|
|
|
|
|
Topic: The t shirt issue is not new!!
|
Email this topic to a friend |
Subscribe to this Topic
| Report this Topic to Moderator
|
|
Page 1 of 1 of 8 replies
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
11:55:52 AM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/30/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
20
|
|
|
For those of you who are fired-up over the T-shirt issue it is by no means a new issue.
How many of you remember when Two Winners put a trailer on the road for their 3 teams in the mid-ninteys.
Ted Johnson almost self-imploded.
The issue got so bad that Ted had the police called both at Dallas and Charlotte and made them remove the trailer from the grounds.
The people from WRG are not in business to sanction races. They are only using racing to market advertising, apperal and other money making items.
Bottom line, they could care less about the racer other than they need him to carry out their overall marketing plan.
On a second thought had all the racers supported TW Racing back then this would not have been a issue today. Back then no other team had a trailer so it meant nothing to them other than they felt that TW might take some of their shirt sales so they supported Ted instead of TW.
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
01:20:20 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/27/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
3751
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: INRacer on October 12 2007 at 11:55:52 AM
For those of you who are fired-up over the T-shirt issue it is by no means a new issue.
How many of you remember when Two Winners put a trailer on the road for their 3 teams in the mid-ninteys.
Ted Johnson almost self-imploded.
The issue got so bad that Ted had the police called both at Dallas and Charlotte and made them remove the trailer from the grounds.
The people from WRG are not in business to sanction races. They are only using racing to market advertising, apperal and other money making items.
Bottom line, they could care less about the racer other than they need him to carry out their overall marketing plan.
On a second thought had all the racers supported TW Racing back then this would not have been a issue today. Back then no other team had a trailer so it meant nothing to them other than they felt that TW might take some of their shirt sales so they supported Ted instead of TW.
|
hhahaha...there is something hilarious about seeing the words "Ted Johnson, T-Shirt Trailer and Charlotte" in the same paragragh!
Lincoln 1845 ft/.35 mile T1=118MPH
Eldora 2287 ft/.43mile T3=135MPH
Port 2716 ft/.51 mile T3=TBD
Grove 2792 ft/.53 mile T3=135MPH
Selinsgrove 2847 ft/.54 mile T1=136MPH
"I didn't move to PA from El Paso in search of better
weather." Van May
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
02:01:35 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
1773
|
|
|
This message was edited on
October 12, 2007 at
02:58:00 PM by team wright-one
for what it is worth ben geisler implied on the full throlle show this week that the shirt sale money was not that big of a deal and/or would not be a significant source of revenue for dirt. well doing some math here with the help of bonz and the boys (i know, bonz and the boys and math in the same sentence ROFLMAO) shows that dirt could stand to gross $640,000 in a season from what they are proposing. on the other side of the coin what they are proposing could cost some of the drivers and their families $50,000 ea. in lost revenue in a season. we were useing realistic numbers when doing the math based on realistic sales goals and pricing. just offering up some info. not trying to cause any more argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
02:29:21 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/30/2004
|
|
Posts:
|
20
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: team wright-one on October 12 2007 at 02:01:35 PM
for what it is worth ben geisler implied on the full throlle show this week that the shirt sale money was not that big of a deal and/or would not be a significant source of revenue for dirt. well doing some math here with the help of bonz and the boys (i know, bonz and the boys and math in the same sentence ROFLMAO) shows that dirt could stand to gross $640,000 in a season from what they are proposing. on the other side of the coin what they are proposing could cost some of the drivers and their families $50,000 ea. in lost revenue in a season. we were useing realistic numbers when doing the math based on realistic sales goals and pricing. just offering up some info. not trying to cause any more argument.
|
team wright-one,
I think your numbers would be real short for some drivers but generous for someothers.
It really makes no difference. The drivers should be the ones to profit from their name and their apperal.
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
02:56:50 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
1773
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: INRacer on October 12 2007 at 02:29:21 PM
team wright-one,
I think your numbers would be real short for some drivers but generous for someothers.
It really makes no difference. The drivers should be the ones to profit from their name and their apperal.
|
in talking about this we were averaging things and trying being conservitive to a degree. but i agree with you.
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
03:00:58 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/11/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
114
|
|
|
|
I agree... numbers are irrelevant here. I don't care if the profits are ten bucks or ten million... this is about being right and wrong. When it comes to merchandise... drivers should be the ones to profit off their name... just as DIRT should be the one to profit off the WoO logo/products. Any other "general/generic" merchandise beyond that is fair game for ALL (like track souvenir stands and booths)...
If drivers wants the WoO logo to appear along side their name on their merchandise... then WoO is entitled to a small percentage in that case. But it shouldn't be made a requirement by any means... for some drivers may choose to emphasize their teams and sponors on their merchandise instead... which should be their choice when deciding what kind of selection they would like to offer their fans.
Hell... I haven't signed an agreement with DIRT. I think I'm going to get a bunch of t-shirts made that say, "Don't buy products from DIRT! Take your money to "insert location here depending on the track." Then I, along with like 50 other fans, am going to stand around the WoO souvenir trailer before and after the races just talking to fellow sprint car fans. Uh huh... let's see how the fans like it in 2009 when DIRT makes 'em sign a dress code agreement when attending a WoO race......
As for people comparing this to NASCAR saying NASCAR charges drivers to set-up trailers at events... that's like comparing apples to oranges. As soon as payouts for running in a WoO race meets that of payouts for running in a NASCAR and teams no longer have to DEPEND on selling merchandise to supplement things like traveling expenses... then your point may become more valid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
03:11:31 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
06/02/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
710
|
|
|
|
Seems to me that a licensing agreement should be implemented. Something to the effect of major league sports.
|
|
|
|
|
October 12, 2007 at
03:24:29 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
10/11/2007
|
|
Posts:
|
114
|
|
|
This message was edited on
October 12, 2007 at
03:24:54 PM by frizzy
A licensing agreement would be fantastic... but history would seem to say it would probably be more of a licensing requirement.
|
|
|
|
|
October 13, 2007 at
12:27:32 PM
|
|
|
Joined:
|
11/29/2005
|
|
Posts:
|
1773
|
|
|
Reply to:
Posted By: frizzy on October 12 2007 at 03:00:58 PM
I agree... numbers are irrelevant here. I don't care if the profits are ten bucks or ten million... this is about being right and wrong. When it comes to merchandise... drivers should be the ones to profit off their name... just as DIRT should be the one to profit off the WoO logo/products. Any other "general/generic" merchandise beyond that is fair game for ALL (like track souvenir stands and booths)...
If drivers wants the WoO logo to appear along side their name on their merchandise... then WoO is entitled to a small percentage in that case. But it shouldn't be made a requirement by any means... for some drivers may choose to emphasize their teams and sponors on their merchandise instead... which should be their choice when deciding what kind of selection they would like to offer their fans.
Hell... I haven't signed an agreement with DIRT. I think I'm going to get a bunch of t-shirts made that say, "Don't buy products from DIRT! Take your money to "insert location here depending on the track." Then I, along with like 50 other fans, am going to stand around the WoO souvenir trailer before and after the races just talking to fellow sprint car fans. Uh huh... let's see how the fans like it in 2009 when DIRT makes 'em sign a dress code agreement when attending a WoO race......
As for people comparing this to NASCAR saying NASCAR charges drivers to set-up trailers at events... that's like comparing apples to oranges. As soon as payouts for running in a WoO race meets that of payouts for running in a NASCAR and teams no longer have to DEPEND on selling merchandise to supplement things like traveling expenses... then your point may become more valid...
|
we may say numbers are irrelevant, but it seems the numbers the teams are able to generate in sales have caught dirts eye. in some ways the numbers do matter. if dirt did not think it could make a reasonable amount of money they would not consider it. and if the teams did not think they stood to loose a consideral amount of money they would not care.
but i agree on principle with you
|
|
|
