, I don't see that as "doing their part". CART, of course, could claim that it's the track's fault that sponsors aren't coming back... and it turns into he said/she said.

From NSSN, everyone's favorite fish wrap...



Will the absence of a CART race adversely affect the future of the Road America raceway? That is the question many are now asking. Some research reveals the fee demanded by CART for its annual visit to the scenic Wisconsin circuit has escalated from $1.1 million a few short years ago to $1.75 million today. Back in the $1.1 mil days, the series brought with it hospitality and sponsorship worth over $1 million to the track. Today most of that revenue has evaporated, say our sources. They contend that makes today's CART - despite providing the track's biggest weekend of the year - just too costly for the scenic four-mile layout. For a full late 90's season Road America used to net $400,000. Because its June Sprints, Vintage and bike weekends all continue as big winners, we're told "not to worry" about Elkhart's future. "It is better off without CART than with it," is the message. But moves are afoot in the Badger State to keep the race, however it appears the ball is in the track's court, not CART's.


I'm sure "our sources" are at RA and it's not even close to even-handed, but it's at least consistent with what they've said in the past in regards to having a differing opinion as to the value of the CART series.

[nrc]

Originally posted by mnkywrch I'm sure "our sources" are at RA and it's not even close to even-handed, but it's at least consistent with what they've said in the past in regards to having a differing opinion as to the value of the CART series.

You're certainly correct on the "not even close to even-handed" part. It's public information that the other venues who took a co-promotion deal last season averaged 1.1 million in sanction fees. CART has said that they offered a further reduced sanction fee payment as part of a proposed settlement - some claim as little as 700k.

Pook's comments at Long Beach make it clear that there is real resentment there about the way Road America has handled things. Even from the outside looking in it's pretty evident that Road America has ben less than professional in their handling of the whole episode.

It's easy enough to question whether it's all really part of CART's move toward more street courses, but it's worthy of note that CART has taken over Mid Ohio this year as one of their self-promoted events.

[mnkywrch]

Originally posted by nrc
It's easy enough to question whether it's all really part of CART's move toward more street courses, but it's worthy of note that CART has taken over Mid Ohio this year as one of their self-promoted events.

Even if they're offering RA a sanction fee of 700K there is still the gap in sponsorship & corporate hospitality, and I recall whispers that the crowd was down at RA in regard to previous years.

I wonder... in these co-promotion deals, who gets what?

What I mean is that I've seen in somewhere that in F1 it's known that Bernie gets basically everything and the GP's themselves only get ticket sales and a couple more areas to make money off of.

In CART, under a promotion deal, who gets what? Do the tracks & CART split certain profits, like ticket sales or hospitality? What about expenses, like marketing & promotion?

I figured I'd ask you since you're going to read the thing anyways. :D

I'd like to see the events survive regardless of CART's financial support.

I don't want to see, say, Mid-Ohio go away because CART can only co-promote X number of events and Mid-Ohio goes away because it's event X+1 and the track can't do it financially without CART's support.

In a perfect world, I'd rather see CART cut all their sanctioning fees to probably $1 mil or less because, frankly, they're offering tracks less. But they can't do that with their current cash burn & the MPH monster.