(24-01-2015, 10:45 PM)captainsparkledotcom Wrote: IMO it hinges on the question "is the 'TT brand' big enough now, & therefore seen as sufficiently lucrative, by the rest of the world"?
I guess we'll find out.

I think I'm right on the volunteer point - premier football clubs pay their marshals, my mate is a F1 crowd steward and he gets a lump sum for exes, food vouchers, free camping and gets into an event which would cost him a couple of hundred quid, i knew some marshals who went out to the middle east rounds of F1 and got paid and well looked after. 

What non of them have to do is spend a couple of weeks up the mountain freezing wet and cold getting forgotten about in the dark while waiting  to watch subaru/VIP parade laps, eating rubbish overpriced food, beer from plastic glasses at London prices;  and then getting home to a bill for a grand and a nagging wife and kids who would rather have been in Benidorm. Non of them have the immediate danger of death/ serious injury or piles that a TT marshal is exposed to every session.

Yes things are much better under the new C.O.C who's greatest strength is probably his ability to keep people on-board, but who knows what might happen under the new regime - you could end up with Mr Nelson back and Marshal recruitment is a part of the new contract, I'm not sure people will be so tolerant if they know the higher-ups are being paid rather than being volunteers - remember "we're all in it together" is always the mantra of bosses in big organisations on 20 times the income of those at the sharp end. If the TTMA currently spend £X on recruitment etc then DED are going to have to give £XX an operator to do the same. Once you moneterize something that is currently free it has a value that people then want a share of.

Its the same nonsense that happened to the Manx - visitor numbers were rising about 10% a year but it wasn't making a sufficient return on investment = failure - DED hijacked it and undoubtedly must have spent more money and effort on it (but we'll never see a proper set of comparable figures) and hey-ho visitor numbers are up 10% = success. These PR types always then quote the worldwide media exposure value generated and come up with a £xxx million equivalent value of the publicity achieved but these are pure fantasy without a shred of proper evidence - a bit like newspaper readership figures which claim that every paper is read by 5 people - the only people that believe this tosh are media/PR insiders and nieive advertisers paying for it (ie the Manx Government) Try paying these people based on properly measurable targets and they don't want to know - I've tried it!