oatssi Wrote:According to Paul Phillips every rider at the TT is paid to come.

Ask the local riders how much they got

No start money anymore or are the riders telling porkies

[quote=ancient]
can anyone tell me whether its possible to visit the TT riders assoc 38th milestone without paying to get to it ?
Apart from a car park fee, you should be able to visit Tom and Francis without paying, strip searches etc.

I think travel allowances are paid on the 31st May 08, and are as follows:-
UK Mainland Solo £500
UK Mainland Sidecar £550
N.I. and Europe Solo £600
N.I. and Europe Sidecar £650
Rest of World Solo £700
Rest of World Sidecar £750.
And any competitors wishing to apply for additional appearance support can do so.

Alan's post is one of the best thought-out, informed and articulate postings I have seen on this forum regarding the TT. He has perfectly summed up what so many of us see as being wrong with the TT this year, but most of us couldn't hope to summarise so well. The organisers simply HAVE to take on board what so many people are saying, otherwise they will lose what little goodwill is left from both locals and visitors. Up until fairly recently I was an absolute TT fanatic, never missing a single bike or chair in any practice session or race. This year I have been to watch the Saturday and Monday practice sessions, and been bored to tears within half an hour each time.

This is no criticism whatsoever of the riders themselves, who as always are the true heroes of the TT and show extraordinary skill and courage to do what they do. But nobody will convince me that this year's field is any better than it was in, say, the early 1990s. You can quote all the stats you like about how many riders have lapped at over 125mph, 120mph or whatever. I just don't think there is the same excitement or sense of expectation now - but maybe that's just because I'm now well on the wrong side of 40 and am looking back through rosy specs! I feel sorry for the younger generation of TT fans, who will never experience the true TT magic that so many of us used to revel in.

No doubt this and other posts in this thread will be dismissed in some quarters as just being negative whingeing, but it's what I honestly feel. I would far rather be coming on here and saying what a fantastic TT we're all having!

QUESTIONS OVER THE TT WERE ASKED IN TYNWALD TODAY, SOME MHKs NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY ITS GOING

This has become a good thread.

Well done guys more of the same please

Ah well with this year's entry there's a few more pennies for the pig. I would say sell GBP500 per competitor (in addition to the money above) to an advertiser. Fairly cheap way to get a lot of publicity and look like you are are really doing something for the event (rather than just paying for a sign). Ronaldsway Shoe Company used to do it at the Southern 100. Although that was much smaller (around GBP10 a rider) I can still remember it! Who was the TT beer sponsor last year again?

http://www.manxradio.com/readNEwsItem.aspx?id=20980

Fair enough but the correct questions were:

What criteria was used to determine the designation of areas, that have been considered safe for years, prohibited?

Did the impact on the popularity of the event (and the Manx economy) form part of the study that was carried out by the Clerk of Course? The negative impact appears to be immediate.

To what extent was legal advice sought on the rights of the spectators, landowners, organisers and the Goverment? Please provide a copy.

Did that legal advice extend to detremining whether rights of spectators could be waived in the event of an accident? The liklihood of which is very unlikley in just about all of the new areas based on 100 years of experience?

To which insurance agents have you approached with regards designing an approporiate solution to allow spectators to stand in areas previously considered safe? Many spectators still consider them safe and are willing to stand there at their own risk.

AND

Which vanatage points has the Clerk of the Course actually watched from on the TT course?

What the **** were you thinking!

-----------

With regards to QuarterBridge, I don't ride but I would say there is more chance of a plane hitting that cage than a bike. Sheer and utter stupidity of the highest level. You won't find this anywhere else in road racing. Organisers of other events must be licking their lips.

Also, grandstand in bad enough but I remember my Dad taking me to Ballaspur when I was young. We would only go there for the practices. I reckon there was around 1-2k people there on a good day, most locals. Pretty sure those locals will have sacked the whole thing off now. Provided you stand far enough up the hedge (and it doesn't need to be that far up) there is nothing, nothing dangerous about Ballaspur. Joke. But I guess that's what it is now.

Thinking about this a bit more... The What the **** were you thinking! question is probably the most important. Look at the letters the ACU were sending to land owners. Even if there was a way that backed up the waiving of public liability rights, the actions of ACU Events have put such fear in landowners that the likelihood of them ever reversing their properties to spectator areas is close to nil.

Like a friend of mine said, most decisions in road racing are irreversible. Hence, the need to properly vet them first.

Thanks ACU, that's the end of that then. Who appointed ACU Events Ltd. and who allowed them to make such significant actions that could well ultimately see the end of the event?

The whole last minute nature of the insurance issue and prohibited areas just stinks of disorganisation and incompetence. Strong criticism I know but my view is that it is warranted and but for two people views I have listened to (out of maybe 100-200), everyone else thinks the same.

Oatssi wrote
What criteria was used to determine the designation of areas, that have been considered safe for years, prohibited?

Answer, if no room for a burger van or grandstand that the ACU could get a fee from then no spectators.

Why is the Railway Union Mills not a restricted area ?

oatssi Wrote:Thinking about this a bit more... The What the **** were you thinking! question is probably the most important. Look at the letters the ACU were sending to land owners. Even if there was a way that backed up the waiving of public liability rights, the actions of ACU Events have put such fear in landowners that the likelihood of them ever reversing their properties to spectator areas is close to nil.

Like a friend of mine said, most decisions in road racing are irreversible. Hence, the need to properly vet them first.

Thanks ACU, that's the end of that then. Who appointed ACU Events Ltd. and who allowed them to make such significant actions that could well ultimately see the end of the event?

The whole last minute nature of the insurance issue and prohibited areas just stinks of disorganisation and incompetence. Strong criticism I know but my view is that it is warranted and but for two people views I have listened to (out of maybe 100-200), everyone else thinks the same.

Oatssi i have been coming to the iom since 1974 to date first as a spectator then as a rider in the tt mgp southern and jurby. I have to say that i agree with everything you say in your posts.

The witch - yes I am being pedantic (but then again I'm all in favour of pedantry!) but it isn't me who making all these changes in the name of professionalism. The grandstand has become a dead area, I've never seen anything like it. So many of these changes have been made in accordance with making the event look less like a club meeting but how professional is it if you can't even spell the signs correctly!?!!

So many changes have been put in place without using common sense. Take the wearing of fire retardant overalls. This has now been reduced to the pit lane during race periods only. Yet there was a fire in parc ferme on Monday night. People can wander around there, wearing whatever they like, fuelling up bikes, talking on mobile phones. If we are genuinely looking at areas which pose a risk, then in my humble opinion, this is an area of great risk, unlike many of the now prohibited areas.

If health and safety originally brought in fire retardant overalls x years ago, then how come these areas have miraculously become safe this year? Or is it because the focus is elsewhere, seeing how negative an impact the organisers can make on the fans?

To me, it looks like an attempt is being made to turn the TT into a superbike meeting, with the emphasis being on how much profit ACU Events can generate. Did anyone think to ask the fans if they want to see a superbike meeting, with the riders kept well away from the public, fees for viewing areas and sitting half a mile back from the circuit? These are exactly the reasons why I am interested in road racing and NOT superbike racing!

I also agree with everything Alan has said, in particular about being unable to reverse changes. Even my mum (who isn't remotely interested in bike racing) genuinely misses early morning practices because they were unique and had a very special atmosphere of their own. She blames it on us Manx being an ethnic minority in our own country.

HG

I think you will find that the rule regarding fire proofs in parc ferme was scrapped for one reason only, HOSPITALITY, The big teams dont think its right for their paying guests to don the fire proofs over thier expensive suits when they have a tour of parc ferme.

I am pretty sure a risk assessment of the whole grandstand/pit complex was carried out 3 or 4 years ago.The findings were so horrendous that it was quietly shelved.

One for instance was how do the control tower occupants escape if case of a fire.Getting the brigades long ladder up there in the middle of a race doesn't bear thinking about,and I think one or two occupants in particular would be virtually impossible to evacuate.

As previously stated in a famous song 'the love of money is the root of all evil'

THAT OATSSI FELLA BELONGS BACK IN A DUNGEON IN THE MIDDLE AGES, HOW CAN THE GREAT FAT ROBBER BARON AND HIS LAPDOG CRONIES FROM RUGBY CASTLE FILL THEIR BULGING COFFERS WITHH ILL GOTTEN PLUNDER WITH PEOPLE LIKE HIM CAUSING UNREST AND DISSENT AMONG THE SERFS AND PEASANTS.

Ben Oates Wrote:I have to agree with most of the comments in this thread. I have never seen a TT this quiet with such a dull atmosphere. I haven't spoke to anyone yet who has a different view.

The event is now being run and controlled by health and safety conscious profit making organisations. It's hard to envisage where this leaves the future of the event. In order to keep the masses happy, amongst many other things, they will need to take a step backwards with respect to the prohibited areas and be upfront with the public, but could that ever realistically happen?

Beepee, we will be lucky to see 60 starters in a race next week, very lucky.

Been reading this thread with increasing sadness, and this post seemed to hit the nail on the head for me, summarising all my fears for this wonderful event.

I did wonder if the recent announcement that the ACU's insurance wouldn't cover any areas not signed prohibited, would lead to an awful lot of PA's springing up and a corresponding increase in spectating that was only accessible to paying customers. It's fair enough that the Islanders make money from the TT but milking it for all it's worth is going to squeeze it dry. As Shaun says, alienate the locals and you will lose the support the races need to continue.

The ACU, over the past 20 years or so, have evolved from a club of sports enthusiasts with little interest (or aptitude) for business and marketing, to a slick profitmaking machine with less interest in the participants than the money they generate. I've also noted a bias towards mainland circuits (the ones owned by the ACU's Board of Directors). An uncharitable person might think the ACU were intent on milking the TT into nonexistence (but making as much money as possible in the process), however I would prefer to think they simply need to think a bit more about keeping the local support for the event.

Tom Loughridge Wrote:THAT OATSSI FELLA BELONGS BACK IN A DUNGEON IN THE MIDDLE AGES, HOW CAN THE GREAT FAT ROBBER BARON AND HIS LAPDOG CRONIES FROM RUGBY CASTLE FILL THEIR BULGING COFFERS WITHH ILL GOTTEN PLUNDER WITH PEOPLE LIKE HIM CAUSING UNREST AND DISSENT AMONG THE SERFS AND PEASANTS.

I think you should stick to drinking water Tom. I am a paying customer of the TT. What I have done is provided frank feedback and also suggested a few ways to improve things. Go bury your head in the sand if you like.

Did anyone spot yesterday that Rhen Cullen is not prohibited? Or is there a mile of yellow tape in the field behind that I didn't spot?

Rhen Cullen was restricted last night, only marshalls on duty there.
Interetingly the UK press were asking for fans opinions at Braddan last night about the restrictions and other issues (Time or Telegraph I think) from what I overheard very negative answers, even Braddan Bridge are charging for practice.

Tell me, what is the difference between PROHIBITED AREA and a RESTRICTED AREA ?

There are a lot of theories running about on the matter and we have been consulting all the major dictionaries.

I know what Prohibited means but does restricted mean "only 20 spectators allowed in this area..." or "only media allowed in here"

If the definitions are the same, why confuse us oldies with two area name configurations.

Can any of us go into a restricted area at all ?

I have asked Manx Radio to help...

Media etc are confused !!