USPA's "Championship" Demo Team?

[mjosparky 3]

Who is the US Team? Will they change every year? As I understand it the funds to make this loan are coming from the U.S. Parachute Team Trust Fund.

---

“USPA established the U.S. Parachute Team Trust Fund in 1986 for the benefit of amateur parachuting team competition. The tax-exempt fund holds all donations in irrevocable trust and the interest it earns is distributed evenly to U.S. Teams for international competition.”

---

The only part of this fund that can be used is the interest and that already goes to the US Team. Am I missing something here or is the BOD taking funds out principal? Can someone from USPA clarify this?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Who is the US Team? Will they change every year? As I understand it the funds to make this loan are coming from the U.S. Parachute Team Trust Fund.

---

“USPA established the U.S. Parachute Team Trust Fund in 1986 for the benefit of amateur parachuting team competition. The tax-exempt fund holds all donations in irrevocable trust and the interest it earns is distributed evenly to U.S. Teams for international competition.”

---

The only part of this fund that can be used is the interest and that already goes to the US Team. Am I missing something here or is the BOD taking funds out principal? Can someone from USPA clarify this?

Sparky

This line: One issue some members are concerned about is the $10,000 loan USPA authorized to jumpstart this program.

Leads me to believe that the loan was coming from the USPA's general membership fund and not the US Team donations fund...

I think it would be a heck of a gamble to extract funds from the US Team fund in order to finance the demo team 'hoping' the loan would be repaid with interest...considering the risk of default and the so far apparent lack of research & hard numbers regarding the viability of the program.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

This line: One issue some members are concerned about is the $10,000 loan USPA authorized to jumpstart this program.

Leads me to believe that the loan was coming from the USPA's general membership fund and not the US Team donations fund...am I wrong?

I think it would be a heck of a gamble to extract funds from the US Team fund in order to finance the demo team 'hoping' the loan would be repaid with interest...considering the risk of default and the so far apparent lack of research & hard numbers regarding the viability of the program.

I went back and re-read the Editorial again and you are right. The loan is to be USPA and the Team Fund.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[normiss 622]

Will my demo team also get $2 per membership for a fund?
What makes their team different?
I just don't see how it's right for me to contribute to a business that is in direct competition with something many of us have worked hard to attain and earn barely enough to cover beer....

Almost seems illegal when they give them an unsecured loan like that too.

I still don't like it. At all.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Will my demo team also get $2 per membership for a fund?
What makes their team different?
I just don't see how it's right for me to contribute to a business that is in direct competition with something many of us have worked hard to attain and earn barely enough to cover beer....

Almost seems illegal when they give them an unsecured loan like that too.

I still don't like it. At all.

I think he was referring to membership funding for the comp team.

100 years ago the Army team dominated the events in the US for the most part and many of the world meet competitors from the US did so on Uncle Sam's dime. It's part of the USPA charter to assist with sending representatives from the US to world meets, IIRC.

Back then there were fewer events, and less people to send...

Maybe we're coming up on a time the USPA needs to re-think it's commitment to the competition team and concentrate more effort and resources to the needs of the general membership.

I appreciate what the comp teams do and the things they are facing, but they receive an inordinate amount of support from the organization considering the percentage of members of the organization that compete compared to the number of skydivers that make up the membership.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[grimmie 173]

The $2 would be to sponsor the representatives to the World Meets in all disciplines.

I'm not advocating nor discouraging it. I just think it would be far more effective idea than "hoping" for corporate sponsorship. Thus, no demo team needed.

Most skydivers that belong to USPA couldn't tell you what the World Meet is, what events are competed in and who represents us at them and how often. IMHO

[Krip 2]

Hi Mr T & Normiss

>>Maybe we're coming up on a time the USPA needs to re-think it's commitment to the competition team and concentrate more effort and resources to the needs of the general membership.>>

I think that horse has already left the barn when USPA came up with the GMDZ program. IMO the general membership is at the bottom of the USPA food chain due to the AFF and Tandem industry.

USPA have evolved from a jumper organization to a industry organization GMDZ's, that is basically a monoply if you want to jump you have to join USPA.

The industry has come up with creative ways to increase the cost of becoming a new skydiver. But as long the new jumpers are willing to bare the cost of the new requirements, the cost of the learning curve will continue to increase.

The industry has even come up with a new class of skydiverThe tandem skydiver.

USPA and the BOD may have finally crossed the line by trying to take away the rice bowl from the pro demo teams, and shareing it with the industry.

There are plenty of creative ways to raise funds for a USPA demo team. If I can think of a few the smart boys in the head shed can come up with a lot more.

Regardless of how the funds are raised, it won't solve the basic problem of more competion for a limited supply of demo's.

There are plenty of options for raising funds for the competion teams. They do have other avenue's for raising funds for their goal for the gold at the international level.

We've already seen a major DZ being able to sponsor a team that is very competive at the international level. It may take them some extra effort hustling up more GMDZ's as sponsors in addition to the USPA trust fund.

IMO The USPA brand is worth a lot more than the GMDZ are paying for the use of the brand that the skydivers and demo teams had a major part in developing.

R.

If your a spelling, grammer bully bite me.

One Jump Wonder

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

USPA have evolved from a jumper organization to a industry organization GMDZ's, that is basically a monoply if you want to jump you have to join USPA.

I have been saying this for years. You have an organization run by DZO’s for the benefit of DZO’s. As you said the average dues paying member is at the bottom of the food chain and their needs are the last to be considered. They started charging for jump wings and free fall badges but can loan $10,000 to a TBN entity. It just doesn’t make good sense unless you are the one receiving the loan.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

USPA have evolved from a jumper organization to a industry organization GMDZ's, that is basically a monoply if you want to jump you have to join USPA.

I have been saying this for years. You have an organization run by DZO’s for the benefit of DZO’s. As you said the average dues paying member is at the bottom of the food chain and their needs are the last to be considered. They started charging for jump wings and free fall badges but can loan $10,000 to a TBN entity. It just doesn’t make good sense unless you are the one receiving the loan.

Sparky

Hi Mr Sparky

It doesn't have to make sense if theres a monoply involved. Based on past history this may have been just the tip of the iceberg.

Things are a little different these days thanks to the internet and dropzone.com.

Trust me I'm from USPA and I'm here to help you.

R.

BTW 11/11/11 is vet day. It's a honor to know you

One Jump Wonder

[davelepka 4]

I'm responding to your post because you started this thread, but my comments are in regards to the letter from the USPA you posted.

First off, the USPA constitution may require them to supprt the US team, but by their own admission, in 1976 the US team consisted of 10 jumpers. Now that number is up to 60, and that changes things.

Sure, in '76 there were fewer members in the USPA to raise money for the US Team, but with 10 jumpers total, all it takes is a percentage of the membership to make a 'nominal' donation, and then for a handful of DZOs, manufacturers, or basic rich guys to all kick in a couple hundred each, the whole team is on the road and competing.

Today, with 60 members all looking for a ride to where ever they need to be, the economics are different. The letter suggests that each team member requires $3000 to $5000 to travel and compete, multiply that by 60, and you're looking at an annual costs ranging from $180k up to $500k to field a US Team.

Now I can't speak for the forefathers of the USPA, but if they realized that it would end up costing half a million dollars per year to field a team, I have a feeling that it would not have been 'required' for the USPA to support them.

Let's also consider the state of skydiving when that requirement was intoduced to the books. DZs were smaller, leagal problems were fewer, and skydiving itself was a smaller blip on the radar. Competition itself was of a much smaller scope (remember the 10-man US Team) and at the same time, a much larger factor in the business of skydiving. I hate to be the one to break it to the USPA (actually I don't hate it), but times have changed. Priorities have shifted (or should have shifted) and we have much bigger fish to fry.

Without a way to really work this into the flow of my post, I'll just interject it here, but every other country on earth that fields a national team had national funding to go along with it. Technically, so do we, they're called the Golden Knights, and they kick ass for a reason, they have the unlimited funding of the US Army behind them. The shortcut to the USPAs problem of 'needing' to support a US team, is to supprt the real US team, the Knights. Partner with them, donate some cash to them, and call it a day.

Back to complaing about the letter - so he admits they're doing a terrible job of backing the US Team, how about the terrible job they're doing promoting safety, canopy control and education, equipment selection, etc? Where is the shit-brained idea to take a bunch of USPA money and use to solve those problems? Like I said, bigger fish to fry, but we're supposed to give two shits about the US Team?

I'm sorry in advance for any US Team members, but if you want to compete, then cough up the dough it takes to compete and go. Just like 99% of the competitors at Nationals, 99% of the competitors at any regional RW meet or swoop meet, or really 99% of all the jumpers anywhere who want to do anything jump related, it costs money and if you want to do it, write the check. Boogie in Belieze? Pay up. Jumping beside Mt Everest? Pay up alot. Summerfest? Not free. Lost Prarie? Drive forever and then say goodbye to some dollars.

I'll make a comparison to smaller scenario. Jeff the jumper wants to go to Nationals. In 2008, Jeff had a great season, trained hard, want to Nationals and had the time of his life. By 2011, Jeff lost his day job, and was making a 'living' doing tandems. Jeff couldn't afford to train for Nationals. The lines on his canopy are so bad that one breaks every 5 or 10 jumps. His AAD is overdue for maintenance. Does Jeff go to Nationals to compete this year? Even if the DZO said he would cover his entrance fees, does Jeff go?

The answer is no, and the reason is that competition is a game. It's a fun thing that jumpers do for fun. It produces nothing, isn't required for any reason, and has no effect on the whole of skydiving if it happens or not. Jeff has more fundamental problems, like gear in desperate need of maintenance, and his skills aren't what they were 2 years ago.

If everything was great, Jeff's gear was 100% and he managed enough training jumps to stay sharp, but then he couldn't cover the entry fees and need to borrow the cash, or use a credit card, in that case, I say that Jeff does go, and has another time of his life, but as the story goes, Jeff has bigger problems than just the entry fee.

See USPA? See what I'm getting at? Now is not the time for fun and games with USPA time and money. Now is the time to pull your head out of your ass and get to work catching up with the rest of the world and time in general (it's 2011, don't ya know). You (the USPA) are the very ones pointing at the big dog headed our way (the FAA), but you want to waste time and money because 60 jumpers want a free ride to travel and compete internationally? Give me a fucking break.

[stratostar 5]

Quote

See USPA? See what I'm getting at? Now is not the time for fun and games with USPA time and money. Now is the time to pull your head out of your ass and get to work catching up with the rest of the world and time in general (it's 2011, don't ya know). You (the USPA) are the very ones pointing at the big dog headed our way (the FAA), but you want to waste time and money because 60 jumpers want a free ride to travel and compete internationally? Give me a fucking break.

Amen brother!

you can't pay for kids schoolin' with love of skydiving! ~ Airtwardo

[mjosparky 3]

Quote

BTW 11/11/11 is vet day. It's a honor to know you

Thank you.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[airtwardo 6]

Excellent post Dave, you most eloquently stated many concerns a lot of us have, maybe it's time to question the course and plot a new direction now we're a decade+ into the 21st century.

You bring a great point about the size & scope of the national team and what it takes to send them to international competition.

I do see both sides of the situation, we as an organization do have a stake in representing the nation. I understand that competition on every level advances the sport in many positive and useful ways.

OTOH, times have drastically changed since the early USPA and the world team involvement. As you point out, 60 people is a lot to cover considering the resources available.

Take in to consideration the multitude of other pressing issues currently being, and needing to be addressed by the organization...an over-haul of priorities almost HAS to be in the future if we are to efficiently see to the needs of the general membership and grow the sport further.

Keeping airports open and skydivers safe are to me the most important goals, speaking for myself I would like to see a whole lot more attention addressing the unacceptable fatality rate under open canopies we've been experiencing for the last several years.

Like I said in a couple of my posts in this thread, I understand the USPA goal to further funding for the comp teams, I agree corporate sponsorship is the clear path at this time.

I obviously disagree on many levels that starting a demo team with my dues is fair, ethical or cost effective.

How many other avenues to gaining sponsorship have been explored, ways that don't require loaning/borrowing money, starting still another corporation, creating a conflict of interest with a significant number of dues paying members...there are a lot more demo jumpers than world team competitors, and those demo jumpers routinely promote the sport and work to help the organization grow.

Several have obtained coporate sponsorship, those that have did it without USPA investment loans, office support, guidance...or competition in the market FROM the USPA.

I wonder if more of the said US Team sponsorship were to come along, the organization would change it's stand regarding the competitors being able to wear a sponsor's logo identification WHILE at the event being sponsored?

They can't have it both ways, if outside funding is the goal,
they have to allow the contributors to gain value from the sponsorship.
There are just so many things that don't make good business sense that we are running out of feet to keep shooting ourselves in.


Mr. Scott says it's a 'free market' and indeed it is...for the privately run demo teams!

Teams financing themselves with private dollars or that seek out sponsorship of their own, are not on a level playing field with the USPA funded demo corporation that can arbitrary pull resources of both money and administrative support any time and for any reason it desires.

Support paid for by members that from what I'm hearing, have far different expectations on how that dues money should be used.

Want to pull the 'Free Market' card USPA?...lets go one step further and use democratic process and let the general membership decide if working against itself is in fact, 'really' in it's best interest.

How about we use some 'Free Speech' in the way of on-line voting to give the members, the actual OWNERS of the corporation...some say in how their dues are to be 'invested'.
How about we democratically at least INFORM them of the intent to use their money in a risky, unsecured business venture that seems to have ZERO viability research to back up this quite questionable 'investment' decision.

If the stated goal of the USPA demo team is to gain corporate financial support for the US comp team...and it's taken 10,000 dollars to seed that process, where does it end?

It's feasible for the USPA to say down the road that they believe the goal may be in sight & 'can be' possibly achieved with some MORE membership funding.

To me the priority is obviously as stated to get sponsorship for the comp team, and not enough thought as gone into feasibility, oversight or about the overall cost to the membership, is there a limit to how much $$$$$ the USPA can/will to throw at this?

Is it a 'free market' to use the 'blank check' from the pooled resources of an organization without their consent, to compete against part of that organization...any time and in any way seen fit?

That's not what I would consider a free market approach by any means, To me anyway, it's an unfair, unethical business practice...

As I've said before and still maintain, a lot more thought, discussion and research should have gone into this,

The goal has value, but this process to achieving it is flawed and the program itself deserves review, further and extensive discussion with presentation of actual facts to back up the 'hopes' for it's ultimate success.

It's looking like the tunnel vision of sending the US Comp Team overseas is a priority so high that no matter what it takes, the End Justifies the Means.

~If that's the case, where does it end?

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[Krip 2]

Hi Mr T

I'm trying to be realistic and serious.

>>Want to pull the 'Free Market' card USPA?...lets go one step further and use democratic process and let the general membership decide if working against itself is in fact, 'really' in it's best interest. >>

Since everyone that competed in the nationals, and those that are employed by the industry are USPA members the concept of the democratic process and the general membership isn't going to work.

I'll leave it at that before this gets kicked into the black hole of SC.

R.

One Jump Wonder

[airtwardo 6]

Point taken Krip...I'm just ranting.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

See USPA? See what I'm getting at? Now is not the time for fun and games with USPA time and money. Now is the time to pull your head out of your ass and get to work catching up with the rest of the world and time in general (it's 2011, don't ya know). You (the USPA) are the very ones pointing at the big dog headed our way (the FAA), but you want to waste time and money because 60 jumpers want a free ride to travel and compete internationally? Give me a fucking break.

I'll raise a glass to that.....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[dpreguy 14]

Nice post Airtwardo. Your posts, plus the constructive posts by others have vetted the issues and objections, and puts a magnifying glass on the issues.

It is now time to ask the USPA directors and hopefully with the urging of the Board of Directors, to withdraw this idea. If the ICAS dues have been paid, than ask for a refund. Please abandon this whole idea. Now.

The stated objective: (Get money for our 60 US Team members.) by creating a USPA demo team, which they believe will enthrall audiences, which will then lead to positioning this team as a "brand recognized entity", to then, (They hope) entice corporate sponsorhip; is a dreamer's busines plan. It is a plan that I judge to be based simply on optimism. One thing has to happen, which will trigger the next thing that has to happen and so on. It is too vague. It is based entirely upon speculation and hope. You could not go to your bank officer and get a loan based upon this business plan.

This 'means to the end plan' justification of raising money for our competitors is wrong. Using $10,000 of membership money to buy a booth at ICAS, and the spectre and certainty of allocating even more money soon, to put on a "camp", probably pay the expenses of persons to attend this camp, and the necessity of future draws necesaary to pay for jumpsuits, parachutes, flags and travel money etc . is too much of a burden to pay to embark on a "....lets see where this thng goes..." plan.

Please recognize this idea as a house of cards, based upon pure speculation, and having only hope as it's underpinning. It was a bad idea and should be instantly abandoned.

Please go back to the wellspring of the collective intelligence and creativity of the membership and ask for ideas, and then use these new ideas to solve the funding problem for our competitors. If it takes a dues increae, then put this idea out to the membership and let it be discussed. Then have the Baord of Dirctors vote. That is only one idea, but there may be others. Discuss whatever ideas are out there, put them in an article in the Parachutist, let the membership at large comment on them, and then let the Board vote. That's how it's supposed to work.

I am a strong USPA supporter and believe our organization has saved skydiving more than once from the governmental agencies who would have fee'd us and regulatd us to death. Our executive board directors have done outstanding jobs in their respective duties, however I believe they shoulld confine their energies to their job descriptions and resist the temptation to dabble into the unkown.

I am afraid this dispute will tear USPA apart internally. Let's hear the ideas of how to find the funding for our teams and get to work on those ideas. Doing so would be constructive, and produce cohesion, not dissention, in our organization.

[mjosparky 3]

"No team ever “owns” rights to an event; competition is a fact of life, it’s a fact in the air show business as it is in the skydiving business.”

---

Of course competition is a fact of life. But competing against each other makes no sense. What USPA is doing is pitting their “elite athletes” against regular dues paying members. Many of those members have spent as much time effort developing their skills as any National Team has. And they did it on their own dime.

You say if this USPA sponsored “Demo Team” secures a job previously done by a non USPA sponsored team you will graciously invite them along. Have you given any thought to what the sponsors may think of that? They think that they contracted for the “US Parachute Team” and end up with some of the slots filled with less than “elite athletes”

---

“USPA routinely invests in, and seeds new ideas and projects it thinks will enhance the sport.”

---

I am not aware of any programs in which USPA has invested in particularly providing an unsecured load of several thousand dollars. Not being aware of everything the BOD does I could easily be wrong. One thing I am pretty sure of USPA has never seeded a program that is in direct completion with several groups of its own members.

Just a few question if you don’t mind.

1. Who is charge of the team?

2. Who will pick the members?

3. Who will be responsible for their training?

4. Who will be signing for this loan?

5. Who will be accountable for dispersal of the funds?

It appears that this has the potential a real can of worms and it might be worthwhile revisiting the decision.

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The stated objective: (Get money for our 60 US Team members.) by creating a USPA demo team, which they believe will enthrall audiences, which will then lead to positioning this team as a "brand recognized entity", to then, (They hope) entice corporate sponsorhip; is a dreamer's busines plan. It is a plan that I judge to be based simply on optimism. One thing has to happen, which will trigger the next thing that has to happen and so on. It is too vague. It is based entirely upon speculation and hope. You could not go to your bank officer and get a loan based upon this business plan.

You're saying this based on the idea that the loan is $10,000. If the idea of repaying $10,000 seems unlikely, what are the odds that this venture will make a dent in the $180k to $500k it will take to send 60 jumpers to compete?

USPA themselves quoted 60 jumpers on the team, and a cost of $3k to $5k per jumper to compete. Twardo claims that the demo team would take two years to turn a $10k profit and repay the loan, but for the sake of this example I'm going to double that. Let's say they can generate $10k per year.

Year one repays the loan and doesn't make a dime for the US Team. Year two they turn a $10k profit which contributes, get this, a whopping $166 per competitor.

Being that this is an 'ofiicial' money making venture, that $10k better be split equally among all 60 memebers, which means that every Accuracy jumper, and everyu skysurfer and every camera flyer all get the same $166 as the 'star' 4-way and 8-way players.

So in the end, it's worth $166 per competitor, who are (sorry guys) just looking for a free ride to compete internationally, to muddy the already scarce waters of the Pro demo market? Anyone heard of risk/reward? On top of possibly losing our $10k, they're inevitably going to be taking demos away from established teams. That sounds like two 'risks', and the reward is what? $166 a head for the US Team?

Hey, USPA, listen up, corporate sponsorship is not going to happen. Even if you can assemble an airshow team, and even if you can find a corp sponsor to back it, they're going to be backing the demo team, not the US Team. It's one thing to find a sponsor to cover the costs of a demo team, those being some logo canopies, a budget for marketing, and paying the jumpers. That team would then do demos, and create publicity for the corp, and the team would get paid.

What the USPA is after, it seems, is a corop that's willing to do all of that PLUS support the US Team in internaitonal competition. What makes them think that's going to happen? The corp will be paying for the demo team, which is where the publicity will come from, why would they pay extra to also back the team who will be competing abroad in what are essentially non-publicized events?

I see the return for backing a demo team, they do arishows with tons of people, and the corp can control the market by only bidding on airahows in markets where they do business. But why would they also back the US Team? What's in it for them? Why wouldn't a corp just partner with Airtwardo and the Liberty Parachute Team, take advantage of their established team and contacts, and gain the publicity with the airshows being the end of the deal?

The crop would be on the hook for all the demo team costs plus the US Team costs under the USPA 'plan', so the big question is why would any corp do that? The fact is that it's tough to find a crop to a sponsor a standard demo team, let alone one with the added burden of the US Team sponsorship dollars.

Why is it the more I think about this the sense it makes? Nobody on the BOD thoght of any of this? Or did they just not want to 'rock the boat' and kept their mouth shut?

Is that how it works on the BOD? I'll back your retarded pet-project so you'll back mine that I'm going to present at the next meeting?

[davelepka 4]

Quote

What the USPA is after, it seems, is a corop that's willing to do all of that PLUS support the US Team in internaitonal competition. What makes them think that's going to happen? The corp will be paying for the demo team, which is where the publicity will come from, why would they pay extra to also back the team who will be competing abroad in what are essentially non-publicized events?

Just for fun, I'm going to answer this question for the USPA, then prove them wrong.

The angle the USPA is trying to play is that the team will be made up of 'championship' skydivers, a fact they think will add value to the team in terms of both bidding on airshows and attracting sponsors.

Here's the rub - nobody gives two shits about skydiving competitions. A couple years back, we ran a local swoop meet series comprised of 3 or 4 meets. We earned points for each meet, and in the end, I was crowned the 'champion' of that season. Compare that to my buddy Joe who went to Nationals and earned a gold in freefly. Both accomplishments, both things to be proud of, but the differences between the two are lost to the non-skydiver.

If I jump into a high-school football game, I'm a 'champion' skydiver. If Joe does the same demo, he's a 'champion' skydiver.

I'm willing to bet that every member of the Liberty Parachute Team has some competition experience they can include on a resume when trying to attract jobs.

Even then, when I go to an airshow, I watch the show, regardless of the qualifications of the performer. If they're good enough for the airshow to hire, they're good enough for me to watch. Truth is, when Patty Wagstaff is flying, she's not flying her competition routine, she's flying gher airshow routine. Even if she was flying her competition routine, I don't know enough about competition aerobatics to recognize a competition routine, nor the 1% or 2% more percision she has that makes her a champion and some other guy just '2nd place'.

This idea sucks, USPA. It sucked when I assumed what the intent was and shot holes in that idea, and it still sucks since USPA was nice enough to clarify their intent, and I've been able to shoot holes in that.

[SkydiveJack 1]

I have sent the following letter to the full USPA BOD.

Dear USPA BOD,

I went to the International Council of Air Shows website (www.airshows.aero) and found the Floor Plan for their upcoming convention in Las Vegas. The United States Parachute Team is registered and will be in booth 629. So this is a done deal. Money has been spent, rooms have been reserved, flights have been booked and staff has been assigned. Las Vegas is an appropriate venue for this gamble.

This plan is a win/win situation for competitors. None of the Team Trust Fund is at risk. If this plan works they will have more money. If it fails, they don’t lose a dime. However, it’s a lose/lose situation for the general membership. If the plan works, established demo teams who have been out there for years promoting the sport will get a smaller piece of an already shrinking pie. If it fails then the membership money spent will not be repaid.

To the full BOD I would like to say that this was a noble idea but you didn’t think it through. It seems you got in a rush to ‘just do something’ about the crisis du juor that was presented to you. I am with the understanding that the Denver BOD Meeting was the first time the full BOD heard of this plan and that you approved it unanimously on Saturday. You reacted to the 1% (Elite Competitors) and forgot about the 99% (General Membership). Sound familiar?

Was a financial study done by HQ and presented to the BOD? Was a business plan provided at Denver? What is the liability to USPA? Ed Scott put out the following statement online- “The first $10,000 earned (after show expenses) by the team in 2012 will go back to repay the loan.” This is pretty optimistic. What facts or data is this statement based on? If that kind of money can be made I think there would already be a lot more professional demo teams at the ICAS Convention.

The primary goal stated for this plan is to attract corporate sponsorship for the United States Parachute Team. Is it realistic to think you will achieve this with a constantly changing Championship Pick-Up Demo Team made up of varying competitors and local talent as described in the discussion file posted online by USPA Communications? I find it hard to believe that local demo teams/jumpers will want to help out and perform with a team that is directly competing against them.

How many competitors will want to skip training weekends, travel to an air show (typically on a Thursday) and make one jump a day Friday through Sunday? How many competitors are going to go to the proposed demo training camp if they are not confirmed to be going to the next World Meet? Competition Jumping and Demo Jumping are like apples and oranges. This plan has every possibility of turning into an old boys club of Ex-Competitors, BOD Members and HQ Staff who will have all expenses paid weekend trips with a couple of jumps thrown in and all the accolades they can handle.

At this point the BOD and USPA HQ have the wagons circled. Right or wrong this plan is going to play out. Hopefully it will work. Hopefully it won’t fragment USPA further. I know it is often a thankless job that you are doing and I know you meant well when you approved this plan. And hopefully in the future the BOD will not rush into making major decisions of this nature without more careful study, consideration and planning.

Thank you,

Jack Gregory
Former National Director

[Fast 0]

Quote

What the USPA is after, it seems, is a corop that's willing to do all of that PLUS support the US Team in internaitonal competition. What makes them think that's going to happen? The corp will be paying for the demo team, which is where the publicity will come from, why would they pay extra to also back the team who will be competing abroad in what are essentially non-publicized events?

Dave you touched on something that baffles me about this whole thing and really skydiving in general. What I wonder / want to know is how we are going to secure some kind of corporate sponsorship in a sport that we can't even get covered on TV.

I mean, every year we hold a national championship, serious stuff for the people involved and we can't even get an hour long show on ESPN / any other sports channel / national tv, nothing. At most it shows up on the local 6 o'clock news in the town that is holding nationals. That baffles me.

If we can't even get that how on earth can we expect a company to pony up the kind of money that has been mentioned in some of these other posts.

IMO, if we were gonna start somewhere on trying to generate publicity and sponsorship, the answer is trying to get nationals recognized as a real sporting event that the public cares about. If that's not possible, then no company can possibly care about us, cause they only care about what the public cares about.

Lots of people might go to airshows, but I would wager being on ABC/NBC/CBS/ESPN (pick one) for an hour on a Sunday once a year would generate substantially more publicity than the 6-12 airshows they are talking about.

Sorry, just one of those things I never understood.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[grimmie 173]

I flew back from Nationals one year with an Airspeed member. I couldn't believe how many adoring fans mobbed him at the airport when we landed.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Dave you touched on something that baffles me about this whole thing and really skydiving in general. What I wonder / want to know is how we are going to secure some kind of corporate sponsorship in a sport that we can't even get covered on TV.

The funny part is, like I stated above, they're not just looking for sponsors for a demo team. They're thinking they can establish a demo team so good, so indemand, with such a high public profile that some corp somewhere is going to sponsor both the demo team and the US Team.

The truth is that just sponsoring a demo team is a much easier goal. The cost would be consierably less, and the events the team would be performing at (airshows) are at a known location with a record of attendance over a period of years.

Let's say Arctic Cat Snowmoblies wants to sponsor a demo team. You can sure as hell bet they're not going to bid jobs in the southern US where nobody buys snowmobiles. But if they limit the team to shows in WI, MN, and the like, there might be some value to Arctic Cat in having their name in the program and announced all day long.

What value is there to Arctic Cat in sponsoring a team competing at the world meet in whatever country it's going to be held?

At the end of the day, I think Ed Scott said it best himself in his letter where he was hoping to clear things up -

Quote

To better fund our teams, there’s an obvious solution, one most other national sports teams employ—corporate sponsorship.

It's been well established that other sports have more media presense and public exposure, but the real point is that when you come to the conclusion that corporate sponsorship is the only option, isn't that another way of saying that the game is over?

Think about it, you have a venture which has become so expensive your only option is to seek a corporation with so much money that they can fund it in exachange for publicity. Keeping in mind that the only way that corporation got all that money was by making sound business decisions, why the hell would they spend it on this?

Skydiving has taken shots at this in the past, and from I can see, it hasn't become 'business as usual'. Skydiving has also been 'hotter' in the media, and it didn't even take then. Skysurfing, ESPN, the SSi Pro Tour, the X-Games, that was the peak of 'mainstream' skydiving, and if there was any way to connect a business to skydiving, that's when it would have happened.

I'm sorry USPA, but the general public doesn't care about regular skydiving. If you want to do a 'stunt', or sensationalize it in a movie, or someone gets hurt on video, people perk up, but outside of that, nobody but skydivers cares about skydiving.

To take that one step further, nobody cares about the US Team besides the US Team. The membership has proven it by not contributing in any significant amount.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I mean, every year we hold a national championship, serious stuff for the people involved and we can't even get an hour long show on ESPN / any other sports channel / national tv, nothing. At most it shows up on the local 6 o'clock news in the town that is holding nationals. That baffles me.

A well produced Discovery Channel style of "reality documentary" would go a long way. It would be a gamble in terms of being a pilot show or just a singular special presentation; however, this would have a better chance of cracking this nut wide open.

Although I'm biased towards Canopy Piloting, I think that it has the greatest chance of being recognized and being able to be understood by the general public.

At least the footage used in making such a show could be used by the USPA in marketing efforts long into the future. That would make more sense then throwing $10,000 at someone special little dream that is going to cost professional demo jumpers money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."