I just wanted clarification that the rule has to do with making a profit for coaching and not about the additional rider on track or the bike the rider was on.
I spent most of my adult life helping create the rules that this club is based on, so as I'm sure you know, I'm the least likely person that would purposely contradict a club rule.
I'm not saying you would. You asked for clarification for "the rest of the members", so I was simply pointing out the clarification for them on the 'what if' scenario you asked for clarification on.
Also, the rule was definitely not made to hinder people trying to make a profit. It had nothing to do with why the rule was suggested, and the motion then put forward. A member at the AGM simply stated they would not be comfortable with somebody on the track during qualifying, that had zero intention to qualify. There were multiple reasons brought forward for multiple people not being comfortable with it, and not 1 single reason was to prevent monetary gains/profit. It was important enough that somebody put forward the motion, and then it important enough that the majority voted 'for' that motion.
Being that you 'have' spent a good part of your adult life on the executive, I imagine you recognize this was a decision by the club and its members. This is not just a rule thought up and then decided on by the 11 (I think it is?) EMRA executive. This was actually the largest attendance of an AGM that I've seen since I've been with the club (2012), and it was brought up, voted on, and passed. Just like all democratic processes the club runs by.