Gerhardvd

Think about this ABSA Cape Epic - run by company under CSA umbrella Nedbank Wealth Sani2sea - run by company under CSA umbrella Pick n Pay Argus Cycle tour - was run under CSA umbrella Etc. Maybe CSA acknowledges that events like these are better run by professional Sports / Markweting companies - for the good of cycling

I will buy you a coke if you come to HNP on Sunday

Maybe I miss something CSA does have a structure As part of the structure they allowed the PPA to make money organizing the fun rides. Now the PPA has made money Now PPA is not part of the income stream because they do not want to part of funds they agreed to (not all the funds, only the funds agreed when PPA was a member of CSA) Simply put PPA benefitted from the relationship. You cannot have your cake AND eat it With your statement that you cannot be forced to contribute, simply because you like the sport, - please do not be PROUDLY SOUTH AFRICAN when the next Champion arise, in spite of the lack of support.

I understand you are only interested in the fun riding aspect, and this is good for you. Do you realize that an estimated 25 million people watched the Track Cycling World Championships 2013. I am sure that these were not all professionals? Most probably fun riders like yourselves. The point is that you do not have to participate on that level to enjoy. I am sure that you will be watching the cycling at Commonwealth Games this year. Enjoy watching other nations battling it out on the track, while our riders sit at home. AND CSA CANNOT MAKE THIS DIFFERENCE.They do not have the revenue stream, simply because the structures developed under their umbrella don't want to honor their commitments.

Thank you for this post. This brings us closer to the real problem. They do receive substantial income from TV coverage, yes.They also rely on income derived from the unions. All sporting codes would like to secure some funding, be it Lottery, commercial or even from Sports and recreation . Upon approach you are constantly told that "we only support the main sporting codes" which is Rugby, Cricket and Soccer. Not only is this biased in favour of the top three, but essentially, the three are male dominated sporting codes. (I do not see much live coverage of for instance SA Ladies cricket or Rugby). With this support, the three major sports draw more commercial support, and TV rights can be sold due to the exposure. The smaller other sporting codes (amongst which cycling ) have to look at different modules, such as CSA with the levy system aimed at creating an income stream. We have been invited to send a team to the Junior Track Cycling World Championships in Korea.We would like to make the country proud, but it has become impossible to do so without funding. For the last two months, I am being frustrated by negative responses to various organisations to secure funding. I read from previous postings that PPA has sponsored walkways, trees, etc etc. With all this funding available, Why don't they want to invest in our future top riders?

Yes. paragraph 7 clearly states that PPA became unhappy because they had to pay R 1.2 mil over 10 years - as they say for "sanctioning" races. However, the funding is desperately needed for funding our riders

I know the court rolls are full, but in the same affidavit you are talking about, they admit they were part of the structure since 2004. THAT IS TEN YEARS OF WILLINGLY PARTICIPATING

If it was just that easy. We are talking International competition, not only grass roots level. Your home town hero Nolan Hoffman has not qualified for automatic entry to the Olympics yet. And he is one of only two riders in the current World Championship squad. There is just not funding enough to give more riders the same opportunities. Who do you think will fit that bill? I can recall at least five other riders from Paarl that has similar abilities to Nolan, came through the structures, but will never be able to fulfill their dreams because of financial constraints. To give you an idea:

The fact is that PPA was a willing participant under CSA umbrella for many years, with full knowledge of their financial obligations. For many years CSA allowed them to proper. The CSA business plan relied on their members, of which PPA was one until recently, to provide an income stream. Other sport bodies do exactly the same. Do you thing Cricket South Africa or South African Rugby Board live from own income? No, they have similar business plans to CSA where their members contribute through ticket sales - similar to a levy on cycling entries.

You are wrong, the PPA WAS NOT TARGETED. THEY WERE WILLINGLY A PART OF THE PROCESS!!!!!!!

And now you grind your axe with SASSCOC to the detriment of our future riders?

In 2013, CSA sent a team JNR track Cycling World Championships. The cost per person was in excess of R 40 000. Because of the lack of funding, the honor to represent their country had to be self funded. This cost, for one team only was in excess of R 500 000. Included were 12 riders, a manager and a coach. Travelling costs of R 681 000 does not take you very far if you want to compete Internationally

Clearly we miss something here - CSA has to comply with SASSCOC guidelines. SASSCOC had a problem with the entrenchment of PPA, not CSA. CSA called a meeting, inclusive of PPA, which PPA chose not to attend As he says, "we simply want to continue as we have done" - happy to work within the constitution and grow his business, but when it comes to paying his dues????????

You seem to know a lot about the real facts. Now tell me, why did PPA, out of their own choice, not attend the meeting where the changes in the constitution were discussed. You also choose not to mention the fact that the change in constitution was not CSA's doing, but was enforced by Sasscoc. Failing this South Africa wouldn't be allowed to send a team to Olympics anyway - not that this would bother you at all, I suppose.

For ten years PPA was very happy to manage and grow their events under the CSA umbrella. They accepted their responsiblity and liability with regards to levies payable to CSA. They also knew that monies derived from this income was used to create opportunities for our top riders. It seems a little strange, that now, after all the years of benefiting from being a sanctioned event, they decide to defend change their position knowing well, and accepting the mandate of CSA to grow cycling in South Africa at all levels, grass roots level as well as international level. The PPA knows well that, in able to do so, CSA needs an income. In the CSA business plan, their main stream of income has always been derived from levies on sanctioned events, such as Argus. This way the cycling community takes shared responsibility for growing the sport, and doesn't have to beg for money from sponsors, who, upon approach, the first question the would ask you " What are you doing for yourselve". Major events' levies are not for "sanctioning" the events, but in reality an opportunity for organisers of events to put back into the source (cycling) where they derive an income from. The other side of the coin, if the major events refuses to contribute through the levies, no growth in the sport, other than mass participation will be possible. Do not then at the next Olympics ask where our riders are - they are back home due to the lack of funding - but hey at least they will be able to ride in the fun rides!. So, to speak, Argus not contributing through levies required will be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. So PPA, next time there is a Daryl Impey or Ashleigh Moolman, or Reinhard Janse van Rensburg, or Louis Meintlies on the International podium, please do not claim them to be yours, or CLAIM be proudly South African.