[Bob Tanner]

Yesterday I heard an interview with Brenden Gaughn on Sirius' new NASCAR channel. (Excellent programing, BTW. I recommend it to those who don't mind paying for radio) He's switching his CTS entry from MOPAR to Chevie this season. He cited MOPAR's dropping support in the CTS (he indicated that this coming season there were two MOPAR teams in CTS and both of them had reduced support).

What surprised me was his discription of his Chevie contract. It is almost entirely performance-based. Chevie will front him a relatively minor amount of start-up money, then any support they give him is dependent on his performance; the higher he finishes the more money they give him.

Considering Ford's and GM's financial problems (the NYSE put out a Sell notice on all GM stock today), this might be a harbinger of things to come in Cup Lite and Cup.
I'll have to think about it a bit but on the face of things I think I like it. What thinks you?

[LSC9901]

YIKES !!! You've hit another one of my hot spot buttons. Like yourself I'm not a big stick & ball fan, although I may follow it a bit more than you. Never the less I am all about performanced based incentives. You win, you earn. If you are a Derek Cope you may have to pay from your own pocket to race. Simple enough theory to me. No man or team is worth millions just because they did good last year. Prove yourself today and you'll get paid tomorrow. Fail today, flip burgers tomorrow.

[Quality88]

The Better the performance the more money you get? hmm..... ineteresting concept.... wonder if that is why Robby Gordon went to Ford for this year? Chevy may have discussed with him a similar deal. It is something to think about. Give me a day and I'll get back to you.

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Quality88

The Better the performance the more money you get? hmm..... ineteresting concept.... wonder if that is why Robby Gordon went to Ford for this year? Chevy may have discussed with him a similar deal. It is something to think about. Give me a day and I'll get back to you.

"Q" ... based on your past performance on these forums you'll be alloted a 25 hour day !!!

[Quality88]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

"Q" ... based on your past performance on these forums you'll be alloted a 25 hour day !!!

Does the clock start now?

[LSC9901]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Does the clock start now?

Green flag, green flag ........

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by LSC9901

YIKES !!! You've hit another one of my hot spot buttons. Like yourself I'm not a big stick & ball fan, although I may follow it a bit more than you. Never the less I am all about performanced based incentives. You win, you earn. If you are a Derek Cope you may have to pay from your own pocket to race. Simple enough theory to me. No man or team is worth millions just because they did good last year. Prove yourself today and you'll get paid tomorrow. Fail today, flip burgers tomorrow.

Don't you wish that stockholders would hold their CEO's to performance-based pay and incentives?

Example, this morning Home Depot let Bob Nardelli go after two years. In those two years he managed to reduce the value of their stock by almost 7% and they let Lowes pass them in sales. For that outstanding performance he got almost $200 million in salary and an equal amount in incentives and options?

Look how far Jacques Nasser drove down Ford Motor Co before they finally showed him the door. Ford never recoverred from his miserable leadership but I seem to recall that he left with a package worth something like $100 million?! (that was five years ago, I believe!)

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Quality88]

Gettin paid for your performance. Interesting concept one that I have thought about before. It was explored once with the XFL. Right idea, wrong league to try it. I think it is a good idea in some aspects. It would make some teams step it up. In effect it could cause some drivers to blossom and show they are good at performing when the pressure is on. The others will not be able... and they will unfortunately fall victom to that and will be lookin for rides. It would cut some costs for the manufacturers. Chevy says "well you did pi$$ poor this week so you don't get money and we get to keep it and hope it helps us stay afloat". It works towards the manufacturers favor and not the drivers favor. With all the replacing of drivers at the drop of that hat just cause they don't perform well insix races just think how bad it will be with this type of deal. mOwner tells a driver " you ain't been performing, which means we ain't gettin any money... sorry about your luck, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

[LSC9901]

Yeah even the best concepts have holes in the plans. Maybe just looking at it from a different perspective would help. Sponsor "X" pays a team $*** and additional funds become available for better than expected performance. It is still in favor of the manufacturer but the team would sign on with "X" because they know they will get $*** at the very least and more if they work hard for it.

[Bob Tanner]

Originally Posted by Quality88

Gettin paid for your performance. Interesting concept one that I have thought about before. It was explored once with the XFL. Right idea, wrong league to try it. I think it is a good idea in some aspects. It would make some teams step it up. In effect it could cause some drivers to blossom and show they are good at performing when the pressure is on. The others will not be able... and they will unfortunately fall victom to that and will be lookin for rides. It would cut some costs for the manufacturers. Chevy says "well you did pi$$ poor this week so you don't get money and we get to keep it and hope it helps us stay afloat". It works towards the manufacturers favor and not the drivers favor. With all the replacing of drivers at the drop of that hat just cause they don't perform well insix races just think how bad it will be with this type of deal. mOwner tells a driver " you ain't been performing, which means we ain't gettin any money... sorry about your luck, don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

I see it as the same as holding a position in which you get paid strictly on commission. If you don't sell, you don't eat. A tough way to look at things but... If you are selling [winning], are you making your employer any money. Then you have to address the question as to what is the purpose of an employer. Is the employer there to make money, or to provide people with a job?

I better drop this one. The Libertarian, Free-Market, Capitalist in me is beginning to show. Sorry.

[LSC9901]

Been a while since we let any politics creep into our sacred space. My vote is to keep it that way. I must stop now before the fingers type something that will get me into trouble.........................