Tom Compton Please Retire (1 Viewer)

[BigTuna]

NHRA blew the chance to make import racing and important part of the NHRA family. Hard to find someone driving a racecar at an NHRA national event under 30.
.

x2 The way they hung us out to dry halfway threw the season was bull crap.

 

[Butch]

Keven, That's the problem. Larry, Mo, Curly, and Shemp are running it now.

 

[Butch]

Add Graham Light to the retire list.

When you get to know him Graham is a good person! All he's doing is following orders of his boss. Something we would all do at that age to keep our job and not upset the suits in charge.

 

[Butch]

If NHRA was a publically held company it would be easy to change Tom and the board with a vote of no confidence. BUT it’s not!

If NHRA was a third world country Tom could have an "accident" or we could have a bloody coup - BUT it’s not!

The only way to get rid of Tom is for the fans, racers and sponsors to be able to get enough board members to wake up realize what going on and force Tom out.

What we need leading NHRA is someone who doesn’t wear Armani suites but jeans instead and with some dirt under the finger nails. In other words someone who actually gets a little dirty by knowing what’s going on around them. Bill Bader is a good choice as would be Mike Lewis just my .02.

My humble opinion is the NHRA President needs to be someone who understands what racing is not just what marketing is.

Unfortunately things will probably stay like they are headed, in the direction it is for a few more years. Then after the fans are gone, most of the racers are gone, the sponsors are gone and all the teams in competition are owned by three or four people. Then they will sell off NHRA to some unsuspecting idiot, then take their share of the money and run away laughing!

Tom - you’ve hurt the sport and you’re in over your head!

Why not get out while someone can salvage something? All one needs to do is look in the stands at all the empty seats - shouldn’t your marketing experience tell you that you haven’t been pro-active in fixing ANYTHING just reactive! And that reactive doesn’t work!

Slightly off the subject in the years we ran Indy. Wally Parks was always at the big end talking with racers he knew that the racers drew the fans. Didn’t matter who you were Wally said hi! Where is Tom? In the suites or on the starting line explaining to fellow suits what he’s done for drag racing!


While we’re at it let’s dump the marketing department. I’ve been to three races this year and haven’t seen squat in the print media let alone the electronic media leading up to the event. Are they relying on word of mouth to fill the stands? If so it’s not working!

 

[Paul]

If NHRA was a publically held company it would be easy to change Tom and the board with a vote of no confidence. BUT it’s not!

The only way to get rid of Tom is for the fans, racers and sponsors to be able to get enough board members to wake up realize what going on and force Tom out.

Chuck, I know this is what the NHRA board wants NHRA members to believe and accept, but I'm of the opinion that the NHRA may be on shakey legal ground in taking this approach.

For more on this see, this nitromater thread where this was discussed-

(Hmm, either I can't find that thread or it was taken off, but here's my summary of the situation from that thread from a backup (If I can't find my backup copy now on my PC I'm going to get really paranoid)):

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.

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,

Paul Titchener

 

[hoser]

Excellent post Paul. Your explaination of public, private, and non-profit companies and how it pertains to the NHRA is the best i've seen on the subject.

Regarding your statement "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".

If we are to assume that the preceeding statement is a fact, does that mean that the NHRA, as an organization, is breaking any state or federal laws? And, whether they are actually breaking any laws or just "skirting the fine print", is there anything that the members of NHRA can do to force them to comply? Is there any kind of governmental agency that this could be reported to that would review their "system of checks and balances" that they are (hopefully) required to comply with under their 501(c)(6) corporation status, and force them to comply?

Or would a lawsuit initiated by the membership be the only way to attempt them to comply? Of course we all know that a lawsuit would never happen.

Thanks
Chris

 

[Paul]

If we are to assume that the preceeding statement is a fact, does that mean that the NHRA, as an organization, is breaking any state or federal laws? And, whether they are actually breaking any laws or just "skirting the fine print", is there anything that the members of NHRA can do to force them to comply? Is there any kind of governmental agency that this could be reported to that would review their "system of checks and balances" that they are (hopefully) required to comply with under their 501(c)(6) corporation status, and force them to comply?

Or would a lawsuit initiated by the membership be the only way to attempt them to comply? Of course we all know that a lawsuit would never happen.

Chris, those are great questions, but I'm not an attorney so I don't have precise answers for you, I wish I did.

However, in the course of running my business for close to 20 years, I have developed some sense of getting a feeling when things just don't seem right about the way a company is running and representing their business, and that's how I feel about the NHRA.

Here's my opinion in summary.

Regarding breaking laws, one thing to keep in mind is that the designation as a non-profit 501(c)(6) corporation does require that the NHRA comply with some pretty specific restrictions. This only makes sense as they are receiving the substantial benefit of paying zero business taxes on any income.

Here's what I feel are NHRA's most glaring areas of non-compliance with the 501(c)(6) requirements.

A 501(c)(6) company is a special non-profit type called a "business league". The primary function of this business league can only and must be to further the "business interests" of it members, for example, an IRS document on 501(c)(6)'s states:

"The organization is for the benefit of the organizations’ members."

Clearly if a majority of the members of the organization were to publicly state that they do not feel that the organization is doing a satisfactory job of furthering their business interests, then the tax exempt status of the organization could likely be challenged.

The IRS document also states:

"The organization will have no specific ownership and are generally controlled by members."

Basically this type of organization is expected to be of strong benefit to its members, and in addition is expected to be controlled by those members.

A statement from a majority of the members that they feel that their current level of input into the operation of the organization is not in compliance with the manner in which these organizations are to be operated could be used to force significant changes in the NHRA, again under the threat of losing their tax exempt status.

The last issue, and perhaps most glaring, is that as a "business league", the IRS documents clearly state that members can only be those that have legitimate business activities, and "amateur" members who can not prove legitimate business activities (ie profit generating) are not allowed.

There are two cuts to this non-compliance. Firstly, it again is a serious point that can be used to challenge the tax exempt status of the NHRA, and force them into re-organizing its operation.

Secondly, it may be an issue that would allow throwing out any member based votes that have been made to date, as the vast majority of the votes clearly included members that should have not been eligible to vote.

This is important as apparently in the past the NHRA held some member votes that removed from the members any control or input into how the board members of the NHRA were selected. These votes could now likely be attacked on two fronts, both on the basis of incorrectly removing membership control that is required for this type of organization and on the basis of the votes having been cast by ineligible members.

Bottom line - I think there is a reasonable chance that the members of this organization could take back control of it, and hold votes on who the board members should be. This is the way that most 501(c)(6) organizations (such as the NFL) are run.

Would it be difficult and require some "lawyers, guns and money"?

Yes, but I think it has a chance, and the way things are going now, desperate measure are required.

Could some of the team owners consider banding together to foot the legal bill in such an effort (perhaps anonymously to avoid persecution)?

If I were them I'd at least be thinking about it, otherwise its just going to be a slow painful ride to the bottom, Titanic style.

 

[Bill]

I've thought for a long time that "Sixty Minutes" could have a field day with this debacle that is the NHRA . It surprises me that they haven't sent a couple of investigative reporters to a few races to talk to at least, some of the Pro racers, and to the ivory tower in Glendora to get an idea of how this travesty is able to continue, year-after-year.

I'm sure that if they had all the facts, they could make an hour-long segment out of it.

But, that would be in a perfect world...


Bill

 

[Ma Green]

Another problem I have with the current management is the fact that the Board, who is suppose to oversee the management, is made up almost entirely by the management!!!! Since when is that legal?

 

[clwill]

Another problem I have with the current management is the fact that the Board, who is suppose to oversee the management, is made up almost entirely by the management!!!! Since when is that legal?

Legal, yes. Ethical, no.

 

[TR]

Keven, That's the problem. Larry, Mo, Curly, and Shemp are running it now.

Now that's funny.

Rick

 

[none]

And I thought it was the dead guy Bernie, from Weekend at Benie's fame that was running this ship into the ground ......

 

[Nunz]

The biggest reason for Tom not wanting to give up a 1/2 Mil a year job? Because I think he makes more like 700K... And you know what, those numbers aren't out of hand for someone running a 100+Mil a year company. Question is, is it being run well...

 

[Ma Green]

"Question is, is it being run well..."

Yeah, right down the old mine shaft!

 

[Al smith]

The biggest reason for Tom not wanting to give up a 1/2 Mil a year job? Because I think he makes more like 700K... And you know what, those numbers aren't out of hand for someone running a 100+Mil a year company. Question is, is it being run well...

which explains why Compton is not competent to run a real corporation and make double or triple that in bonuses and perks. Ever hear of the Peter principle? "Rise to His Level of Incompetence.'