Familiar Shelby story?

[lineslinger]

Originally Posted by dynoroom

I want to say.... nevermind, it's a neverending story.

Mike,
I watched a "never ending story" with my kids, you have a different version?

[dynoroom]

Originally Posted by lineslinger

Mike,
I watched a "never ending story" with my kids, you have a different version?

Well, all I'll add is after ten years at Shelby it's a story you hear and see over & over. The names change but the issues are the same.

[Tim Brewer]

I do like the Eleanor Mustang concept, but it not anything Shelby, never was, never will. I don't care if it's in the regestry,its was just annother way for Ol Shell to skim some cash on the Eleanor fad, (for which he had nothing to do with) and just a way for Unique to increase sales and to sort of officiate their cars. So I guess if Shelby does remove his authentication, the same newer cars won't be able to be in the registry? This is all a prime example why the cars should not ever been in the registry.
Just my opinion, don't beat me up too bad

[lineslinger]

Originally Posted by dynoroom

Well, all I'll add is after ten years at Shelby it's a story you hear and see over & over. The names change but the issues are the same.

Sorry to hear that,
I crossed them off of my short list in their early days, seems my instincts were not completely wrong.
I was in Vegas for business and floating the Colorado river with my son a while back, apparently talking to a potential customer and his kid, much less showing said customer a car or the facility was something the person on the other end of the phone couldn't be bothered with.
I keep hearing things are different and improving, this latest issue doesn't help.

[Excaliber]

I see the registry as properly keeping up to date on 'all things' Shelby. But like a lot of todays 'records' (baseball comes to mind) some things need a little asterik and a footnote to get the proper context.

Eleanor needs a HUGE asterik.

[Russ Dickey]

Originally Posted by lineslinger

Russ I think you are right in the sense that Shelby should disassociate themselves from such a troubled scenario, except for one thing.

What about the customers that shelled out 100-200K for an automobile based on Shelby's "alliance" and the Shelby name associated with this company.
Is it OK to suddenly ignore those who had confidence that the Shelby name offered the appearance of a valid product an company?
What of the Shelby name that attracted some of these customers to do business?

I read that Chip Foose isn't bailing out but wants to offer those that have paid out some serious money some form of satisfaction.
Remember there was something in this agreement for Shelby as well, (money? ya' think?) and when things start getting stinky they appear to be scurrying for a bail out.
I have been unable to find any information or statements from Shelby pertaining to helping those people who are getting screwed.

If a company is like Shelby is accepting residuals or fees for an affiliation with Unique, and things don't work out as planned, they too should bear some of the brunt of responsibility as well.

So, yeah, in my way of thinking, that type of "distancing" is leaving someone else holding the "bag"

Ford, Chevrolet, Toyota, Van Halen, Jack Daniels, Dale Earnhardt Jr, Howard Stern...what do they all have in common? They all do licensing agreements with other parties who produce products with their name or likeness on it. Are they liable for a crappy product that the other party turns out? Nope. However, their respective licensing depts have the right to cut ties when a licensee is having excessive complaints or is turning out a product that the licensor deem "unacceptable". I guess I don't understand how this situation is any different.

I think maybe there are some hasty conclusions being drawn here. Just because we haven't read that the folks at Shelby aren't making an effort to rectify these situations doesn't mean they aren't. Relatively speaking, Shelby is a small company. Do you guys just expect them to start handing out $100K+ refunds to the people who Unique Performance has duped?

[lineslinger]

Russ, obviously any decent licensing attorney is not going to construct an agreement with a gaping hole such as leaving the licensor liable monetarily, I get that part. You make some good points as well, and maybe certain points of judgment are too harsh, a reputation has a long memory, but consider this....

While class action law suits are being formed and submitted, while an entire website is set up dedicated to the existing and continuing problems, while page upon page of customer complaints are being logged, while photos of low end components and work are being posted, all of this over at least a two year period, no action was taken regarding the licensing of the Shelby name. It remained intact.

Surley there was an awareness of these problems, yet a conscious "look the other way" continued and so did the collecting of licensing fees, all the while a lot of people are getting screwed in the process.

I have licensed one my company's names and affiliated patents before and when I got wind of the poor quality product being marketed I canceled the agreement. I sacrificed a healthy amount of licensing fee's, but I didn't want my reputation or company's name associated with the product being introduced.

Maybe I am addressing a point of business philosophy here as much as anything else, this is not a new scenario, similar issues about the same company have been hammered around in here before.
With that I am gonna let this one go, I got my opinion out there which is all I really wanted to do.

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by Allan A

Jamo,

A little rough on Brent, he has always been fair.

Allan

LMFAO