top of page

X-Ryder New


27 February, 2020.

Directors present, Tim Sanford, Dave Charnings, Christine Tickner. CEO Dave Cooke and Amy Knop attended.

The meeting opened at 7.45, with Tim Sanford in the chair. He offered apologies for the President, Gavin Hunt, who was in Victoria on MNSW business, and Matt Sexton, who had recently resigned.

Before calling for the minutes of the last meeting, Tim announced that CEO Dave Cooke would make a statement on behalf of the board regarding some serious matters which are presently before the Supreme Court, and were previously not permitted to be published. Readers may recall that a former MNSW director and promotor, Michel Constantinou, was dismissed from the board by a decision of a general meeting in March, 2019, and eventually convicted of infringing the rider numbers rules covering his coaching business. He was fined $6,000.00 which was eventually paid in late January. He was given the opportunity to appeal, but declined. Having paid the fine, the business is back in operation.

Mr Constantinou's company Race Pace Promotions P/L is presently suing MNSW in the Supreme Court, Civil Jurisdiction. He is demanding compensation for lost income, claiming that MNSW bias is unfairly restricting his business by limiting the number of events he can run in NSW to 5 per year, whereas he would like to run many more. It appears that this matter will move to the Equity Division in April and will continue into 2021. It seems to me that this will be a fight to see if MNSW has the right to regulate our sport in the interests of clubs and riders, or if commercial interests should take precedence. Has it come to the stage where a predominately amateur sport must be ruled by commercial law? This is not the first time that limitations on private promotors has been brought up, but it is the first time it has got to court. The outcome of this matter could change our sport forever. These claims are expected to very expensive to defend.

Dave informed the meeting that there has been a ongoing review of NSW track licencing procedures for the last 4 years. The Office of Sport invited all NSW motor sport licencing authorities to attend a meeting, including MNSW, CAMS (cars), ANDRA (drag racing), AKA (karts) and AMA (Australian Motorcyclist Association, a Queensland based group which has recently published complaints on MNSW procedures, and wants to become a licencing body).

AMA claims that MNSW should be removed as a prescribed body to licence motorcycle venues, as the NSW government has allowed a monopoly situation to develop. MNSW's view is that MNSW is the only body accredited at this time. If AMA has suitable track inspection guidelines, and trained and experienced inspectors who are prepared to take the responsibility for the inspections, together with the required insurance cover, they should apply to the Office of Sport for accreditation.

It appears, however, that AMA uses a version of English guidelines, which may not be appropriate in Australia.

It also appears that the public risk insurance cover they hold does not cover any form of motorcycle competition. Dave has explained that if AMA gains track licencing accreditation, and they intend to hold competition events on a circuit which is presently licenced by MNSW, that licence will be revoked. This is to prevent a conflict of track standards, and differing coverage of insurance for the events. The track owners could re-apply for MNSW licencing after the AMA event. Alternatively, the track owners could refuse to hire the circuits, or increase the hiring charges to cover their extra expenses.

AMA further claims that the insurance cover for motorcycle events provided by MAIL (MA's private insurance company) does not comply with the requirements of the licencing legislation, and the Office of Sport should withdraw MNSW's accreditation.

They claim that as MAIL is registered in the Isle of Man, it does not comply with the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority requirements. MNSW's position is that MAIL does not need to comply with the APRA requirements as MAIL does not sell insurance. It only supplies coverage for members and promotors who are affiliated with MA or state bodies.

The Office of Sport has accepted this view, and MAIL has been successfully protecting our sport since its inception in 2002.

As you can see, these matters have not been resolved, so there is much more to come.

After a few questions from some (stunned) members the normal meeting resumed.


The chairman then called for the minutes of the last meeting.

The minutes were accepted. There was no business arising



MNSW LOSS OF $230,000.

In the financial report it was disclosed that MNSW made a loss of $230,000 for the last calendar year. The expected loss was $150,000, but a write off of a bad debt of $80,000 pushed it over the estimates. The debt related to a sponsorship deal between National Motorcycle Alliance (MNSW's motorcycle road service subsidiary) and a motorcycle importer, which failed, but was still retained as a book entry asset. The CEO assured delegates that MNSW is financially strong, with assets of over $4million, plus the expected money from MNSW Properties. MNSW competition licence numbers increased by 2% last year, the only state to show an increase.


M-VIC JOINS MA ALLIANCE. Motorcycling Victoria has finally agreed to join the MA Alliance. The decision was finally made after encouragement from MNSW president Gavin Hunt This is great news, as now, M-Vic can participate in discussions and decisions, instead of being a spectator. Having the LCB with the third most members not represented at MA would certainly have been disappointing to their members, as well as MA. Whether the matters which had previously prevented them joining have been resolved is not known.

M Vic is apparently in a financial crisis, and their licence numbers dropped 3% last year.



MNSW Properties Limited, the company which was set up to manage MNSW's assets is about to be closed.

At a meeting of the MNSW Properties board on 14 January, it was resolved that the company should be wound up and the assets transferred to MNSW.

The unexplained registration of the Goanna Tracks property to MNSW Properties has been resolved by MNSW paying the stamp duty to transfer the title to MNSW. MNSW Properties remaining cash assets, of about $4million is being transferred. There was no mention of when the final meeting will be held. The concerns that there may be taxation problems from the transfer have not appeared.

When asked who signed the original property transfer to MNSW Properties, CEO Dave Cooke said that the records were incomplete.

The General Meeting closed at 9.00pm.




27 February, 2020.

Directors present, Tim Sanford, Dave Charnings, Christine Tickner. CEO Dave Cooke and Amy Knop attended.

The meeting opened at 9.05pm, with Tim Sanford in the chair. The chairman reminded members that only items on the agenda would be discussed at the meeting.

He then announced that Motion 1, which sought to alter clauses 7 and 8 of the constitution, had been withdrawn, to avoid the possibility that it could be seen as being introduced to influence the current court proceedings. That motion was to alter the minimum requirements for affiliation to MNSW for promotors, coaches, social clubs etc.


MOTION 2. This motion makes provision for the MNSW board to continue to operate, even if enough of the directors had resigned or had been removed from office to not have a quorum for meetings. The amendment would allow the remaining directors to form a quorum until the vacant positions are filled. PASSED.


MOTION 3. This motion changes the way an initial application for affiliation to MNSW is handled. The application will now be assessed by the CEO; if it complies with the requirements of the constitution, it will be forwarded to the board for confirmation and approval by the general meeting. If the application does not comply with the requirements, the application will be returned to the applicant with an explanation of the requirements and the board informed of the decision. The board may resolve to present a recommendation on the application to the general meeting for its consideration. PASSED.


MOTION 4. This motion changes the way the board appoints members to, and the duties and limitations of advisory panels and sub-committees, especially those related to disciplinary matters. PASSED.


MOTION 5. This motion removes wording from the constitution which would bind MNSW to decisions made by the MA Alliance which may not be in the best interests of MNSW members, and may conflict with the MNSW Alliance Participant's moral and legal obligations to MNSW members. The amendment also removes the requirement that MNSW must gain approval from MA to change any of it's operational procedures. PASSED.


MOTION 6. This motion relates to the privacy provision of the MNSW Member Register. The changes will limit access to its primary purposes, and is intended to protect the privacy of personal information of the members under the Australian Privacy Principles. PASSED.


MOTION 7. This motion covers the right to call a Special General Meeting of the company. The current constitution allows the chairman to call a Special Meeting, but the Corporations Act 2001 requires that 5% of member clubs and life members may also call a meeting. PASSED.


MOTION 8. This motion refers to the time-frame to review and update MNSW policies. Some policies are out of date and are being ignored. The current constitution refers to 'regular review of policies', but does not specify the period. The recommendation is to add to the wording '..regular review of policies...' (not exceeding five years). PASSED.


Most of these changes are fairly logical, and will tighten up the management of the company.

Motion 5, which covers the relationship of MNSW with MA Alliance, I think, is overdue, as there has long been concern about the oppressive wording of the MA Alliance ALT Protocols. The changes will re-assure members where the MNSW delegates responsibilities lie.

Motion 6 is especially welcome as the personal details held by MNSW databases should be protected from outside access.

Motion 1. I believe this motion should be re-presented when the court proceedings are resolved to more closely define the relationship between MNSW and private promotors. If these changes were in the current constitution, we may not be in court.

When the changes are registered the new constitution will be shown on the MNSW web site.


Meeting closed 9.45PM.

Regards...... Dave E

15 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page