Trev, I think the YES vote will get up, for no other reason than this has been a long fight and it "appears" that Ferrari have made concessions and everyone wants to get past this hurdle. The way I see it panning out if Ferrari come over heavy handed will be that you will find it harder and harder to get people on the committee until it is only run by the wannabes and the membership will drop off as has happened before. I don't think I have been misled but I do think a lot have not made an informed decision and although I am voting yes, I still have some reservations The good thing is that if it all goes tits up the QLD branch will probably continue on as usual and that will be good enough for me
well MAW is for seriously ill children, and the one thing I have learnt not to ask is if they want to go fast .... the little buggers have no fear
Ferrari have made concessions that will probably stop them directly managing the club, but through controlling the use of our name and being the final arbiter they can bring in compulsory "Classique certification", "require us to hold functions in expensive venues where we will pay any losses", "make the magazine sterile", "get a free ride to all our functions just like entrepreurs who complain about what CAMS do", .....get the point. Its only been a long fight because Ferrari did nothing for about 4 years - they suspended their IP application and ignored us. We have had about one half proper response in about 7 years, that is not a long negotiation, that is being treated like rubbish to get a result, and because they could leave it no longer. What makes you think they will care. They want new car owners and A list events. There will always be a few people who will be only to willing to suck up to Ferrari - half of them will be the same people running scared now - and if the club as we know it dies, good, they' say!, no competition for the type of club that Ferrari really wants. Of course I could be wrong but I see nothing but poor breeding in the way they have conducted their deal with us. But do know the unknowns ? Ferrari have conceded almost nothing that was likely - there was not a PROPER break though for that reason. We still have no where to go if things go tits-up. There is still a conflict between the Agreement and the FCA Rules when we've been told otherwise, so the whole process is wrong. Hardly a very satisafactory outcome if we finish up with five "Little Red Car Clubs".
I find this highly unlikely , why kill the golden goose ?? how many cars do you think would pass Classique Certification ? who is going to pay huge money to get the certificate ? the certification can be unravelled by a set of composite wheels and the car being banned they did the same to the Yanks and they haven't been told the "complete" story as far as I could see from the US section so the 250GTO and 250SWB owners will be out in the cold with us lowly 246 and 308 owners ? I like the comopany we will keep I did think it strange that we were bypassing the 75% rule Horse and I will come up with a better name ..... but it is the people, not the name that counts , and we have a good bunch of people who enjoy each others company .... except for the trackdays
I've only been away two days - put 800kms on the clock over some marvellous roads, and saw two cars only on the best bit of tarmac, 80kms twisted long - and this thread is getting quite heated. Now, back to reality. I've read the agreement. I cannot see, on any reasonable reading, how Ferrari Spa can direct the club, with the sole exceptions of agreeing or not to regalia, and the layout of published material. Now, if I have missed some curly subordinate clause, or half hidden reference to another document which we would be signing up to, can someone please point it out?
if they were proper gentlemen I would expect a better standard of spelling. Maybe they're Gen Yers and don't have the time......
If spelling is something that is used by you as a measure of gentlemanness, then I'm glad I'm not one! lol but I agree with your previous post anyway.
I cannot see, on any reasonable reading, how Ferrari Spa can direct the club, with the sole exceptions of agreeing or not to regalia, and the layout of published material. .......... can someone please point it out?[/QUOTE] If you look at Clause 3.3 you will note that it gives us the right to use the logo, and other clauses preclude us from using an alternative, on informatory material (read, anything that is printed, displayed, advertised etc.) as set out in the FOC Guidelines Schedule 3. and its updates...as advised to us. At the moment those Guidelines are only about presentation, but there is nothing to stop them from being changed to anything. So, all that has to be done in the future is for Ferrari to introduce some "use policy guidelines" into Schedul 3, and to change its heading at the same time and ....wuh lah...., we get to do what they want. Still cannot see it. How about - From 1/July/2012 Ferrari Coroporate policy is that FOC logos in respect of events with a national focus (read national rally) shall only be used when the club is CAMS affilliated and the concours area shall be an exclusive city park area (regardless of cost) as determined to be satisfactory by Ferrari" Pity for NSW that this means the Sydney Opera house with a fee of $20,000, and the club does not want to run the risk. The example above is perhaps extreme (only just) but it is indicative of the loss of control that is implicit in the proposed agreement. In the interest of an intelligent discussion, does someone want to show how this cannot happen.
Sort of agree, but why not after one proper well sorted simple legal challenge so that it is "had to be C'est la vie" and not "cower like a dog C'est la vie".
Well, we have a national committee. Each and every member of that committee has spent a HUGE amount of time going over this and discussing what's best for the club and the members. Last time they were split about which way to go. There's no conspiracy, so as far as I'm concerned, if they unanimously voted that the agreement should be signed this time, then that's good enough for me. They know more about it than I do, and they know more about it than you do...you've been out of the picture for too long. So, I'm voting yes and, as I've said before, if I don't like the outcome, I simply won't renew. Big deal.
when they said the committee were unanimous and Michael is part of that committee, then I was happy it was the best result for the FCA
I'll call - In the interest of intelligent discussion, can someone want to show me how this CAN happen? Maybe someone can show me the basic case.
I'm with jmillard308. Is it reasonable that Ferrari Spa could unilaterally amend a document titled "FCOG - Visual Identity Tools" - that clearly and only has to do with how logos and titles are displayed in publications - to include direction on how to run a concours or a rally or an AGM? No. Fullstop. For most of humanity anyway - lawyers an exception. And even if they try that on, we only have to make reasonable endeavours to comply. And, interestingly, Ferrari Spa appear to be prevented from unilaterally terminating from claiming a breach of S.17, as it is not included in the list in S.13 for which they can terminate unilaterally. Ferrari Spa have got what they need - control of what they consider their intellectual property. I'm ok with that. If they want to control the club in other ways, they can bugger off. And if they try it on, and we either don't challenge it or do so and lose, I'll be right behind you dinoprof on the way out.
I totally agree with this. DINOPROF seems to be saying, "let's go to court about the use of the name "Ferrari club australia". Let's think about that for a minute. Is that name a book club.......NO. Is that name a wine club.........NO. Is that name a fashion house......NO. It's solely a car club, THAT uses the name FERRARI in it because it is a car club that predominately organises car events for it's members who own FERRARI cars and does nothing else than run as a club for FERRARI cars. FERRARI SPA own that name. We might use it, but they own it. As far as I'm concerned they (SPA), would be able to prove in court that they own the name because they are FERRARI and we use their name. AND.......the national committee has said, that we are not going to use the money that we have in bank to fight FERRARI SPA......end of story. Soi ef dinepoof wnts toy su Ferari , go aheed, bute wher nought. (sorry about the speeeling)
Just getting away from the topic for a minute. I have to replace the exhaust gaskets on the wastegate on the F40. The pipes are (outside) diameter 41mm. I ordered 2 from USA using the part numbers in my F40 parts book and the numbers were confirmed by "Beverly HIlls Ferrari". They arrived ($18 each....no big deal), but were (inside) diameter 43mm. So they're too big. So I went to Zagami's and ordered 2 more from their parts computer etc. etc. $75 each later, I have 2 more at 43mm. So now I have 4 exhaust gaskets that don't fit. Started asking question as to why. Started thinking "am I the only F40 owner in the world with 41mm pipes to the wastegate. Found out that the part number for these gaskets just happen to be the same part number, for the exhaust gaskets on a 512 boxer. Emailed some guys in USA and was told that the original drawings and part numbers for the wastegate gaskets were changed about 10 years ago. SO HERE'S WHAT I RECKON HAPPENED. Ferrari Spa (love those guys), ran out of 41mm exhaust gaskets and changed the part numbers to a number that they had stock of. Rather than make a whole batch of 41mm gaskets, sell the 43mm gaskets that they have in stock. So I've had 2 made and I pick them up tomorrow. I still love Ferrari's and the factory.
Well If it all turns to sh%t then our fallback,for driving events, could very well be something like this forum. Those who participated in the inaugural GG should attest that it was well run,well organised and apart from the odd errant 'roo and movable mountain wall,the driving was second to none.
