login
IM WI concern regarding future.... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2008-09-07 10:54 AM in reply to: #1656147 |
Champion  6627      Rochester Hills, Michigan Gold member |  Subject: RE: IM WI concern regarding future....JohnnyKay - 2008-09-07 11:06 AM rkreuser - 2008-09-07 10:56 AM Yes, but NA Sports is in deep. If they let a race fold over $20K, who loses? 1) The town, 2) the athletes, but probably more importantly, 3) Triathlon, and NA sports. They have already demonstrated it's a multi-year deal to crank up a new IM venue, much less one with history, great support, and infrastructure to handle it, and in a part of the country that's Tri-Under-served. Plus, it sends a signal to the athletes that even though you pony-up and sell out every event, they could care less, it's not about the athlete, thanks very much. And to the sponsors nationally, it sends signals that NA sports doesn't care if the sport shrinks, as long as they get theirs. Finally, NAS would have to do without an event for a couple years that, to them, is profitable. I'll never do an NAS event. Ever. Much like if I didn't have to, I wouldn't belong to USA tri. Two useless organizations, only interested in the the shortest term $$ possible. Reminds me of boxing promoters, and look where boxing is today (no rip on boxing, but when governing bodies and event promoters clash, it frustrates the public and people move on). I don't think you really understand much about either organization. That's a judgment. I don't agree. And judging people vs. providing facts is less-than productive. You don't have to do an NAS event if you don't want. I won't. But if you don't think the organizations care about the development of the sport, you really don't know much about them or the people involved. Of course, it's very much a business for NAS as well. They are not a non-profit. But they've earned their money by investing a ton into their events and the sport. I didn't say they don't care about the development of the sport, clearly they do...please don't attribute conclusions to me that I didn't state. From my point of view - NAS ranks growing the sport and athlete care lower than political priorities and financial priorities. And is NAS really a not-for-profit? I believe it's wholly-owned by Graham Fraser, and has a not-for-profit subsidiary that donates to charity (for charity fund donations, etc). Not-for-profits are required to produce a statement that discusses their income, outflow, and percentage of revenues that go toward various things (management, to charity, etc.). I looked everywhere, and couldn't find one....and it wasn't on the NAS website (not a surprise), nor googleable. Help me out, here. |
| 2008-09-07 11:07 AM in reply to: #1656184 |
| Champion 6539 South Jersey | Subject: RE: IM WI concern regarding future.... nm, JK can stand up for himself... Edited by LaurenSU02 2008-09-07 11:07 AM |
. You just might want to re-read his post.| 2008-09-07 2:25 PM in reply to: #1656174 |
Expert 657 Portland | Subject: RE: IM WI concern regarding future.... JohnnyKay - 2008-09-07 11:44 AM MikeJ - 2008-09-07 11:23 AM There are a bunch of corporations out there that are providing an extremely popular product that are blatent about putting profits before the consumer. (Microsoft and Exxon/Mobil come to mind) The only way to fight back is pretty much on an individual level, like Rick said. It probably won't have much impact that he doesn't do another NAS event, but he certainly isn't contributing either, and that can be very comforting to one's conscience. On the othere hand, if you love the product, you continue to use it and it serves your needs then you are much more likely to forgive the greed aspect. It is a business after all and its ONLY goal is to make money. That's an interesting opinion about business in general. One in which I entirely disagree with. Really??? Then what is the goal of business? |
| 2008-09-07 4:34 PM in reply to: #1656184 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: IM WI concern regarding future....
That's a judgment. I don't agree. And judging people vs. providing facts is less-than productive. It was not a judgment. It was an opinion (note the "I don't think" opening). Based on your "judgment" of NAS without facts.
I didn't say they don't care about the development of the sport, clearly they do...please don't attribute conclusions to me that I didn't state. From my point of view - NAS ranks growing the sport and athlete care lower than political priorities and financial priorities. You said about NAS and USAT, "Two useless organizations, only interested in the the shortest term $$ possible." So if they are "only" interested in the shortest term $$ possible, I assumed that left out the development of the sport. Sorry if you meant otherwise. And is NAS really a not-for-profit? I believe it's wholly-owned by Graham Fraser, and has a not-for-profit subsidiary that donates to charity (for charity fund donations, etc). Not-for-profits are required to produce a statement that discusses their income, outflow, and percentage of revenues that go toward various things (management, to charity, etc.). I looked everywhere, and couldn't find one....and it wasn't on the NAS website (not a surprise), nor googleable. Help me out, here.
|
| 2008-09-07 4:39 PM in reply to: #1656394 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: IM WI concern regarding future.... MikeJ - 2008-09-07 3:25 PM Really??? Then what is the goal of business? I never said (or implied) that there is no profit motive in a business. But that's different than "greed" or saying that the "ONLY" goal is to make money (granted, it's an important goal if the business wants to sustain itself). But this is more of a CoJ-type debate. Suffice it to say that I just don't agree with your characterization of businesses in general. Businesses run as you described inevitably fail. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK