Attention DZOs that bid on US Nationals & competitors

[MakeItHappen 15]

Check out the Competition committee Agenda at
http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Agenda_Comp2009_07.pdf

Quote

Nowhere does it mention that if a DZ gets a significant sponsor does USPA get any of the $. I would like to discuss this with the committee. I will have a motion to change contract between USPA and DZ to fix this.

The "I" in this paragraph is the Committee chair, Bill Wenger.

If I am reading this right, USPA wants a chunk of change from DZO's efforts to finance Nationals. Nationals is hard to run and costs a LOT of money. Most DZs loose money by hosting Nationals. Does it make sense to give (or have USPA demand) part of a DZO host's income to USPA?

Quote

11-1.7 (New) Team Uniforms
A. Members will wear the full uniform as directed by the Team Manger at the
opening, closing and award ceremonies or any other function as directed
by the Team Manager.
1. Uniform will be defined as warn-up top and bottom
2. Clothing will be T-shirts shorts hats etc.
B. USPA/Competition Committee will provide at cost the required Team
Uniform to the U.S. Team. Other team clothing will be at the discretion of
the Team Manager.
C. Sponsorship/Advertising on the uniform will be limited to the right
sleeve between the shoulder and elbow limited to 8 inches high and 4
inches wide.
D. Sponsorship/Advertising on any team uniform or clothing must be
appropriate and bring no discredit to the U.S.

At least there will be some allowance for sponsor space now.
But I still cannot see why USPA wants to thwart sponsors by not allowing competitors to wear their jumpsuits at the awards presentations.
This pomp and circumstance of 'warm-up' outfits that the competitors have to buy for a 5 min. display – if they win - is BS. I'd rather have the competitors using that $100 bucks or so on training jumps or tunnel time.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[JoeQ.Public 0]

USPA is going to screw around and find themselves with no one bidding soon. I think there are already some that have hosted it before that said they will never do it again.

Very soon, an honest person will not be able to sing the last 2 lines of our National Anthem:::Practice safe dining....use condiments

[Krip 2]

Hi MIH

If the proposal wasn't so it would be .

I had a brain fart of the nationals in Arizona with slyride as the event sponsor and USPA getting a piece of the action. In reality the sponsor would probably be Red Bull.

What is USPA thinkingMaybe Slyde is right

One Jump Wonder

[davelepka 4]

Quote

USPA wants a chunk of change from DZO's efforts to finance Nationals. Nationals is hard to run and costs a LOT of money. Most DZs loose money by hosting Nationals. Does it make sense to give (or have USPA demand) part of a DZO host's income to USPA?

On this same subject, and to help me understand how wrong this is (or isn't), does anyone know what's involved in the 'bidding' process for a DZ to host nationals.

I guess I've never put much thought into it previously, but sort of assumed that the 'bidding' process was more of an 'offering' a DZ made to the USPA in terms of, "We can offer this many Otters, this big of a pond, this many team rooms..." and so on, and then the USPA would choose the best venue.

Is there more to this? Does anyone know what sort of, if any, business arrangements are made with the DZ and USPA?

I guess in terms of this latest development we'll have to wait and see exactly what they're looking for.

If they're preparred to make some consessions in one area of the deal in favor of getting a cut of the sponsorship cash, then that's a gamble the DZO's can choose to make or not.

If the USPA just thinks it deserves a cut, on top of whatever else has traditionally been in place, that starts to sound like a cash grab.

And what does the USPA plan to do if said sponsor is offering goods/services as opposed to straight cash? Do they expect two cans of Red Bull for every case they provide? Or do they expect the DZO to kick in the cash value of the USPA's cut even if the DZO collects no cash?

It seems to me like the competitors already pay into the admin. costs through registration. If the USPA cannot run the show on that money alone, either they need to raise the registration, or slim down the show and run it within their means.

I'm not sure is Nationals is a money loser or if it's profitable to the DZO's but in either case, the USPA should leave them be. If they're spending money to host the meet, of course they shouldn't incur additional costs, and if they're making money how about just let them make a buck? It's not like Perris or SDA has never done anything for skydiving, right?

[billvon 2,426]

>does anyone know what's involved in the 'bidding' process for a DZ to
>host nationals.

I went to one. It's basically a presentation. The one I saw was a PowerPoint presentation, and indicated team room space, landing areas, lodging around the area etc.

>and if they're making money how about just let them make a buck?

One of the most consistent themes I've heard over the past few years from USPA members is "this organization should be for skydivers, not DZ's! USPA gives DZ's way too much power, charges them way too little" etc. Perhaps this is a reaction to that sentiment.

[surfbum5412 0]

Quote

Check out the Competition committee Agenda at
http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Agenda_Comp2009_07.pdf

***
Nationals is hard to run and costs a LOT of money. Most DZs loose money by hosting Nationals. Does it make sense to give (or have USPA demand) part of a DZO host's income to USPA? .

In business, sometimes you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar. I'm not educated in this arena of the skydiving industry, but hosting nationals brings on A LOT of attention and advertisement for DZ.

Smart move for USPA.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

One of the most consistent themes I've heard over the past few years from USPA members is "this organization should be for skydivers, not DZ's! USPA gives DZ's way too much power, charges them way too little" etc. Perhaps this is a reaction to that sentiment.

I think in this case, especially if hosting nationals is a money loser as has been suggested, the DZO is taking a loss (or at the minimum risking a loss) and should be able to conduct his business free and clear.

In terms of what the USPA does for DZO's in general, just in the course of daily business maybe the USPA does spend a disproportionate time on DZO business as oppposed to skydiving business, but that's in terms of Joe DZO and Jim Skydiver who are sitting at home on their duff not making a contribution.

For the guy who ponies up and hosts nationals, he should get a pass on the USPA dipping into his pockets.

And in reply to the other post about "You have to spend money to make money" and "The adverstising of hosting nationals is worth the loss they will incur", I'm not sure how valid that argument is here. How many jumpers have never heard of Skydive Chicago, SDA, or Perris? Even if they hadn't, after one nationals they would have, so where's the incentive to host (and lose money) again?

There are only so many DZ that can handle hosting nationals, what do we do when all of them get sick of the trouble and don't place a bid?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

There are only so many DZ that can handle hosting nationals, what do we do when all of them get sick of the trouble and don't place a bid?

Well, at least there's always the WFFC.

[MakeItHappen 15]

Quote

Quote

USPA wants a chunk of change from DZO's efforts to finance Nationals. Nationals is hard to run and costs a LOT of money. Most DZs loose money by hosting Nationals. Does it make sense to give (or have USPA demand) part of a DZO host's income to USPA?

On this same subject, and to help me understand how wrong this is (or isn't), does anyone know what's involved in the 'bidding' process for a DZ to host nationals.

I guess I've never put much thought into it previously, but sort of assumed that the 'bidding' process was more of an 'offering' a DZ made to the USPA in terms of, "We can offer this many Otters, this big of a pond, this many team rooms..." and so on, and then the USPA would choose the best venue.

The SCM has a section that lists all of the requirements a host must provide.
Each proposal states that the host has this, that & the other thing.
For the most part, every bidder has more than adequate facilities (at least on paper) to run Nats.
Each bidder gives a formal presentation and then answers questions.
Previous issues of earlier events by a bidder are brought up in discussion.
These issues can range from where the copy machine is, WX, conflicting jumpruns of different events, number of teams per pass, power outages, video dubbing, judging backlog (that strongly depends upon video dubbing), schedule, dates, judges transportation etc. Usually prior issues are resolved the next time they bid.

Quote

Is there more to this? Does anyone know what sort of, if any, business arrangements are made with the DZ and USPA?

What is known to some is that the process is some what of a joke (and a big expense for the bidders). The dzs are sort of in an informal 'rotation' to win nats. The cost to competitors is not really considered by most BOD members. The first year I was on the BOD I made a spreadsheet comparison of the schedules to show how costs (jump rates to competitors) were related to the schedule. I was poo-hood for doing that. Then someone told me of the 'natural order of things' where 'nats was rotated among the bidders'. A few years later (2006) I always recused myself from discussion & voting on nats bcz I supported Omniskore!.

RN proposed that the DZs get into some sort of formally determined rotation schedule. That fell trough the bureaucratic hole. The comp comm did not act on it at the mtg it was proposed at. RN was not at the next mtg & ML dissed it. In any event, no one has proposed a rotation method that accounts for new DZs bidding, previous bidders dropping out of rotation or how to remove a dz from the rotation for poor performance.

For anyone that thinks the bid goes to the lowest bidder - think again.
The current system does favor a DZO on the BOD bidding bcz their travel is paid for by USPA, whereas a non-BOD DZO must pay out of pocket. All these costs get passed to competitors.

Quote

I guess in terms of this latest development we'll have to wait and see exactly what they're looking for.

If they're preparred to make some consessions in one area of the deal in favor of getting a cut of the sponsorship cash, then that's a gamble the DZO's can choose to make or not.

If the USPA just thinks it deserves a cut, on top of whatever else has traditionally been in place, that starts to sound like a cash grab.

And what does the USPA plan to do if said sponsor is offering goods/services as opposed to straight cash? Do they expect two cans of Red Bull for every case they provide? Or do they expect the DZO to kick in the cash value of the USPA's cut even if the DZO collects no cash?

Any cut that USPA takes out of a sponsorship increases cost to competitors and consumers. Just say no.

Quote

It seems to me like the competitors already pay into the admin. costs through registration. If the USPA cannot run the show on that money alone, either they need to raise the registration, or slim down the show and run it within their means.

USPA does not 'run the show' the host does. USPA's income is the sanction fee per competitor. At the last BOD mtg, I asked why the sanction fee was not increased along with all the other dues & license fees. I was told by BW that they wanted to keep the competitor costs down.

Quote

I'm not sure is Nationals is a money loser or if it's profitable to the DZO's but in either case, the USPA should leave them be. If they're spending money to host the meet, of course they shouldn't incur additional costs, and if they're making money how about just let them make a buck? It's not like Perris or SDA has never done anything for skydiving, right?

USPA needs to focus on Nationals facilities, infrastructure and DZ management, not on how much sponsor money a host may get.

.

.
Make It Happen
Parachute History
DiveMaker

[billvon 2,426]

> the DZO is taking a loss . . . .

I very much doubt that. Most DZO's are savvy enough to not bid on something they will lose money overall on. At Eloy, for example, they may lose money on registration/jumps, but make up for it with Bent Prop sales. Other DZO's may want the free advertising that Nationals provides, thinking that in the long run it will make them more money.

[grimmie 177]

The "bidding" is a joke. Why does a DZ owner have to explain with a presentation what their place has to offer. Everyone already knows the set ups at all of the major DZ's.
If USPA wanted to save some money they would just ask for a list of DZ's that want Nationals. Put it on a revolving schedule. Perris, Eloy, The Ranch, Spaceland, etc.
Or let's hold Nationals at a really nice beachfront resort somewhere and bring in different DZ's aircraft each year.

[bbarnhouse 0]

Quote

USPA needs to focus on Nationals facilities, infrastructure and DZ management, not on how much sponsor money a host may get.

First and foremost it should serve what is in the best interest of the competitors, and place this before all other relationships. Jan's post would be part of that.
(I can say this as a former competitor and an individual who has been through the entire process)

Some times I read posts in the forums regarding Nationals and just have to shake my head.

People don't know what they don't know...and I can't expect them to know what I know.

I would enocurage people to educate themselves on how the entire process works from begining to end.

The USPA could learn from other sports on how they conduct the bidding process. I have attempted to explain it before, I have been through that process too with an Olympic sport and it just makes good sense...but alas here we are.

B2