Boats.com story on "Whatever Happened to Offshore Powerboat Racing?"

[JO - PANTERABOAT]

I was 7 years old in 1978. My Father never cashed it..

JO

[FastDonzi]

You forgot to cash it........ Is it drawing interest?????

The guy who signed it was a great Family friend, that brought back memories, Probably will for Brownie too!

[salrcr42]

Do not automatically mix the terms "teams spending millions of their own money" and "for the good of the sport". These terms can be (and often have been) mutually exclusive.

T2x

point well taken, there certainly is a distinction between the two and in reality there usually always is a personal agenda attached. (except for very few exceptions)

[BUIZILLA]

i've learned more here that anywhere in the last 20 years...

[T2x]

Duct tape, huh? Does that really work with hamsters?

I'm just asking. I am, after all, a very serious, self-important journalist.

The question referenced "electrical tape"....not duct tape.

Point of clarification: There was no "dotcom" money influx to offshore racing, because folks ... none of the dotcoms were making any money from 1999 to 2001.

In fact , Matt, there was a major player at that time (Richard Granville?), who was buying up boat companies and generally spreading cash around. He was alleged to have made a killing in some dot.com or other. I never pressed anyone for facts as I really didn't care. In addition where is it written that money that was amassed in 1998 couldn't still be p*ssed away in 2000?

T2x

[T2x]

Ratickle,

You are quite right, "Let's make a whole lot of money on this sport" is a less than optimal marketing approach. But again, we're talking business plan, and we live in a highly "incentivized" (profit motivated) country. Profitable things in United States, go figure, succeed and tend to get more profitable. Forget General Motors ... yes, they had huge union problems, but they also had a hugely inflated view of their customer base, and what the customer wanted in a product. But I digress.

You want an offshore racing marketing slogan? Off the top of my head, how about, "The Wettest Fun You Can Have." But again, I digress.

My point was this: We all need incentive and, frankly, protecting the "future" of offshore racing" is a pretty weak incentive. This isn't NASCAR and never, never will be, meaning I don't think the high end offshore race team owners will ever turn a profit. But let's say they can participate and break even, or come close. And let's say that, as they break even, they can turn their teams into at least a minor marketing vehicle for their own companies. That translates to free advertising.

Each of us is a "special interest," meaning first and foremost will do what's necessary to take care of ourselves and our people. That is a very good thing. So what does that translate to in a collective economic culture? It means that leaving or forming a "splinter group" will be so economically painful that only a lunatic would do it. Create that climate, that purely visceral capitalistic climate we all believe in, for offshore racing and it will reach another level. For all its flaws, I think the LLC understood that. (But I could be wrong. Smile._

Simply put and I heartily agree. It shouldn't be about fueling greed, but it should be all about covering reasonable expenses. If the APBA/CBF Inboard and OPC events could pay appearance money based on mileage traveled to our race teams in the early 70's, why the h*ll can't racers get a reasonable return today?

[Matt Trulio]

T2X,

Did that particular individual actually have any money? I know what was alleged and I was told that his money came from the dotcom world, but in the end ... did any money ever surface? I'm not so sure. In fact ... I don't think so.

And if it was from a dotcom, someone would have to tell me which one and prove it actually generated any income. Now, if we're talking about venture capital and calling it "dotcom money" ... I'm sure there are a few VCs out there who'd love to know about their dotcom seed money being spent in the offshore racing world.

The question remains: Did that individual ever "show us the money," if you will?

Mike A? Any light to shed or thoughts?

[Ratickle]

The million $, (multi, multi-billion $), question:

If a dot-com goes public with no product, just an idea (Irrational exuberance implied), and sells $10,000,000,000 worth of stock, did the dot-com make money?

Matt's answer is no, I agree. But if they spent it all on offshore boat racing, is life good???????

[Ryan Beckley]

He claimed it was from a company called Avanna. He had the name on his F2 and another F1. He "Owned" Warlock and tried to by Phantom too. We did all of there trucks and motorhomes the years they did it up big. They spent about 30,000 with us in vinyl over a years period. We only ended up getting screwed out of about 150 bucks from Warlock in the end.........People that bought his, can't loose, "SkinTech", stock lost much more than that!!!!!! I heard he is back in real estate in Atlanta.

[Matt Trulio]

The real money-makers in the late 1990s were the tech companies such as Sun Microsystems, bio-tech companies such as Genentech, and pharmaceutical outfits such as Amgen. Their stock values skyrocketed until the NASDAQ started crashing in April 2000.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to "go public" you have to, among other things, show at least two quarters of profitability. From 1999 to 2001, there wasn't a dotcom, including Amazon, that to my knowledge was able to do that.

There was no infusion of dotcom money anywhere other than VC money going into dotcoms. However, the VC money did go to things outside the dotcoms such as advertising (recall the sock puppet Superbowl TV ads).

I can tell you where a few very lucky dotcom founders made big bucks ... they sold their dotcoms, almost all of which had neither a revenue stream nor a plan for a revenue stream, to other dotcoms who thought the dotcom idea was so good they could just figure out how to monetize it later. And we all know how that turned.

At least in the early stages, dotcoms were the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.

[Steve Miklos]

Most Granville's included were reverse IPO's. Going public is highly overated unless your $500M or more in revenue or need VC time funds.
Steve

The real money-makers in the late 1990s were the tech companies such as Sun Microsystems, bio-tech companies such as Genentech, and pharmaceutical outfits such as Amgen. Their stock values skyrocketed until the NASDAQ started crashing in April 2000.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to "go public" you have to, among other things, show at least two quarters of profitability. From 1999 to 2001, there wasn't a dotcom, including Amazon, that to my knowledge was able to do that.

There was no infusion of dotcom money anywhere other than VC money going into dotcoms. However, the VC money did go to things outside the dotcoms such as advertising (recall the sock puppet Superbowl TV ads).

I can tell you where a few very lucky dotcom founders made big bucks ... they sold their dotcoms, almost all of which had neither a revenue stream nor a plan for a revenue stream, to other dotcoms who thought the dotcom idea was so good they could just figure out how to monetize it later. And we all know how that turned.

At least in the early stages, dotcoms were the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.

[Ratickle]

But they did create a Federal Budget Surplus because of all the revenue generating taxes.....

I sometimes think that's why the government allows things to go that way, and the housing bubble, etc. Makes them money if they don't enforce the rules...



Anyway, back on boat racing, and a brighter future.....



I have not heard one reason for maintaining multiple organizations, or a reason they should have been started in the first place. There must be something reasonable, or it wouldn't have happened (my guess).

And, if there are reasonable reasons, why would not multiple organizations work today, if they were willing to work together?

As close as I can tell, there are currently 37 Offshore classes, 7 of them overlap and are identical between organizations. So, there are 30 unique classes.

[T2x]

T2X,

Did that particular individual actually have any money? I know what was alleged and I was told that his money came from the dotcom world, but in the end ... did any money ever surface? I'm not so sure. In fact ... I don't think so.

He may not have had any money....but he sure spent alot....and then he didn't. By that definition he was typical of many Offshore "Racers" over the years.....swoop in...drop a load of cash....show off.......have a come to Jesus meeting with the accountants....or wife.....then quickly disappear.