"Partner protection" @ '09 USPA Nationals

[dqpacker 7]

Quote

Also, i haven't seen this point brought up much, but the TIMING of this seems a bit shady in and of itself. TWO WEEKS (!!!) before the event, they drop this bomb? That's bullshit right there.

It was posted before registration opened. It was just posted on dz.com now.
People are getting way out of hand and freaking out about something that they will not even be part of. You guys have fun arguing over nothing. Peace and Blue Skies.

All my post have been my opinion and not the opinion of the DZ I work at.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

We can discuss this in person at nationals this year. See you there?

Whether I'm there or not has no bearing on the discussion (red herring, anyone?). If you have a right to an opinion about how and where USPA spends the dues that you pay, why should I not have the same right? Doesn't matter if I'm competing or not. It's my money being spent to promote the event. I'm entitled to have and express my opinion on the matter, just as you and anybody else who pays money to USPA every year is.

This is an exclusionary policy being imposed on what is supposed to be an inclusive event. That's the issue.

I also question how this is going to be enforced. If Joe is packing with his Flight Concepts pull up cord, are the advertising police going to take it away? What if Bob is packing next to Joe and needs a pull up cord? Will Joe get booted because he gave advertising materials to someone? What about stickers on cars in the parking lot? The parking lot is dz property, right? Or RV's belonging to manufacturers that are there to support their teams? Do they have to cover their logos to be allowed to park there?

If that's a serious question that is of real concern to you, why not call Spaceland and get the FACTS??




Your argument has gone to the ridicules...where does 'said website' say ANYTHING regarding the scenarios your keep throwing out?

PLEASE...support ANY of this gloom & doom conjecture you keep fantasizing about, with some kind of verifiable facts.

How can ya get so riled up as to make all kinds of wild hare 'the end is near' comments regarding a situation you obviously don't seem to understand or will be effected by?

Help me understand...

You're not a competitor or sponsor or even GOING, so none of this will effect you personally in any way.

You 'have been' in some capacity an event organizer, but for some reason aren't involved with this event...yet without having any facts to back up any of your 'theories' as to why this is such a horrible disgrace to the sport, you seem to want to convince other people to become haters of the event organizer - that again, you have nothing to do with...???

See where I'm going here?


Honestly...thank you for bringing that statement on the website to my attention, I didn't know about it.

Doesn't affect me in any way shape or form, as with you...but I can understand from a business stand point why it makes sense to have such a policy.

(I've stated the reason it's makes sense to me)

What is it & how - IN FACT - about this particular policy that will impact anyone actually competing, sponsoring...or just plain showing up?

I don't work @ Spaceland, I'm not competing...I'll be there to SEE & BE SEEN...I don't have a dog in this fight, it seems you NOT being a part of organizing the event is the dog you're backing?

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

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

It's my money being spent to promote the event.

Actually, its something like 95% of Spaceland's money, actually I think its a little more. And since you don't compete, why do you then care?

Quote

I also question how this is going to be enforced

Call Eric and ask him. He runs the DZ, I'm sure he'd be happy to explain it to you. Better yet, have you contacted your RD yet or the competition committee or are you simply making assumptions? Judging from your postings, you're making wild accusations off of your own assumptions. Why don't you do some research, e-mail and/or call some people and try again?

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

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Better yet, have you contacted your RD yet or the competition committee or are you simply making assumptions?

My RD tells me that the BOD is discussing the matter as we speak.

Okay, I don't know if he means email, or a conference call or what, but the matter is getting the attention of the BOD.

So somebody at that level must think there is something to be concerned about.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

People are getting way out of hand and freaking out about something that they will not even be part of. You guys have fun arguing over nothing. Peace and Blue Skies.

All my post have been my opinion and not the opinion of the DZ I work at.

This obviously isn't nothing, and this is obviously a problem to not only those who are competing this year, but also the whole entire community of future competitors. For example, if I was planning on competing next year (which I am) I need to pay attention to agreements if I get a sponsor so I don't find that my ass is out of the competition because of something like this. What if I sign an agreement that says my duties as a sponsored athlete include putting up a wind blade next to my tent that says, "sprint/nextel freeflyers," and have a stash of free pull up chords and bottle openers or something for people to come up and take? (we're not talking about a booth,or a table set up with the DZ. Just our packing tent.) If I was in that agreement right now before Nationals 09', which there are quite a few competitors who are and have been in similar agreements, then I would be screwed. To me that is a whole lot more than arguing over "nothing" when it could possibly mean I can not compete after months of hard training.

Quote

I cannot believe this is a serious issue. When did this corporate America bullshit become so prevalent? As a competitor at this year's event, I find this entire situation and the resulting uproar embarassing to the sport. Has everyone forgotten why it is we jump out of airplanes? Or has everyone's motivation changed when I wasn't looking?

There was no corporate american bullshit problem until this whole scenario has come into play, which is the fault of Spaceland if I had to guess. I doubt this was USPA's idea. No other DZ that has hosted nationals has had this problem until this "partner protection" things has come up this year, so the corporate american bullshit has first started here. It's funny because the end of your post is questioning if everybody has forgotten why we jump out of airplanes? I am sure everybody who is disturbed over this whole thing is asking the hosting dz the same exact question. Have they forgotten what this competition is about? The non-profit USPA Nationals that is about the competitor and everything in between just as it has been from every other hosting DZ in the past. Has the hosting DZ's motivation changed? As for the jumpers motivation I am sure it is much the same as it as always been at all the nationals in the past, hence the uproar in this thread-- they just want to show up and compete just as they always have, sponsors and all, so I am pretty sure their motivation is not the thing that has changed or is in question here.

Quote

If that's a serious question that is of real concern to you, why not call Spaceland and get the FACTS??

Your argument has gone to the ridicules...where does 'said website' say ANYTHING regarding the scenarios your keep throwing out? Crazy

PLEASE...support ANY of this gloom & doom conjecture you keep fantasizing about, with some kind of verifiable facts.

I know there are spaceland representatives, employees, managers, etc who are on these forums, so maybe one of them would like to just lay it all down (or even better, just update that website with further clarification) and specify what exactly is and isn't allowed, right down to the mom and pop team sponsored by the small business that wanted them to have pull up chords at their packing tent or something. Or the Golden Knights questions. There are a few good questions that can be addressed in the thread alone as well as much room for more elaboration in general.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[AggieDave 6]

Thank you for contacting your RD.

That's a much more mature approach then having a complete whargarbl breakdown on the internet with no information and no initiative.

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

[skybytch 259]

Quote

And since you don't compete, why do you then care?

You don't own a DZ and yet you have an opinion on the Group Member program. Why do you care about that?

Quote

Better yet, have you contacted your RD yet

Um, yeah. I have. But thanks for asking.

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

Better yet, have you contacted your RD yet or the competition committee or are you simply making assumptions?

My RD tells me that the BOD is discussing the matter as we speak.

Okay, I don't know if he means email, or a conference call or what, but the matter is getting the attention of the BOD.

So somebody at that level must think there is something to be concerned about.

Exactly... this isn't just nothing. It's a big deal when due to this new "partner protection," there might be a few competitors who can not compete now because they will not be meeting sponsor agreements, some of which they've had for years at nationals in the past.

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[pilotdave 0]

Some texans are getting a little defensive about this, huh? Spaceland folk are starting to sound like ASC folk. Scary stuff.

Dave

[AggieDave 6]

I'm not a Spaceland folk, the DZ is 2 1/2 hours away for me, I jump at Aggieland which is 5 minutes away from me.
The defensiveness is from the whargarbl that a handful of people have worked themselves into, with out taking a few basic steps to see if its even warranted.

Where are these people for a real issue? When a DZ is awarded nationals but that DZ can decide not to host a medal event. What is that doing for the members of the USPA? What if a DZ decided to not host RW but everything else? Now nearly 50 competitors have been excluded from the rest of nationals and shoved to the side by other DZs? That is an issue that deserves the whargarbl.

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

[grimmie 173]

Under these rules Perris Fury or any of the other teams from their DZ couldn't put a "Skydive Perris" windblade at their packing/group area. "Skydive Dallas" windblades...nope. 'The Ranch", forget it. Golden Knights, nope.

I understand having vendors pay to be at an event and not allowing other people to sell their wares. But to say "Team Fastrax" has to cover their tent or I want to put up a "Boogie in Belize" windblade and am told no...really? Is there really an issue if they aren't selling anything?

[airtwardo 6]

For example, if I was planning on competing next year (which I am) I need to pay attention to agreements if I get a sponsor so I don't find that my ass is out of the competition because of something like this. What if I sign an agreement that says my duties as a sponsored athlete include putting up a wind blade next to my tent that says, "sprint/nextel freeflyers," and have a stash of free pull up chords and bottle openers or something for people to come up and take?

I wouldn't sign anything that detailed...I doubt anyone actually working with a sponsor gets told what color socks to wear either, but if they do, they may need an agent to negotiate for them.

What if you DO plan to compete, and your sponsor tells you to whack all the other competitors on the knee with a Nextel crowbar so you can win...gonna do it?

How about you do what I always do when negotiating with sponsors...tell them you will do everything conceivably possible to promote their product, within the bounds of good taste, professionalism, rules of the event and laws of the state.

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

[billvon 2,400]

>So a DZ is supposed to host a HUGE event and they are expected by
> jumpers to operate at a huge loss?

Not at all! Where did you hear that DZ's were 'expected' to operate at a huge loss, or even host Nationals at all?

[AggieDave 6]

RiggerPaul basically stated that in one of his posts:

Quote

If Spaceland is trying to make a profit from it, I don't think that's a good thing. If Spaceland excludes a competitor in the name of even breaking even, I don't think they should have that right.

So he doesn't want a DZ to take steps to break even or make a profit while holding nationals.

Competitors shouldn't be excluded, but a DZ should be able to try to at least break even. Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding competitors to save money...

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

[billvon 2,400]

>Competitors shouldn't be excluded, but a DZ should be able to try to at
>least break even.

I agree. And if they choose to not break even to win the bid, they should be able to do that too. That's not a decision that those of us that go to Nationals are involved with, so it's not something that's reasonable to ask us to deal with later.

>Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since
>they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding
>competitors to save money...

Isn't that just a good business decision, made by a DZ who wants to break even?

[klingeme 0]

Quote

Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding competitors to save money...

I don't think any of the USPA canopy piloting events require a pond......just a swoop course which can be setup with windblades (non-branded or a sponsor's logos) (edited to add) or some water noodles (end edit). The CPC does it all the time in the Southeast region.

[billvon 2,400]

>Where does it say 'Harley' won't be allowed?

Oh, they can physically show up. But they can't give you literature, parts, or have official representatives there to give you advice. They can't advertise that they are there, They can't have tents, or motorcycles on display, or promote themselves in any way. If they do, a band of private security guards will find them and ask them to leave.

Of course, you can still ride your Harley and wear your Harley T-shirt.

[knoffel 0]

Coming at it from a different angle:

Spaceland wants to host the event. Why? They (Spaceland) would obviously get the exposure which in turn will (hopefully) bump up their business. But, to foot the WHOLE bill for the event would be counter-productive as it would dig into whatever future profits they might make as a result of aforementioned exposure. So they make a bid and USPA awards the event to them.

Note: Spaceland did not VOLUNTEER to host the event in the purest sense, but instead (as is the gist of the whole "awarding" business, similar to cities vying for the Olympics) offered a proposal/bid to enter into a quid-pro-quo agreement with USPA to use their (Spaceland's) facilities and organizational abilities. From USPA's perspective they could either dig into their own coffers to host an expensive event, but instead they chose to only exercise their sanctioning powers and let someone else pick up the tab for the actual event. This is the way that the USPA nationals have run for years now. We can all agree that there is no controversy in this part of the process.

So, Spaceland decides that the best way to offset their costs would be to offer sponsorship opportunities. That is a common business concept that's used all over the spectrum of sports entertainment. Still: no controversy. Agreed? Good, let's move on.

So, being as they are not natural-born marketing professionals, they (Spaceland) decide to rather hire a professional marketing firm to handle the rather intricate two-step that is known as "event sponsorship". Still no controversy. Their intent seems to be pure and their business decision to outsource this part sound.

Note: the workings of event sponsorship as a business concept is in itself a complicated beast for which their are no set guidelines and principles. You have to find out what equity the hosts have, what equity the sponsors want, what to charge for that equity, how to protect that equity, all the while trying to keep everybody happy. It is up to the hired professionals to negotiate the intricacies of the represented sport/activity within a larger context and to make sure that ALL parties concerned - participants, hosts, sponsors, spectators, media, sanctioning bodies - get a fair deal out of the whole thing, as well as to get their OWN fair share of kerching as this is a service that they provide and for which they should be fairly compensated.

So, Spaceland sends out feelers for such a company, company X approaches them with an offer to do business, they think they have found the right company, and they sign on the dotted line. No controversy.

So, with signed contract in hand company X goes ahead and develops a sponsorship policy for this event and WHAM!!!!! The shit hits the fan in turbo mode and oodles of controversy ensues.

So, as allocating blame is what life is about these days, who is responsible for this SNAFU?

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

For example, if I was planning on competing next year (which I am) I need to pay attention to agreements if I get a sponsor so I don't find that my ass is out of the competition because of something like this. What if I sign an agreement that says my duties as a sponsored athlete include putting up a wind blade next to my tent that says, "sprint/nextel freeflyers," and have a stash of free pull up chords and bottle openers or something for people to come up and take?

I wouldn't sign anything that detailed...I doubt anyone actually working with a sponsor gets told what color socks to wear either, but if they do, they may need an agent to negotiate for them.

What if you DO plan to compete, and your sponsor tells you to whack all the other competitors on the knee with a Nextel crowbar so you can win...gonna do it?

How about you do what I always do when negotiating with sponsors...tell them you will do everything conceivably possible to promote their product, within the bounds of good taste, professionalism, rules of the event and laws of the state.

True, and I would totally do this if this were my personal negotiation with a sponsor for next year, especially now that I know this topic is in discussion. (I am not a professional athlete and doubt I would get a sponsor outside of a DZ discounting me jumps or something, but theoretically speaking...) But I wonder if there are any teams that are effected by this for this years comp who maybe did sign something that said they were to wear the logo and have the logo on the packing tent and stuff? Even if it effects only one team, that means a few people are going to be having a really bad week soon and they don't have to and never have in past national comps (for the particular reason in discussion).

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[DSE 3]

Quote

No other DZ that has hosted nationals has had this problem until this "partner protection" things has come up this year, so the corporate american bullshit has first started here.

I have been told I can't fly my company windblade on a DZ where I was doing significant amounts of volunteer work for the DZ during a competition. On more than one occasion. We were told that the windblade space is like "floor space" and that we'd have to pay money to display our logo.
It's not new, but it's the first time I've seen it in print.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

RiggerPaul basically stated that in one of his posts:

Quote

If Spaceland is trying to make a profit from it, I don't think that's a good thing. If Spaceland excludes a competitor in the name of even breaking even, I don't think they should have that right.

So he doesn't want a DZ to take steps to break even or make a profit while holding nationals.

Competitors shouldn't be excluded, but a DZ should be able to try to at least break even. Then again, SD Arizona is excluding a complete competition from nationals since they don't want to spend the money to build a competition pond. Excluding competitors to save money...

Okay, I'll take it back. I don't really mean they shouldn't break even.

They can break even, or even profit, but we should not have to give up the real purpose of the competition in the process.

The purpose of this competition is to find our nation's best skydivers, so we can give them a chance to represent us at the international level.

I don't want to sacrifice this purpose because of a NEW, UNPRECEDENTED, rule from the dz.

This isn't the way it has been done before, and nobody was expecting to have to deal with such a change.

Not that changing is evil, of course, but changing at this late date is not a good thing.

I don't think that Spaceland was really the source of the rule, either. I suspect that it was put to Spaceland that their sponsors might pull out without the rule.

But now we have that their sponsors are have become more important than the teams' sponsors. And that's not really right either.

Maybe if that rule had surfaced during the venue selection process, well, maybe the selection might have gone elsewhere. Maybe, maybe not. but everyone would have known up front what the rules were going to be.

But now, it is too late, and someone has us over a barrel.

The purpose of this competition is to find our nation's best skydivers, so we can give them a chance to represent us at the international level.

That is the overriding purpose of the competition, and I don't want that overshadowed by commercial purposes.

They are free to have the competition any time they like.

But this is the USPA competition. And we should be sure that any eligible member has his shot.

[billvon 2,400]

>Even if it effects only one team, that means a few people are going to
>be having a really bad week soon . . .

Well, it's likely that sponsors will not take it out on the teams this year; they had no control over it. But I can also easily see a small company (say, Parachute Systems) saying next year "hey, guys, sorry, but we don't see any value in sponsoring you. We can't use to to advertise."

Is that the end of the world? No; the big sponsors will just get more exposure and the smaller companies less, and a few teams might switch sponsorship from small to big companies and/or not compete. The sport will survive.

But is it the direction we want to go in? This isn't NASCAR; we don't pay $55 a year to keep NASCAR running or vote in new directors to make decisions on NASCAR advertising. We don't drive in NASCAR races, we don't get killed in NASCAR crashes, and we don't spend a big part of our lives training for and supporting NASCAR competitions. We do all that with Nationals. So it's a little different than selling T-shirts at a NASCAR event.

[peek 20]

Quote

I have been told I can't fly my company windblade on a DZ where I was doing significant amounts of volunteer work for the DZ during a competition. On more than one occasion. We were told that the windblade space is like "floor space" and that we'd have to pay money to display our logo.
It's not new, but it's the first time I've seen it in print.

You mean like a Sundance Media Group or VAAST windblade? If so, are you going to volunteer again?

[LyraM45 0]

Quote

Quote

No other DZ that has hosted nationals has had this problem until this "partner protection" things has come up this year, so the corporate american bullshit has first started here.

I have been told I can't fly my company windblade on a DZ where I was doing significant amounts of volunteer work for the DZ during a competition. On more than one occasion. We were told that the windblade space is like "floor space" and that we'd have to pay money to display our logo.
It's not new, but it's the first time I've seen it in print.

Was that at a USPA Nationals event?

Apologies for the spelling (and grammar).... I got a B.S, not a B.A. :)

[riggerpaul 1]

(Can some old timer remind me how or why we stopped having the Nationals in Muskogee?)

(Maybe we should start another thread?)