Again without appearing to be disrespectful, I believe some of us are being incredibly naïve about the subject of “controlling” the NHRA and the HD Partners acquisition situation. I don’t think anyone on this thread has enough knowledge to speak authoritatively on these subjects. I’m pretty darn sure I don’t.
Alan Reinhart is absolutely right in saying that there’s a lot more to NHRA than merely putting on races – and he’s only begun to scratch the surface with the things he listed.
Addressing Alan's post first, Alan, thanks for taking the time to write that well thought out response to some of comments that have been made in this thread. Your post does do a good job of making it clear that a lot of effort has been expended by the NHRA management over the past years, and many great things have come out of that effort, and we should be thankful for that.
Your post made me realize that in frustration with some of the things that have happened with the NHRA over the past few years I've made some critical comments on this forum that were probably too sarcastic in tone, and while I think the criticisms had some validity my tone was sometimes probably bordering on being disrespectful, and I'm not going to use that kind of tone here anymore.
That said, whether its a company, a team, even a family, sometimes you have to face up to the fact that even though everyone may be trying really hard in some area, sometimes you have acknowledge that the job isn't getting done well enough, and take hard stock on whether changes are required to be able to get the job done well.
Most companies have clear checks and balances in place to handle this situation. In the case of a privately held company, like NASCAR, the majority owner, in this case Brian France, can make a change at any time he thinks some aspect of the company isn't performing well. If the owner is smart and skilled, this company will succeed, and some of the decisions and directions taken by France have been brilliant, ie bringing Toyota in to diversify his manufacturer support, and negotiating what has to have been one of the most beneficial television contracts achieved by any sport.
But in this private ownership case the checks and balances are clear, if the owner makes good decisions the company does well, if he doesn't it dies, but he pays the biggest price for this.
In the case of a public company there are many owners and the checks and balances in place are more complicated, but they are there. A board of directors will control the company, but the shareholders ultimately control who these board members will be. If the company doesn't perform well, the shareholders can put pressure on the board to either make signficant changes, ie replacing the CEO, or replacing the board members themselves.
In both of these cases (private and public company) its very clear to potential investors and customers exactly how the company is controlled and what checks and balances are in place to change the company if it under performs.
Now lets contrast that to the NHRA. Jon, you stated-
"I believe some of us are being incredibly naïve about the subject of “controlling” the NHRA and the HD Partners acquisition situation. I don’t think anyone on this thread has enough knowledge to speak authoritatively on these subjects. I’m pretty darn sure I don’t."
I agree 100% with you on this statement. Unlike 99.9% of the other companies in the world its very difficult from the outside to determine exactly how the NHRA is being controlled, and what checks and balances are in place to correct its decision making team if it under performs.
You seem like a pretty sharp guy, and the fact that even you haven't been able to come to an understanding on this after all your many years of in depth involvement with the NHRA is pretty telling of how murky this situation has been.
Personally I look at and evaluate a lot of companies in the course of my business, and I've never had to spend as much time before on any other company trying to figure out how the NHRA is run and controlled, and admittedly its still not 100% clear to me.
The fact is, most companies don't try to hide this as they realize its not a good way to insure the public and potential customers that the company is being run well and should have their engagement and business. If I'm considering a long term investment or engagement with a company but I can't figure out who controls it and what checks and balances are in place if it under performs, I won't want to have anything to do with it and most others will feel the same way.
I know the current NHRA management team is trying hard, but the cold hard fact is that the organization is underperforming. Best I can tell the majority of its members are unhappy. Based on its current television contracts and relationships with other important potential sponsors and partners, overall strategic relationships with other companies don't seem to be doing very well. Financially, even accounting for the current econonic environment, things aren't looking that good.
So with any "normal" company, it definitely would be time for check and balances to kick in. In a public company the shareholders would be screaming bloody murder to replace the CEO and likely some board members along with him.
To my best understanding (and as I've stated, this is unfortunately not an easy thing to figure out) given the NHRA's 501(c)(6) structure, what is expected and is typically the case in other organizations of this type is that if the company under performs the members should have a clear mechanism to pressure the board members to make significant changes, to the point of electing different board members.
What apparently is happening with the company instead (and again, this is hard to figure out but shouldn't be) is that on what appear to be shakey legal grounds, the board members themselves are getting together and deciding if any changes need to be made.
But if things just aren't working well to the point where the declared beneficiaries of the NHRA feel its pretty clear that some board members should be replaced, its extremely unlikely that these board members alone will come to an agreement to fire one of themselves.
The current system of checks and balances in the NHRA management structure is thus fatally flawed, and to my best understanding is not in accordance with the manner in which a 501(c)(6) is to be operated, which as I've pointed out in several previous posts is expected to have strong membership input in the direction of the company.
I think for the NHRA to succeed this situation needs to be set straight, putting the members back in the rightful position of being able to strongly influence and elect board members. This is the kind of checks and balances system that is expected to be in place in this type of organization.
Sincerely,
