rumor control--has SAAC lost its use of Shelby name?

[John McMahon]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

John M., I personally have been troubled over various issues with Shelby for a long time, and my history of posts here will generally show support. But there comes a time when I just can't do it anymore, for me, this is that time.

You don't have to have a horse in the race or be a member of a baseball team to see something is wrong, and take a stand. It just took me longer than some, and there is no joy in it, no bashing, just a personal reality check.

How true...sad, but true.

Who will ultimately lose in the end? The enthusiasts.

[Don]

From Yahoo Finance, note the mention of a Licensing update, anyone attending ?

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Carroll Shelby International, Inc., (Pink Sheets:CSBI - News) announced today that its Annual Shareholder Meeting will be held on Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 11:00 AM local time at the Shelby Automobiles Inc., facility in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shareholders will have an opportunity to vote on the election of the Board of Directors for the coming year.

Upon completion of the formal portion of the meeting, John Luft, will present company updates on Carroll Shelby International and Carroll Shelby Licensing. Amy Boylan, President Shelby Automobiles Inc., will provide updated information on Shelby Automobiles.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071121/20071121005644.html?.v=1

The Public Relations firm retained by Caroll Shelby Licensing, maybe there is one, but could not find any press release on the topic

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/03/prweb513490.htm

An unknown , all the sections in the Licensing Agreement and what the parties agreed or did not agree to.

[amy B]

Originally Posted by dynoroom

A couple other side notes about Zmax. One of the owners of the company (Zmax) is none other than Bruton Smith (one of the Fortune 400 richest men) who also owns Speedway Motorsports. Las Vegas Motor Speedway (see where this is going) is owned by Speedway Motorsports. The industrial complex in Las Vegas housing SAI is also owned by Mr. Smith.
So free commercials maybe, just adding a bit of information.
Oh ya, Zmax. Shelby's engine shop sent it out for lab testing and evaluation. It's mainly parafin, no problem with that it's just been used for years before in other products of this nature.

Actually that statment is not completely true. Carroll has been friends with Bruton for many years, he is friends with many people, he doesn't support all their products. He does happen to like zmax , Also Bruton does not own the complex that we are in. It is owned and managed by harsh properties


Amy

[amy B]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

While some have been in denial about this law suit, and it has been brought to our attention several times in this thread, with this latest post, there can now be no doubt.

I have always been a Shelby supporter, but forced to take a stand, and that clearly seems to be the case here, I will support SAAC. To wit, there is no way in hell I would join the 'new' Shelby Club.

Amy, with great respect I must say, I hope you are blushing over this dastardly deed of greed.

Ex, it has nothing to do with greed, I have spent a lot of $$ starting and building team shelby, it has nothing to do with any of this. Where do you see greed? Carroll gets his brand back and we move on. Also, for the record, I think the public statements were out of line. There are issues and hurt feelings and partnership problems, but the evil line was wrong he deserves more respect, even at a basic respect level, that was uncalled for. I was also surprised that Neils second formal letter was posted, but not the first, Nor has saac ever responded to Carroll or Neil his lawyer on any letter, including ones from CS licensing. but they post a call to action. . The fact is, all facts are not here. And many will not be put here untill resolved.

Carroll wants his brand run by people he feels will do it the way he wants with his input, he has that right. It will be what it will be and all will be judged accordingly.


Amy


Amy

[Excaliber]

Greed comes in many forms, it's not always about money. Shelby seems to have an insatiable need to control everything and everyone, no matter what the cost. My experience has been that the 'body' follows the 'head'. IF there is corruption within the ranks, (perhaps a bad example, I'm not saying there is), it often flows from the top down.

I don't know the details of 'getting your brand name' back. I just don't like the methodology chosen to do it, sue 'em, sue 'em all, SOP with Shelby. Is it not enough to withdraw their license, but then to rub their nose in it too? Cold, very cold...

[ZOERA-SC7XX]

After reading the letter from M. Neil Cummings, I don't see any basis for his demanding records after 1996, much less any product previously licensed by Colonel Selby. These lawyers will demand anything unless/until they are taken to task. I have less respect for Selby than I had yesterday, and will not help finance this 'Raid' on SAAC with my 50 bucks.

[DAVID GAGNARD]

While I don't have a dog in this fight (don't own an original Cobra nor an original Shelby Mustang, but have a nice 66 GT-350 CLONE), I would trust SAAC about 1000 times more with the VIN #s of said cars than any Shelby run company.....JMHO...........

I am also of the opinion that the work that SAAC has done for the last 32 years has very much to do with today's value of original Cobras and Shelby Mustangs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

While I don't always agree with the way SAAC is run and has done things, I think they have kept the faith and the helped make the cars what they are today.......

BTW:I am starting a "small" collection for round trip air-fare to the Vegas facility for the shareholders meeting, as I'm a shareholder....

I have a lot of things I'd like to say at the meeting, doubt they would give me the time of day thought...........

Guess I shoulda been a lawyer, looks like Shelby's companies are keeping some lawyers in tall cotton........wish they would spend that money on building cars and not lawsuits, maybe my stock would be worth more than the 26 cents a share it closed at today....

David

[pipehunter]

I think it is interesting that so many posts offer legal conclusions based on little more than the Nov 14 in terms of documentation. Second, that said, the reference in that letter to two sentences in the Registry to buttress the demands in the letter is certainly curious. Third, I find the SAAC letter and particularly the Burke quote to be amateurish, but then again, I had the same reaction to the Nov. 14 letter. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and I cannot wait to see the agreement between Shelby and SAAC.

Finally, Amy B I respect your willingness to step up and field the questions. On the other hand, in light of the letter of Nov. 14, I certainly question your first comment (Nov.1, I believe) in this thread which reads, in pertinent part:

"The SAAC team will still continue with what they do, we hhave not renewed the shelby License, but I am sure they will continue with the registry. We at Shelby will also keep the registry for all new cars and old, if the owners of cobra and vintage mustang want to join.

I did not ask for there info back or any of their stuff. We have always maintained that we would keep the new cars we build and ford builds, SAAC does not have the GT_H or the shelby GT info, that has always been ours, as with all cars going forward."

[Paul F]

It hardly seems like greed or money is the issue here.

5000 members x $40 = $200,000. That pays a few salaries, an office, and not much else.

2500 attendees to SAAC @$30. Let's assume 2day average = $150,000, most of which likely went to expenses.

Nobobdy's going to get rich on that.

[amy B]

Originally Posted by pipehunter

I think it is interesting that so many posts offer legal conclusions based on little more than the Nov 14 in terms of documentation. Second, that said, the reference in that letter to two sentences in the Registry to buttress the demands in the letter is certainly curious. Third, I find the SAAC letter and particularly the Burke quote to be amateurish, but then again, I had the same reaction to the Nov. 14 letter. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds and I cannot wait to see the agreement between Shelby and SAAC.

Finally, Amy B I respect your willingness to step up and field the questions. On the other hand, in light of the letter of Nov. 14, I certainly question your first comment (Nov.1, I believe) in this thread which reads, in pertinent part:

"The SAAC team will still continue with what they do, we hhave not renewed the shelby License, but I am sure they will continue with the registry. We at Shelby will also keep the registry for all new cars and old, if the owners of cobra and vintage mustang want to join.

I did not ask for there info back or any of their stuff. We have always maintained that we would keep the new cars we build and ford builds, SAAC does not have the GT_H or the shelby GT info, that has always been ours, as with all cars going forward."

Pipe, my comment was to the original post. I personally never asked for anything back, all I knew was that the license was not renewed. Bob said "I" asked, and it wasn't me. I am SAI, CSL cancelled the the license on Carroll's say. As I said I was always starting the new club and registry, the saac registrar are a great group, they will continue the work as they did before the license, I am sure.

Amy

[TerrysSPF]

Originally Posted by pipehunter

Finally, Amy B I respect your willingness to step up and field the questions. On the other hand, in light of the letter of Nov. 14, I certainly question your first comment (Nov.1, I believe) in this thread which reads, in pertinent part:

"The SAAC team will still continue with what they do, we have not renewed the shelby License, but I am sure they will continue with the registry. We at Shelby will also keep the registry for all new cars and old, if the owners of cobra and vintage mustang want to join.

I did not ask for there info back or any of their stuff. We have always maintained that we would keep the new cars we build and ford builds, SAAC does not have the GT_H or the shelby GT info, that has always been ours, as with all cars going forward."

Yep.........something smells a little fishy here. Either Amy is out of the loop, or she misled people here.

I don't think Team Shelby gives a rats rearend what happens to SAAC. Pity, since they helped keep the Shelby name alive and was a valuble asset to people looking to purchase original cars. Nothing like biting off the hand that feeds you, but it seems Shelby has made a profession out of doing just that.

I'm still not clear on the Jan 1996 date. Is Shelby asking for ALL documentation collected by SAAC from that date on - even concerning older vehicles (built pre 96) and information collected concerning original cars? -Or do they just want info collected on "newer" vehicles built from 1996 on?
No matter WHICH scenerio is correct, I don't understand why you would want to seperate this information in two parts, between two different books, and between two different companies.

Yep, sorry Amy, but it sounds like another typical Shelby lawsuit. -Bitterness & Greed.
IMO, Team Shelby doesn't give a rats ass about us replica owners, or even owners of the 'ol POS built in the 60's at this point. He (and you) are banking on the "new Shelby's" becoming popular and hoping enough of the "new" car owners join the club to make it profitable. -Heck, pretty soon Ford will be offering a new Team Shelby membership with every Mustang purchase.

-How sad (again) that it comes to this.

[TerrysSPF]

Originally Posted by amy B

the saac registrar are a great group, they will continue the work as they did before the license, I am sure.

Amy

Amy, I don't see how they can possibly continue to work "as they did before". If they thought they could, I don't know if they would have taken on the Kirkham cars.
And why make them give up all materials (like t-shirts, posters, etc.) that were printed prior to the end of this year? Let them sell the stuff, for cryin' out loud............unless Shelby wants to purchase it from them.
-That's cold.

[dblbarrel]

As a lowly replica owner I dont have a dog in this fight.
Not a SAAC member, just love Cobras, and respect Mr Shelby.
But I fail to see how SAAC's licensing agreement does any thing to impact
or hurt Shelby's revenue.
Bad blood will do no one any good in this.

[pipehunter]

Another item is interesting as well. There was mention in one of the posts of Planet Cobra and a Mr. Stephen Becker of Atlanta, GA opening a Shelby dealership. Is that the same Mr. Becker mentioned on the NorCal SAAC website in a post allegedly attributed to Carroll Shelby? Am I wrong, or do I remember seeing this in the SAAC newsletter? Here is the quote from the Norcal SAAC website:

"Effective immediately I, Carroll Shelby, am no longer associated or involved, in business matters or any other activities, with Mr Steven G. Becker, LLC, self-described "Deal Maker" from Suwanee, GA. Further, I retract my letter of introduction dated August 1,1999 which he publishes on his website.

Signed, Carroll Shelby
October 10, 2001"


Amy, can you respond? Many thanks.

[Power Surge]

One thing I've noticed since getting back into Cobras a few years back and dealing with Shelby, is mass disorganization. I do realize that Amy came into the middle of the Shelby mess, and she had done a supurb job thus far dragging SAI out of a really big hole (and not just financially). But even to this day, things just don't ever seem to add up. Shelby is still full of double standards and always seems to be stepping on it's own feet.

Reading the Team Shelby article in the new magazine, Carroll says some interesting things. He says he wants a club for Shelby owners to be able to join together, communicate, and have fun at national events. He wants a club that embraces and caters to Shelby cars and their owners. Well, there already IS a club that does this, and has been working hard at it for 30 years. It's called SAAC. Then the article goes on to say that Shelby wanted to partner with an existing club to get this going. Did they go with SAAC? No. They went with the S197 Mustang club.

So here's what I see, looking at this from the outside...

Shelby slapped SAAC in the face, but saying he wanted a club of his own that does what SAAC already does.

Shelby slapped SAAC in the face AGAIN, by saying they wanted to partner with an existing club to get this off the ground, and passing SAAC up.

Shelby continues to show mass disorganization by saying they want forums for members to communicate, when they already have the Shelby Owners Forum, AND the Shelby Forums, which is run by Carrolls grandson (or grand nephew, I forget exactly).

Basically, to the public eye, Shelby is turning his back on the clubs that have supported him, the people who've supported him, his own existing entities and even his own family in order to have "his own" club.

Politics and business aside, the morality revolving around this whole mess speaks way more volumes than any legal papers or business decisions.

I wish I could support Team Shelby, but it's a tough choice to make given the facts thus far.

[CHANMADD]

Was this perhaps not started on what could now be construed as a naive belief that the owners of these fabulous cars would actually like to have a closer relationship with the innovator of this crazy ownership pride,and not as a malicious slap that it has been construed as?
Would....could.. it not be possible for the two entities to exist and benefit the members of both in a positive way,... in the future?

Is this peaceful co-existance such a difficult thing to envisage?

I think that we are forgetting after all that without the person who had the vision and guts to take these cars to the glory that they achieved,none of us would be here.

The achievements of these cars would have ensured their place in the halls of fame regardless of whether or not any history had been kept or not.

This is also not taking anything away from all the hard work that has been put into the record keeping of these cars.

Now, I don't own an original car and I have been a member of SAAC and intend to continue to do so and I will join Team Shelby as well !!
Why not!!!

[1ntCobra]

Originally Posted by TerrysSPF

...

I'm still not clear on the Jan 1996 date. Is Shelby asking for ALL documentation collected by SAAC from that date on - even concerning older vehicles (built pre 96) and information collected concerning original cars? -Or do they just want info collected on "newer" vehicles built from 1996 on?
No matter WHICH scenerio is correct, I don't understand why you would want to seperate this information in two parts, between two different books, and between two different companies.

...

Since January 1996 is mentioned multiple times, perhaps that was the start of a new licensing contract between Shelby and SAAC. And that is the contract that has been in place since that time. The 1996 time frame probably coincides with SAI starting to build cars again, which could have been a major change for both SAAC and SAI in terms of their relationship. I'm pretty sure at some point in the distant past SAAC was Shelby licensing. Perhaps 1996 was the point where licensing shifted from SAAC to Shelby Licensing as SAI started up the business in Vegas.

My interpretation of the registry information was that they want all information collected since 1996, not on cars built since that date.

I'm not sure what the point of asking for financial records since 1996 is. If as Amy says, Shelby just wants to move on, why would they care about the financial records? The only thing that might make sense is if SAAC was to pay a percentage of something as part of their license. But if that was the case, you would think SAAC had to pay that on a regular basis, not in a lump sum after more than a decade.

To me, it just seems like the Shelby lawyers are out to do as much damage as they can.

[pipehunter]

Originally Posted by amy B

Pipe, my comment was to the original post. I personally never asked for anything back, all I knew was that the license was not renewed. Bob said "I" asked, and it wasn't me. I am SAI, CSL cancelled the the license on Carroll's say. As I said I was always starting the new club and registry, the saac registrar are a great group, they will continue the work as they did before the license, I am sure.

Amy

I gotta tell ya Amy, that you refer to a nuance that many of us would miss, particularly this early in the process, and particularly when this nuance was not expressed by the President of SAI, a sister company to and licensee itself from CSL. Indeed, wouldn't the new club operate pursuant to a license from CSL? I understand how appropriate it is to commence ops on Mr. Shelby's birthday, but I also note this date is just after the expiration date of SAAC's license, at least as presented in the Nov. 14 letter.

Even though I am a SAAC member, I have no dog in this fight either. At the same time, however, I certainly want to see the continuation of celebration of these vehicles, and the maintenance of the value of the marque. I can certainly understand that SAI wants the same thing, but (a) clearly there is some profit motivation (profit not necessarily equaling greed), and (b) the jury is of course out on whether SAI can continue the good deeds (as opposed to missteps) of SAAC.

For folks like me, you have an opportunity to win us over. Fairness and candor will mean a lot.

[pipehunter]

Now I get it. A family squabble. From the links shown on the shelbyautos.com website:


The Shelby Family

Shelby Children's Foundation CSCF.org
- Get Carroll's Autograph CSCF.org
Win Carroll Shelby's GT500 WinAShelby.org
Carroll Shelby's Website CarrollShelby.com
Shelby Performance Parts and Accessories ShelbyPerformanceParts.com
Shelby Licensing ShelbyLicensing.com
Carroll Shelby Enterprises CarrollShelbyEnt.com
Shelby Collectibles ShelbyCollectibles.com
Shelby American Automobile Club SAAC.com
Shelby Dodge Automobile Club SDAC.org

[TerrysSPF]

Originally Posted by 1ntCobra

My interpretation of the registry information was that they want all information collected since 1996, not on cars built since that date.
To me, it just seems like the Shelby lawyers are out to do as much damage as they can.

-That's how I interpreted it as well. But if that's the case, then there will be a lot of instances where information was collected on the same car, both PRIOR to 1996, and POST 1996, where people will have to go to TWO different sources to retrieve all the details. -What a nightmare.

-The damage being done is to the enthusiast.