On 28 Nov 2006 23:12:41 -0800, Dave-E <davegto67 (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:
There goes that irony meter off scale again.

Bob

Dave-E wrote:

An experienced team owner with sharp business senses and good
organizational skills has taken over the team. Clearly this is a sign of
weakness. Just like the CDW sponsorship is a sign of weakness. The
president of the team publicly stating that they will campaign 2 cars
next season is nothing more than an off-season ruse. Just like Pacific
Coast Motorsports. They've got everyone fooled into thinking they'll
actually be on the grid, what with their silly supposed orders for cars
and superficial testing of both drivers. Gelles is BS'ing with their
announcement of ordering chassis for next year, too. They're really
pulling the wool over everyone's eyes. The sooner you drink the
kool-aid, the sooner this will all start making sense...

--
forty

“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and
mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.” - Ernest Hemingway

On Nov 29, 9:24 am, forty <cfort... (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote:
What all the ccws fans are refusing to accept is that the DP01 was
supposed to have solved the financial problems of these teams so they
would not be required to sell. Why create a yearly lease program at a
fairly large reduced rate if all these new teams are able to come in
and purchase the equipment. This is nothing more than a form of the ole
Pookfare program. It is very likely that cc is hoping that if they can
get a semi full field with substantially subsidized teams that the new
TV package may allow for the addition of actual paying sponsors. In
reality it is more likely that the temporary subsidized will struggle
to find sponsors with ccws usual 0.1 and 0.0 ratings. Then when times
comes to renew the yearly lease these teams will walk away. The DP01
alone was NOT enough to garner interest from new owners, it took the
lease program to get the ball rolling.

ncrdbl1 wrote:
Why the diversion? Why not address points raised? Why make attempts to
change the subject?

Potential answer to all of the above: troll

Nevertheless, maybe I shall indulge in a bit of the new troll's
spluttering...

#1 - No it was not. It was supposed to reduce costs, which is not the
same as solving financial problems. Ask Ford.

#2 - Are you asserting that teams have been forced to sell out due to
financial trouble? If so, which teams? I'm not aware of any.

A business incentive? A lease with an option to buy is fairly common in
many industries. Ever heard of those?

Really? Care to elaborate/substantiate?

Sounds like an actual plan, except that your use of the word
'subsidized' is fairly specious.

While not 'subsidized,' Gelles already has a portfolio of sponsors for
their cars. PCM hasn't made any announcements that I'm aware of, but
they already have funding in place for next season with a sponsorship
announcement forthcoming. I'm struggling to grasp what makes you think
this assertion is rooted in 'reality' when actual 'reality' disagrees
with it.

Gelles ordered cars before the lease program was announced. So, a new
owner ordering DP01's represents a failure of the DP01 to garner
interest from new owners? Hmmm. You seem to be having more and more
trouble getting reality to line up with your assertions.

--
forty

“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and
mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.” - Ernest Hemingway

"forty" <cforteNO (AT) SPAMgmail (DOT) com> wrote

in the last year of its chassis specs aren't they? How many of those teams
outside of Andretti, Penske and Ganassi are going to be able to buy new
cars? Just wonder if the IRL is going to copy this business model as well
for a leasing package. They copied everything else, why not this too.

Mark B wrote:

Maybe they'll go with a spec chassis to level the field and reduce
costs? They (teh IRL) seem to like spec engines.

--
forty

“There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and
mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.” - Ernest Hemingway

Mark B wrote:
2005 was the planned end of this chassis.

Maybe they're planning to outlive Kurtis midgets.

On 29 Nov 2006 12:39:35 -0800, scottscottscott <scottrevision (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
The Kurtis midgets were attractive.

Bob

Mark B wrote:
Good point.

I wonder how meany teams will invest in a chassis for a series that is
shrinking and may not last the life of the chassis?

Wouldn't it make more sense for Penske, Ganassi and Andretti, as the
strength of the IRL, to use their management of sponsors and their
status to try to pressure TG into openning up the Indy 500 and use a
common chassis with CCWS? Wouldn't that be the better resolution to the
issue? Let Tony keep his little IRL engine formula, but let the
competing teams use the same chassis across both series. Tony gets a
big field with real bumping, quality drivers and teams, and the combined
fan base united for the race. Might even improve attendance and TV
ratings. Maybe fans would show up for qualifying. Maybe May in Indy
would mean something again.

TG could declare victory and go back to being a track owner.

Oops, that might not work. TG would lose control over IRL race
participation.

"Cal Vanize" <dont.even.spam.me (AT) myspam (DOT) org> wrote

There have been a lot of ways this could have been settled years ago that
would have had a positive effect. They were not done largely because of one
man in my opinion. Many have tried to pressure a reunification. Ego is a
powerful thing. Now its been long enough that if TG even ends up with
partial control, I might be gone. If he ends up owning 50% of a unified
series I am definately gone for good. IF he goes back to being just a track
owner at IMS and champ car comes back, Id buy a ticket for the race. The
later is probably the least likely to happen. Ego and a big bank account
can make one do some interesting things.