He's doing some pretty questionable things concerning the SAAC. I think his middle name should be greed. He's living on borrowed time and he knows it, it's affecting his judgment.

 

I don't have any bad words to say about him. Without him, our beloved Mustangs wouldn't have near the mystique they do today - PERIOD!

The Shelby brand, regardless of all other BS, is a marque that people in the Ford world should be proud of.

I feel like we should give Team Shelby a chance. Team Shelby certainly can't be any worse than SAAC.

The above is simply my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

-bob

 

I agree with Bob that it not been for Carrol Shelby the Mustang would not be what it is today. But the mans greed has just taken over.

 

You can't swing a dead cat without hitting someone that Shelby has sued in the last 15 years. Of course that is somewhat of an exaggeration, but the truth is the man has been spending a large portion of his golden years in the lawsuit business. He has been involved in some dubious activities.

Was he a major contributor to the original Muscle Car era? Absolutely! He built some of the fastest, most desirable cars in the Muscle Car era. Does that give him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases today? No.

I’ve been a member of SAAC for some time now, but Mr. Shelby has been a member for much longer – from the inception of the club until just recently. The sticking point that caused the fallout is control of SAAC’s enormous publication, the “Registry”. Anything else is just smoke screen. So he has chosen to turn on not just the leaders of SAAC, but the entire body. Those that fixed the dents, polished the fenders, and kept the flame alive for all those years when frankly, most of the public couldn’t have cared less – including Mr. Shelby! (left to live in South Africa for 10 years following the closing of his company, approx 1970)

My car club is being sued. How crazy is that?

Did Zora Arkus Duntov sue the Corvette Club of America? No.

Did Enzo sue the Ferrari International Club? Of course not, it’s absurd.

I think the real question is, what would posses a man in the twilight of his life, after so many incredible achievements, to sue a 2 bit club dedicated to preserving his legacy? It will tarnish his reputation over peanuts.

It’s all just a disappointing shame.

 

His world is like a condom and he's very well hung LOL

 

Before passing judgment, I would like to hear what the "Shelby" Administration's side of this is. I just hope, it's not a case of the dog, biting the hand that feeds it!

J.R.

 

My car club is being sued. How crazy is that?

Did Zora Arkus Duntov sue the Corvette Club of America? No.

Did Enzo sue the Ferrari International Club? Of course not, it’s absurd.

Not crazy at all. You didn't list any of Shelby's reasons. You mention Duntov and Ferrari. Do you think they wouldn't have sued those clubs if they didn't feel they were justified in doing so?

Won't affect me either way, but I do think a lot of people accuse Shelby of "greed" without stopping to think it is his reputation, legacy, and yes money he is intested in. but just because someone wants to get $ they feel they are entitled to does not make them greedy. And besides, lots of the $ from his "greed' will go to help sick kids.

 

Our hobby wouldn't be what it is without him.

How do you figure? He's done nothing for the hobby in 20 years, then realizes there might be a dime out there that he hasn't ripped from someone's fingers and pounces.

Shelby was a good racer, and did good things back in the '60's, but that was a long time ago. Since then, he's been nothing but a greedy, money grabbing, hypocrite.

Just one of many examples is when he sued Factory 5 and others for producing the Shelby kit cars. Then turns right around and rips off the idea of the Eleanor cars and starts producing them.

 

My car club is being sued. How crazy is that?

Did Zora Arkus Duntov sue the Corvette Club of America? No.

Did Enzo sue the Ferrari International Club? Of course not, it’s absurd.

Not crazy at all. You didn't list any of Shelby's reasons. You mention Duntov and Ferrari. Do you think they wouldn't have sued those clubs if they didn't feel they were justified in doing so?

Won't affect me either way, but I do think a lot of people accuse Shelby of "greed" without stopping to think it is his reputation, legacy, and yes money he is intested in. but just because someone wants to get $ they feel they are entitled to does not make them greedy. And besides, lots of the $ from his "greed' will go to help sick kids.

youngstown,

I did list a reason - the biggest one: control of the Registry, but you ran passed it. Your first exposure to the whole mess has obviously been in just the last month when all the press started being generated. That’s why it looks to you to be a bolt out of the blue by some grumpy car owners that should be “worshiping” this icon. 15 years ago Shelby claimed to have about "100 or so 60s Cobra chassis laying around" that he was going to continue to build starting right where he left off in 1967. It was later exposed as a sham (there were no original chassis left). This is why he needs the registry, as it has long been accepted in the car hobby as THE definitive book on tracking and proving vehicles as legitimate. What do you think 100 427 Cobras would bring on the market today? If he wrestles control of the registry, there are all kinds of ways to profit by controlling the numbers. Just as it isn't legitimate to buy a Dynacorn '67 and continue with the next VIN number where Ford left off, it was illegal for Shelby to do the same. If you want to get people passionately involved with a post, start talking about re-bodying an old K code, much less a $500K car…

As for the kids getting the money, do a thorough search. You'll find in all the years of operation, Mr. Shelby's children’s heart fund had given out somewhere in the neighborhood of 40K dollars until it was exposed last year. It has taken in millions and millions. As a "tax free" it has to publish financial records, and somebody got curious and looked it up. Only AFTER being exposed did he come public with a plan for the money.

There isn't space on this forum to go through all the others.

And no, I still don’t think Duntov or Enzo would have sued those clubs over the reasons Shelby is bringing suit. Why soil your legacy over a 2-bit club? Really. But history is replete with politicians, sports figures, and leaders of industries that excelled in their field of pursuit, but were found seriously wanting in other areas.


Just because he was one of the greatest sports cars builders of all time doesn’t give him a free pass on everything. Sorry if this tarnishes your image of the icon. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

:deadhorse:

 

:deadhorse:

...now that is funny

 

His legacy of screwing people stretches a LOT farther back than the most recent SAAC thing. It's just the way he is wired. If you really want to know what kind of person (don't want to call him a man) he is, look into the history of what he did when he was allowed to run his first factory sponsored race car. He stole it, hid it and refused to give it back! Look what he did to Mrs. Bilicki, the widow of the founder of the "Gone in Sixty Seconds" movie franchise. Having NOTHING to do with the movie, Carrol Shelby Trademarked the name "Eleanor" by stealing it from her and a lawsuit developed. But yet, Shelby himself gets pissed off if I buy some GT-500 Emblems for my clone that HE licenses and permits to be sold for the royalty fees.

The guy picked the right mascot for his cars and his business, the snake.

 

Our hobby wouldn't be what it is without him.

How do you figure? He's done nothing for the hobby in 20 years

He didn't have to. What he did for the hobby was done back in the 60's. I wouldn't have become a Mustang fan had it not been for the Shelby's and the lust I had for the 66 G.T.350 that I'm now lucky enough to own. It's no coincidence that my first car was a 65 fastback, the basic body style of the Shelby's I had dreamed about.

-bob


-bob

 

ahhh... thank ya..... thank ya very much...

 

GrabberOrange69 states it all very well.

1. Sues the club that kept the flame burning.
2. Sues the widow of the car that some movie exec could have easily used some other brand to remake the movie.
3. Licenses the fakes. So, for enough money you can say your 40 some year old fastback is real....when ALL know that it is not.
4. Wants to steal the registry from an independant band of folks who wish to keep it pure.

Now, do you know ANYONE in their eighties that isn't losing it?? Very, very, very few. And I don't think the man is in this group. Yet, as usual, lawyers smell the money, and come running.

 

My car club is being sued. How crazy is that?

Did Zora Arkus Duntov sue the Corvette Club of America? No.

Did Enzo sue the Ferrari International Club? Of course not, it’s absurd.

Not crazy at all. You didn't list any of Shelby's reasons. You mention Duntov and Ferrari. Do you think they wouldn't have sued those clubs if they didn't feel they were justified in doing so?

Won't affect me either way, but I do think a lot of people accuse Shelby of "greed" without stopping to think it is his reputation, legacy, and yes money he is intested in. but just because someone wants to get $ they feel they are entitled to does not make them greedy. And besides, lots of the $ from his "greed' will go to help sick kids.

youngstown,

I did list a reason - the biggest one: control of the Registry, but you ran passed it. Your first exposure to the whole mess has obviously been in just the last month when all the press started being generated. That’s why it looks to you to be a bolt out of the blue by some grumpy car owners that should be “worshiping” this icon. 15 years ago Shelby claimed to have about "100 or so 60s Cobra chassis laying around" that he was going to continue to build starting right where he left off in 1967. It was later exposed as a sham (there were no original chassis left). This is why he needs the registry, as it has long been accepted in the car hobby as THE definitive book on tracking and proving vehicles as legitimate. What do you think 100 427 Cobras would bring on the market today? If he wrestles control of the registry, there are all kinds of ways to profit by controlling the numbers. Just as it isn't legitimate to buy a Dynacorn '67 and continue with the next VIN number where Ford left off, it was illegal for Shelby to do the same. If you want to get people passionately involved with a post, start talking about re-bodying an old K code, much less a $500K car…

As for the kids getting the money, do a thorough search. You'll find in all the years of operation, Mr. Shelby's children’s heart fund had given out somewhere in the neighborhood of 40K dollars until it was exposed last year. It has taken in millions and millions. As a "tax free" it has to publish financial records, and somebody got curious and looked it up. Only AFTER being exposed did he come public with a plan for the money.

There isn't space on this forum to go through all the others.

And no, I still don’t think Duntov or Enzo would have sued those clubs over the reasons Shelby is bringing suit. Why soil your legacy over a 2-bit club? Really. But history is replete with politicians, sports figures, and leaders of industries that excelled in their field of pursuit, but were found seriously wanting in other areas.


Just because he was one of the greatest sports cars builders of all time doesn’t give him a free pass on everything. Sorry if this tarnishes your image of the icon. We'll have to agree to disagree.

It is a FOUNDATION to help sick people. As such Foundations generally do NOT give away all of their $$$. The purpose of the Foundation is to have a long term function long after Shelby is gone. To do that, the millions and millions you speak of has to be saved and accumulated. it would be idotic for a Foundation to give away the millions up front.

Shelby did not have to establish a non-profit Foundation to sell his autograph. There are plenty of people who pay the $ to him for profit. I think it is tacky for someone to attack him over a charitable organization.

 

It is a FOUNDATION to help sick people. As such Foundations generally do NOT give away all of their $$$. The purpose of the Foundation is to have a long term function long after Shelby is gone. To do that, the millions and millions you speak of has to be saved and accumulated. it would be idotic for a Foundation to give away the millions up front.

Shelby did not have to establish a non-profit Foundation to sell his autograph. There are plenty of people who pay the $ to him for profit. I think it is tacky for someone to attack him over a charitable organization.

Everything else aside. This is a stupid statement. Any other charitable group or foundation is raked over the coals if money collected is not going out at a reasonable pace. Red Cross ring a bell?

 

Also, keep in mind that the original "E" car Eleanor was a gold 71 Mach1. Here is just a taste of Shelby's arogance personafied.

SAN FRANCISCO May 16, 2007; Denice Halicki, owner of copyright and trademark rights to the classic 1974 movie, the original “Gone in 60 Seconds” and its star car character, “Eleanor,” is setting the record straight about Carroll Shelby's alleged brazen infringement of Halicki's rights to “Eleanor.” In the opening brief to the Ninth Circuit, Halicki’s appellate experts, Tim Coates and Jens Koepke of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, show that her rights extend to “Eleanor’s” reprise performance in Disney’s 2000 remake of “Gone in 60 Seconds.”


Halicki spells out in her appeal that after watching the 2000 remake movie and recognizing the extraordinary cachet and appeal of “Eleanor,” Shelby teamed up with Unique Performance to manufacture and sell high-priced knock-off cars that look like one version of “Eleanor,” openly trading on the popularity of “Gone in 60 Seconds.” Despite the fact that Halicki and (her late husband) H.B. “Toby” Halicki have been using those marks worldwide for 33 years, (www.gonein60seconds.com) and thus own the common-law “Eleanor” mark, Shelby went as far as to register a trademark on the character’s name “Eleanor” without contacting Disney or Halicki.


“Using his fame as a legendary car designer, Shelby has convinced consumers and the automotive press that he has the right to produce a new ‘Eleanor’ for the masses,” Halicki points out in her brief prepared by Koepke, an experienced appellate advocate and intellectual property expert. “His bootstrapping scheme with Unique has racked up millions of dollars in profits and confused consumers as to who created 'Eleanor,’” asserts Koepke in the brief.


Shelby and Unique’s chief defense was not that they didn’t infringe, but that Halicki had no standing to bring suit against them. Instead, they argued, it was Disney that owned the “Eleanor” merchandising rights from the 2000 remake “Gone in 60 Seconds.” The District Court adopted this crabbed reading of the agreement between Halicki and Disney despite the fact that Disney signed a separate acknowledgment that it was Halicki who retained the merchandising rights to the remake “Eleanor,” not Disney.


“When faced with both parties to the agreement unequivocally saying that Halicki, not Disney, owns the merchandising rights to 'Eleanor' from the original and the remake, it was error under California law for the District Court to construe the agreement otherwise, much less grant summary judgment to defendants,” Koepke explained to the federal appellate court.


Halicki’s brief describes how Shelby had nothing to do with the creation of either the original or the remake “Eleanor,” yet the defendants printed the character’s name on the VIN tag and added the letter “E” to the name of their knock-off car, calling it the “Shelby G.T. 500E.” Moreover, the brief details how defendants promote the replicas as “Eleanor” of the “recent action-packed blockbuster movie ‘Gone in 60 Seconds,'" promising the car would come with a certificate of authenticity from the “originator of the ‘Eleanor’ movie car (Shelby).”


“We believe that the issues in this case are very clear and Halicki will be granted an opportunity to bring her claims of defendants’ pirating her intellectual property rights to a jury,” concluded Koepke.

source by theautochannel.com http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2007/05/15/047861.html

 

It is a FOUNDATION to help sick people. As such Foundations generally do NOT give away all of their $$$. The purpose of the Foundation is to have a long term function long after Shelby is gone. To do that, the millions and millions you speak of has to be saved and accumulated. it would be idotic for a Foundation to give away the millions up front.

Shelby did not have to establish a non-profit Foundation to sell his autograph. There are plenty of people who pay the $ to him for profit. I think it is tacky for someone to attack him over a charitable organization.

Everything else aside. This is a stupid statement. Any other charitable group or foundation is raked over the coals if money collected is not going out at a reasonable pace. Red Cross ring a bell?

That's right. I'M the stupid one because YOU don't understand that foundations don't magically start off with millions of dollars in the bank.

 

Yup...

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

 

most of all the post ive read about him are nothing more than him trying to protect his brand image. everyone here would do exactly the same thing if someone made decals with your name and sold them for profit, or had a registry named after you and the people running it were buying rear cars from
underneath customers.

 

"Everyone" is a pretty sweeping statement. Evolution is an interesting thing; it happens one person at a time. One day some will look back at this era, incredulous at the incessant preoccupation with ego, much as we find it hard to fathom the barbarism of our ancestors.

Or not LOL

 

Well, it is entertaining to be sure. I don't much care for politics or many of the so-called prominent lawyers so I just watch when I don't have anything else to do. However, I don't like being told what to do unless I am ethically wrong or ask for advice. So, on balance, my opinion is that he has done some good things (his foundation) and some not so good things (all of the trademark stuff) but I don't think we have the full stories of any of it. What it feels like to me is that he let a lot of people and organizations use certain names, unchecked, for years and has changed his mind. So, I think lawyers will make a lot of money on this mess and it will take a fair amount of time to do whatever is to be done. Me? I drive a Mustang. That's it.

 

most of all the post ive read about him are nothing more than him trying to protect his brand image. everyone here would do exactly the same thing if someone made decals with your name and sold them for profit, or had a registry named after you and the people running it were buying rear cars from
underneath customers.

Really?? Please tell me how stealing "Eleanor" from Bilicki's widow and then claiming HE had anything to do with the movie or the car is "protecting his brand image"? How is stealing a race car from Ford "protecting his brand image."

Also, HE licensed all of those decals and emblems that people bought to put on their cars. He got PAID for each and every one. But then in his blind greed, he wanted to tell people what they could or could not do with the emblems THEY bought.

 

most of all the post ive read about him are nothing more than him trying to protect his brand image. everyone here would do exactly the same thing if someone made decals with your name and sold them for profit, or had a registry named after you and the people running it were buying rear cars from
underneath customers.

Mr. Shelby seemed just fine with the image SAAC was giving him for 30+ years.

The reason there were so many other people making images/decals/etc was the original munufacturer went out of business (Shelby American) and there was no "oem" to buy from. Think American Motors, Hudson, Packard, etc. He then chose not to reproduce said items on his own or under a new name. Until now, 40+ years later. Just because he has a right to litigate, doesen't mean he's right.

By the way, he is trying to take stuff that doesn't belong to him - documentation I and many other's have collected over the years proving the lineage of the cars after they left the dealer showroom. That work never was his, nor did he lift a finger for it, nor would he have. It was given for SAACs use, and SAAC only, by SAAC members.

As for "buying rear cars from underneath customers" Shelby's claim to the cars ended when originally sold. Unless, of course, he wants to continue the warantees on those vehicles. He can start with mine. I have a few gripes about the wiring harness in my '69.