Shelby and SAAC at Odds

Bill, it's a free country but I haven't been protesting at all -- I've been trying to explain an alternative viewpoint. I've been trying to put Dave's FUD in perspective. Ask Dave why he got thrown off another forum. Maybe he can find a way to spin that too. (see, that's not protesting, not innuendo, not insinuation, not a personal attack ...it's simply a fact).

I hope you don't feel everyone (or even anyone!) should feel compelled to agree with SAAC (or Shelby, for that matter) to be welcomed here -- especially here, on the Shelby forum, where they've been astoundingly tolerant of all viewpoints, imo. From my viewpoint it would seem it's SAAC who has been doing the protesting. Protesting Shelby's alleged motives, protesting his alleged shark-like tactics, protesting his alleged grand plans and dark motives to bilk Shelby owners in the future for every cent he can.

And their proof that all that is Mr. Shelby's true and evil plan is because (...are you ready for this -- I didn't make this up, Bill) ...it's because THEY know Mr. Shelby better than he knows himself! (yeah, they really said that -- isn't that special? <lol>). FUD may play well with some but when I see it I'll feel compelled to call it as such -- that is if it's ok with the SAAC 'henchmen.'

What? Old guys who love cars can't have opinions? If that were the case would that not eliminate most of the SAAC leaders too?

Actually, it would appear that the Shelby folks just won't stoop to SAAC's level and foment ill will back in retaliation on these forums as SAAC sure seems to be doing on theirs. And for that I commend this site's management and moderators.

Bill, to repeat, hopefully for the last time, I have NO vested interest in or connection to anything Shelby ...none of any kind ...nada ...zilch ...zero. I don't know how else to say that. If that ever changes I'll be sure to take an ad out in the NYTimes so SAAC will be forewarned (yes, that was sarchasm)

On this thread, I've been accused of despising SAAC ( I don't) because I have some vested interest, a hidden motive, suspiciously parachuting into a discussion <lol>, of providing false information in my registration (I used the USPS regional zipcode because we live in a very small town and, yes, it's no one's business wht my age is), of having tried to use SAAC to fraudulently pass fake Shelbys (and, yes, Dave, you owe me an appology on that, but that's ok) yet I haven't hit the report button once (so far, anyway <lol>).

Look, I understand that this is an emotional subject for SAAC folks (top tier/officers and some members I'm sure). But you don't survive and thrive in the real world with real executives if you can't take a punch, keep your wits about you and stay focussed on what you believe is right. And I can respect SAAC for their relentless focus, IF they can look deep inside, at a personl level, away from the 'greasepaint' of the forums, and genuinely believe they are uniquely the harmed party -- whether I agree with any, all or none of their positions. Ditto for Team Shebly.

So mrmustang/Bill, to answer your question (which I've answered previously on this thread): no I've never owned a Shelby (string me up now! ). I've owned some cool Fords including a '68 S-code. I've driven several Shelbys and alot of Fords over the years and hold Shelby products in high regard -- what's not to like, right? I've even lapped Watkins Glen a couple of times when no one was looking ;-) ...but, sadly, I've never owned a Shelby.

Dan

 

Those that believe Shelby is simply 'protecting' his interest by pulling the license AND taking over SAAC's name are so far removed from reality there is no point in discussing it further.

I've tried, here it is one more time:

This aint got SQUAT to do with licensing right or protecting Shelby interests. What part of "I'm tired of them" don't you get? Shelby wants to destroy SAAC, end of story, it aint about licensing, insurance, protection or anything like that. The man is pissed off because he cannot CONTROL the registry HIS WAY. Now thats the end of it, the rest is snake oil.

SAAC has done it for 30 some years, they DO know what their doing. No, they don't need Shelby calling all the shots, doing it the "Shelby Way". It doesn't belong to Shelby, he can't buy it, he can't control it. Fine, let him do it his own way, the Shelby way. But destroy SAAC in the process? VERY COLD.

 

You're cleared, dude.
I've done my due diligence and I now see where you're coming from.

Now, with that out of the way...here's a different take.

Placing all the legal and licensing issues aside, ask yourself why the plaintiff would have any lost revenue concerns with SAAC, after having secured a major longterm licensing deal with Ford, and having just sold 8000+ cars thru dealers and how-many-cars to Hertz?... after 2 years of shipping 2 Cobra clones a month?

Playing logo-hardball with an organization that, for thirty years, asked "How high?" when you said "Jump"?

The concern over lost revenue-sharing over some BS posters and a break-even convention? ...from what was formerly family?

Gimme a break. You've only scratched the surface.

Where are the missing pieces of the puzzle?
Some have surmised what they are...and those missing pieces are the roadblocks preventing a quick settlement.

Bitterness abounds, and there is no wonder why.

It will be an interesting Spring.

 

How do you know that? If he wanted to destroy SAAC he could have done that long ago. What changed? All they've done is applied for the SAAC trademark (probably as a blocking measure for SAAC's use of his property without license). Maybe he's tired of the relentless abuse from an organization that seems to feel they can subsume his property rights as their own with impunity. Isn't that where this is right now?

Or do really believe an 85 year old icon enjoying a well-deserved resurgent patnership with Ford is bent on killing SAAC beyond his good business sense to finally right what he believes is a long-standing wrong? Maybe that's why "he's tired of them!" Wouldn't you be?

I'm already tired of them and they haven't violated anything of mine

 

There is absolutly no question about it, there is not the slightest shadow of a doubt. You don't file to take over your friends business after 30 plus years because your 'ticked off'. You do something like that because your mad as hell and aint gonna take it no more.

But "be true to thine ownself". Sorry, but you are deluded if you believe this started with legal issues. Thats merely a convenient method to prosecute the fight, hide the facts and carry on the battle while maintaining an appearance of being a 'victim'.

Frankly, the more I think about it, I am actually starting to get sick realizing the depth of this insult to SAAC.

 

What changed?
1. Forming his own controlled "Team Shelby" club to compete.
2. A loss of revenue for his Childrens Foundation. I believe SAAC members contributed heavily to this cause, till the truth came out about that.
3. SAAC not adding Shelby's recent signature or license products into the new registry's.
I'm sure others with more knowledge can add to this.
Dan, have you had any previous dealings of any kind with SAAC or the operating directors?

 

Man, you guys think you're above it all, don't you? I'm cleared by you, am I? Well, thanks. I'm so glad you've done your due dilligence and vetted my personal integrity and concluded I've been telling you the truth all along (yes, sarchasm <lol>). Interesting point there... whether you ever came to realize that or not, I was still telling the truth, wasn't I? The truth has nothing to do with opinion. I'm pleased you now realize that <lol>


Re your question in blue above: Ford's reltionship with Shelby has no bearing whatsoever on any potential Shelby revenue-impact based on any alleged SAAC infringement of Shelby property. In effect you're saying Shelby should ignore any SAAC violations of his property (if any) because he has a prosperous relationship with Ford? The connection being? Did you ever study logic in school? Imo, you're postulating a red-herring argument if I've ever heard one! Suggestion: don't use that one in a courtroom <lol>

There will always be shades of grey in the situations themselves, but never in the principles ...where right is right and wrong is wrong. Making certain there's enough accurate data to unambiguously validate thruth is always the real challenge. Nothing we say here will change that -- regardless of the outcome and regardless of the truth/validity of the outcome.

Look, you can drive the wrong way down a street or go 20 over the limit for 20 years, but when you get the ticket there's no usefull defense in admitting you've been doing it for 20 years and never got a ticket. Why? Doesn't matter, does it? ...except to the defendant. Do you want the plaintiff to worry about the feelings of the defendant when the defendant apparently hasn't considered the impact of their actions on the plaintiff (for a ticket the community)? Same with this.

Imo, a court will only worry about the impact of the defendant's actions -- potential lost revenue to the plaintiff for an infringement suit -- only after the court finds that infringement actually occurred. Because if there was no infringement the quantification means nothing. And even if there is infringement, money isn't the only form of payment it's just the only way to quantify the injustice. Anything acceptable to the plaintiff and the defendant can constitute a valid settlement to my understanding. Hey, we don't even know (at least I don't) what Shelby really wants (yeah, yeah, I heard what you said) -- all they've done is apply for the SAAC mark. Sort of tells me it's a blocking tactic for leverage to prevent further infringement (if it's occurred/occurring) but I have no idea specifically why now, I assure you, except for my hunches (which I'm sure you're tired of hearing so I won't repeat them).

Look, I'm not trying to be cold, just real. Did anyone think they can drive the wrong way down that block or speed continually ...with impunity? ...forever? ...and never get taken to task? I speed too sometimes, but I never feel I'm not going to ever get caught.

I sincerely hope this works out for both parties. Seems everyone's locked-in right now but some settlement is always possible and will likely occur once the party with the short straw sees the writing on the wall ...but the best arrangements are likely to be had well prior to that.

 

1) ok, I agree, but he can do that, right?
2) possibly, but if you look at their published financials, the Childrens's fund money has been flowing much more in total since Shelby's renewed realtionship with Ford, so I doubt that one is a biggie.
3) Good point. That might upset him (dunno) but team shelby could do theirown registry for that, so dunno how important that is.

I think everyone's underestimating the importance of the trademark stuff but thats just my opinion and I cartainly have no inside insight.

No, never have had any dealings with SAAC -- don't think I've ever met any SAAC officer/principle ...certainly not that I know of. No bad blood or grudge here, tho I was a bit concerned how they handled the new Shelbys, but I don't even have one (or any other Shelby, unfortunately).

Dan

 

What SAAC puts into the registry is about the cars that are significant Shelby products that either have a history or could have a history of significance in due time, in THEIR opinion. Certainly there are many institutions, individuals, manufacturers, kit car builders, one of a kind type cars that would love to be associated with the registry. There is no doubt these people would pay good money just to be IN the registry as it does impact the value of the item in question.

Kirkham is in the registry because in the future it would be very easy to duplicate a Kirkham and 'pass it off' as a genuine Shelby Cobra. Therefore, it is critical that the Kirkham cars be accounted for, to avoid potential fraud in the future. While it does add 'value' to the Kirkham, it was never about that and never WILL BE about that with a SAAC registry.

Shelby can add whatever HE feels he wants in HIS registry. And perhaps he is willing to get paid to place a product within his registry, thats his call if he so chooses. Someone else's Chilli as well as his own. Superformance replicas if he wants to (for a 'price', you can count on it). Shelby may want to add "Eleanor Mustangs" to his registry, or Dodges or whatever he decides. SAAC may not choose to add Eleanor's, Dodges, Chilli or 'toys', thats their call. Eleanor, in my opinion is not a significant Shelby product and is not warranted in the SAAC registry, but thats not my call. SAAC will control what is and what isn't in their registry.

If Shelby wants SAAC to add something and they feel it is not justified, theres going to be a problem. Maybe it's a HUGE problem all ready! Shelby can list whatever he wants for a price, or not, to HIS registry. Shelby could register certain limited edition "Shelbized" watches, motorcycles, toys or whatever he wants, for a price, or not. Man, the Shelby registry is gonna be huge, perhaps not now, but soon, you can bet on it! The 'corporation', now and in the future, will make sure to use it to it's full money making potential. BET ON IT.

SAAC is about the cars, this may be the most significant problem between the two parties. What goes in the registry and what doesn't. Who gets paid for the placement of the item and who doesn't. Along with a myriad of other details, as I've all ready mentioned. Where is the next meet and when? Who will pay for what? Is their a dress code? Who will be the VIP's? Are the decisions made by SAAC, Shelby or some agreement between the two? Certainly there is no agreement between the two possible now, and it's not likely in the future. I suspect this is fundamentally what brought about the current legal issues in the first place. Power and control, with potential big money at stake, people in the background urging 'change' (lawyers come to mind) to benefit themselves under the guise of helping Shelby claim his 'legal rights'. It's a brilliant plan, all they have to do is 'kill bill' to pull it off.

 

Not really, just a bit more experienced and knowledgeable in all the aspects of what we are talking about.

Don't sell short how important that is.
Actually I haven't verified your integrity, nor concluded anything... I just needed to know where you were coming from. You seem like a straight-up guy.

My point in the post above was just to render that, before you enter the black-white, 2-dimensions of the courtroom, you can't discount the 3-dimensioned reality of the 30-year relationship.

Once you enter the courts, I agree with what you say.. that the lines are drawn, thick and clear.

All the rest you say.. well...we can agree to disagree.

 

Does anyone know what court will hear the case?

 

Is there a filed case?

Who brought it (sepcific entity)? Is it an infringement suit?

Anyone know?

<edit:> btw, infringement cases can have monitary awards, but that's uncommon, imo. Typically the intent/result is mark protection/injunction from what I've read.

Dan

 

Nothing is filed that I am aware of...

...in fact, I don't believe we have even passed the expiry date on the license agreement.

 

I've been responsing to SAAC questions (and, admittedly, their BS too) but I have not seen my earlier questions answered, so I'll re ask a couple and add a few more...

Is 'SAAC' incorporated? What is the actual incorporation name? When? What state? Filing address? For-profit or not for-profit? (this is all public info)

What are the names of the registered officers of record? (also public information)

Are any officers or other employees paid for their activities? (highly likely, but I don't honestly know)

Does the corporation own any "live" R-TMs? What are they? (all public info also)

I would have thought some of this would be on the SAAC website (either explicitly or by acknowledgement, etc), but could not find it.

Are any of the posters on this thread officers, principles, employees, subontractors or affiliates of the company known as SAAC?

These should be easy questions for some here... Any insight, guys?

Dan

 

Why don't you ask them directly?

 

Now how would this sound, just to keep a level playing field.

"I've been responding to Shelby questions (and, admittedly, their BS too)..."

Just a recent SAAC member (joined specifically to show my support).

 

I thought you were affiliated with SAAC in some manner.

 

I haven't seen Shelby or his people post on this subject, but I get your point. Touche, Excaliber.

 

this reminds me of Bogart looking for the missing key to the Ice Cream ..can't remember the name of the movie.

I can see Kopec under cross examination: " Mr. Kopec, where were you and what were you doing on the date you realized you were past due $1.00 ...

 

..just a dues-paying member. Oh...and a Registrar-in-training.

Seriously, those are serious questions being asked by a serious bystander.
...none of which, I would guess (but, I'm not sure) would be answered on a public forum.

Just roll up all the questions in an e-mail and send it to:

saac@saac.com

Much of the conversation on this topic is really only running on the non-Shelby sites. (CC, SF, etc.)
Anything relating to this topic is stomped on and closed up of the TS site.
...like your thread was closed a while ago on TS....because "it's not what we want to talk about here."