Pick your side

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

Tried that....it was turned down. Don't minimize the complexity of this, as it relates to strictly business issues.

I apologize Ron, but yes, I want to minimize the complexity. I was taught to compromise on "business issues" by the best, my employers, because there are so many other things in life that much more important. I don't know who's right and who's wrong, it's probably a little of both, but winning doesn't necessarily have to be the final answer here. There's always time. I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but that's how I feel.

The course can be reversed, everyone just has to try. Also, the business issues don't seem so complex to me when you contrast against unraveling of Enron or the current "derivative" mess in the sub-prime market. Those are complicated legal entanglements.

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by RodKnock

I apologize Ron, but yes, I want to minimize the complexity.

Listen, I've easily solved relationship issues that were much bigger than this... in business among companies that were also much bigger than this...and in a shorter amount of time, too.

You are reading here "iceberg data"...only 10% is showing.

A lot of invisible things need to be addressed too.
It is not all as it appears... it's not about the buck a year...and it's not about a snake logo.

..."it's all about the cars"

[Chaplin]

Originally Posted by computerworks

Listen, I've easily solved relationship issues that were much bigger than this... in business among companies that were also much bigger than this...and in a shorter amount of time, too.

You are reading here "iceberg data"...only 10% is showing.

A lot of invisible things need to be addressed too.
It is not all as it appears... it's not about the buck a year...and it's not about a snake logo.

..."it's all about the cars"

The least of which is egos.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by computerworks

..."it's all about the cars"

Yes, Ron, exactly my point. I know that you know more than me and as the moderator you were chosen for the job because you have expertise, but I'll disagree with you. It can be solved. It's not war, poverty or hunger.

[Don]

Amy, refer back to my post # 91 on this Thread regarding LOG, Lotus Owners Group.

To me, there is an atmosphere of mutual understanding , respect and trust which has allowed the hobbyist , replica manufacturers, independent clubs, etc to co-exist on an equal basis with Lotus & Caterham. The quote by R & T Editor Peter Egan is very relevant :

"No snobbery here, with Lotuses, the cult of physics and concept is at least as powerful as that of the number plate"

In the end , the legend and respect for Colin Chapman has been strengthened.

For the mutual benefit of all parties, sure would be nice to duplicate the same approach.

[imagine2frolic]

AMY,
I don't think it is Ron's job to stop people from having opinions. It his his job to see we people don't get out of line on the forum. The moderators do a fine job of that too.

C$ has become his own worst friend. He demands respect, and wants everyone to come to him. When people see his actions less than well behaved. Then you will read what you are reading right now. It is not hate imploding. It is more like disappointment exploding. Only C$ can stop that feeling.

You say he wants to protect his legacy. He is doing a bangup job of doing that while stepping on toes everywhere. Only bullies like other bullies. Going around throwing your weight on people is no way to make friends.

Some people are never able to step back, and look at what they have done. They are not capable of admitting making a mistake. Be it big, or little. Exactly who is in control of the damage control? If you don't like seeing, and reading the disappointment that exist. I would suggest that a new, and fresh approach be thought about.

There are a lot of children named Shelby. It wouldn't seem that trend will not continue for much longer. Life is full of choices, and when you make a bad one. You can always change your choices, and make a good one. It is never to late to do the right thing.

BTW, one last thought here. Has the Children's fund started recieving the appropriate money, or was your conversation here more sweet talk? Let us know where we can find those numbers. I would love to read that report.

[427sharpe]

imagine2frolic said:
BTW, one last thought here. Has the Children's fund started recieving the appropriate money, or was your conversation here more sweet talk? Let us know where we can find those numbers. I would love to read that report.

A non-profit must file yearly reports...available online.

[Excaliber]

I take no joy in any of this, it is painful to see our respected leaders on both sides of the issue have to endure the slings and arrows of tuants and disrepect. And I know I have flung more than a few stones myself, at SAI, Mr. Shelby personally and by inuendo Amy B. I want to apologize, but I'm not sure the time is right... The boiler is still at pretty high pressure, on both sides, enter with caution if you expect to fix it without getting burned.

[brobehr]

hey carroll[shelby]
I don't think this is the best way to spend your golden years...good god man you are [save for this really weird post 1993 self -implosion] an american racing/sports car icon. ...
just my two cents worth

brobehr

[Bluesman]

I have been upset with CS since Le Mans in 66. He told Ken Miles to pull back and not outright win the 24 hour race. Destroyed Miles. Al Davis and Carroll have a lot in common.

[Jamo]

Only warning I will give on this: No more discussions about the Children's Fund on this thread...period.

Stay on THE topic.

[Jamo]

Personal post...you can search high and low and you will not find me taking sides on this particular dispute. I have some thoughts on the respective merits of each side's position, but they are my own and I choose to keep them to myself.

I do, however, have some opinions on how such disputes can be resolved if the parties truly want to resolve them. My world is labor relations...unions and employers. I live with breakups, threats, litigation, boycotts, subterfuge, nasty tactics, slings and arrows and resolving them every damn day. At some point, the antagonists realize that they have to get back together in order to preserve their respective interests. A good example is the entertainment industry's dispute between the writers and producers. It's been bloody...awards shows called off, movies and TV series being stopped or disrupted, innocent bystanders losing work, etc. They're in negotiations right now, and a resolution looks to be forthcoming...and hopefully everyone will be hugging and kissing in the near future.

So, how do we put parties back together in labor disputes?

Mediation and interest-based bargaining. This involves both sides working to gether to find ways to answer their respective needs, concerns, fears and desires and reach a win-win resolution, rather than fighting on with a position-based approach like the long lines of soldiers from the 18th century standing and shooting at each other until one army falters, leaving a field strewn with dead bodies from both sides.

A couple of things are necessary at the outset.

First, you need a strong-willed mediator...someone trained in the art who can draw the sides to work together while remaining neutral. Sometimes it is best to have someone who is completely foreign to the industry or issue. There are private companies who provide experienced mediators, so sourcing one is not that difficult.

Second, most mediators start off by getting the parties to agree to some form of "cooling off." In my world, that might mean extending an existing contract for a set period, calling off pickets, instituting a gag order to stop the influence of the media and to prevent aligned interests from throwing gas on the fire. My online persona might simply refer to it as: "Everyone STFU!" In this case, that would mean getting TS, SAAC, and every other interested site (including this one) to stop allowing folks from talking about the dispute. The concept in reaching a cooling off period agreement is two-fold: To prevent outside influences from disrupting the process and to get the parties used to working together.

Third...the interest-based bargaining itself. The mediator has the parties identify what their concerns, needs, desires and fears are...just identify them rather than state your position with regard to them. This is sometimes the most difficult process simply because parties who have staked their positions might feel they are giving up something by summarizing what one of their fears (for example) is rather than demanding particular protections to alleviate that particular fear. The former is necessary to identitify what needs to be reolved; the latter needs to be put aside to allow the process to resolve the issue by means of mutually reaching the resolution istead of trading one issue for another. By going through the process, the parties mutually "own" the concepts which resolve each piece of the puzzle, and end up with a mutual desire to make it work.

You can't just simply put everyone in a room at some private resort and hope to reach an agreement on such emotionally charged issues. That may have worked for SAI and HiTech...more a pure business dispute. This dispute, much like unions and employers, involves personalities and emotions (You think unions and employers only fight about wages and benefits?) that have to be nurtured with respect and returned to a place where folks can work together.

I truly cannot accept anyone (from either side) saying it can't done. I've been involved in some of the nastiest labor disputes over the past several decades where folks have been injured (killed in a few instances), businesses being destroyed and workers left out in the cold for extended periods where litigation had become nothing but a quagmire with its own life...and yet mediation with interest-based bargaining brought everything back together. It works...over and over again.

Some court will require mediation before these current suits are brought to trial, but if it does not involve interest-based bargaining, any mediated result stands a good chance of falling apart or won't be a resolution where the parties move forward together.

As with all mediation programs, it is non-binding, so only time and some legal bills will be expended if it fails, which will happen anyway.

It starts with both parties agreeing to something rather simple. Shelby and SAAC may not absolutely need each other to exist, but they both would benefit from working together.

Who looses? Folks who have personalized this dispute and who seek to gain self-empowerment by being the voices of either side. They can either become part of the solution or be left babbling on the street corner. The rest of us, if we care to, can make it happen by pressuring both sides to at least try it rather than take oaths of loyalty.

[computerworks]

That's why I hang out with you. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Jamo

The rest of us, if we care to, can make it happen by pressuring both sides to at least try it rather than take oaths of loyalty.

Yup....I have been saying all along there IS a middle ground.

[Jamo]

Evan and Bill S.

I've lifted Evan's site suspension and I'll lift the ban from this thread for both of you...if you just stop the damn personalized barbs and comments. You are both highly informed and intelligent members who can add greatly to this thread if you would just stay on the damn topic.

I'm asking nicely...once.

[RACER X #99]

Jamo are you offering to mediate this dispute? Fees waived of course. If so that would be a most honorable and generous offer on your part.

I know that one lawyer on the SAAC forum is talking billable hours so I don't think he is gonna volunteer to mediate.

RD

[h2oman]

JAMO for PRESIDENT!

[xlr8or]

Originally Posted by h2oman

JAMO for PRESIDENT!

It's better than the choices we will have in November.

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by RACER X #99

Jamo are you offering to mediate this dispute? Fees waived of course. If so that would be a most honorable and generous offer on your part.

I know that one lawyer on the SAAC forum is talking billable hours so I don't think he is gonna volunteer to mediate.

RD

One of the things that Jamo said was, "Sometimes it is best to have someone who is completely foreign to the industry or issue." I think he might not fit the description of the type of person that he would like to work this out.

[Allan A]

Oh yea, Jamo would be perfect. SAAC and Shelby would be owned and run by Kirkhams in about a week.

[wickershaw]

Jamo, I would certainly defer to your experience but to you really think this is a "dispute" in a labor relations sense? It appears that Shelby unquestionably owns the registry which he loaned to the SAAC. He now finds that the SAAC has become respected and (perhaps) financially successful. Furthermore, the registry has the potential to do even better in future. Shelby wants it back, period. My view is that CS is an extremely bitter person who was never able to translate his success with cars and racing in to real dollars. (Think Penske, Petty, Earnhardt even Joe Gibbs) This must be very hard for him. Do you really think he could or would "....identify what [his]...concerns, needs, desires and fears are..?" If Shelby's real goal is money and the SAAC wants to "preserve the registry" where's the compromise?