Jump to content

PPA vs Cyclelab hosting the league in CPT?


mp321

Recommended Posts

I would like to know why PPA has taken back the league from Cyclelab this season? Cyclelab had a sponsor for the league, Aca Joe, what has happened to this sponsor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Cyclelab wanted PPA to pay them 150 000 to run the league, then CL still collect entries to run at a profit.

 

PPA decided that 150 000 was too much and could run the league themselves without "paying" cyclelab for essentially the same thing. Instead of passing on costs they internalised it to save the racers money.

 

YES there were frills to the Pro Classic, this was a 1st attempt by the PPA, and put on 6 races when in reality there would only have been three.

 

The points calculation was a problem and this is handled by racetec (outsourced)

 

There are options to Title Sponsor the league and we hope these are entertained and provide additional value to the league in summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in previous seasons PPA were already subsidising the league by 80 000. for 2012 they needed 150 000, then PPA were still providing the facility at no charge to the league, assisting with its function and paying racetec.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no gripes with either parties running the league except since PPA is now running it I would've expected to see a massive reduction in entry fee, non sponsored riders cannot justify these costs, which leaves us to ride in the seeded groups. Also let the league be made up of 5-7 PPA road races & in addition throw in a hill climb & TT, that's what I would l would like to see for Summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclelab wanted PPA to pay them 150 000 to run the league, then CL still collect entries to run at a profit.

 

PPA decided that 150 000 was too much and could run the league themselves without "paying" cyclelab for essentially the same thing. Instead of passing on costs they internalised it to save the racers money.

 

YES there were frills to the Pro Classic, this was a 1st attempt by the PPA, and put on 6 races when in reality there would only have been three.

 

The points calculation was a problem and this is handled by racetec (outsourced)

 

There are options to Title Sponsor the league and we hope these are entertained and provide additional value to the league in summer.

 

That is crazy, probably for Cycle Lab to atleast make some money to fund their pathetic bike shops...clearly the cyclist interest wernt taken into consideration.

 

I think PPA did a pretty good job, yes the points is delayed, but besides that overall organising of events was pretty well. The calender only has 3 road races in spring, would be cool to get Die Burger onto the list for spring....but besides that it went well...

Edited by MTB_Roadie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entry fee:

 

PPA make no profit, this is what it costs for marshalls, commisaires, timing, thinkbike, etc etc... especially after PPA added a race when TDW was cancelled, they could have not done so as running it stand alone cost extra money which we as riders did not chip in more for, that was a straight up loss.

 

Timing: I'm sure will be streamlined in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The entry fee:

 

PPA make no profit, this is what it costs for marshalls, commisaires, timing, thinkbike, etc etc... especially after PPA added a race when TDW was cancelled, they could have not done so as running it stand alone cost extra money which we as riders did not chip in more for, that was a straight up loss.

 

Timing: I'm sure will be streamlined in future.

 

Thanx for the behind-the-scenes point of view, Zilla...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zilla,

 

Will there be a Summer League?

Can you say?

 

I know sponsorship challenges can turn things upside down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclelab wanted PPA to pay them 150 000 to run the league, then CL still collect entries to run at a profit.

 

PPA decided that 150 000 was too much and could run the league themselves without "paying" cyclelab for essentially the same thing. Instead of passing on costs they internalised it to save the racers money.

 

YES there were frills to the Pro Classic, this was a 1st attempt by the PPA, and put on 6 races when in reality there would only have been three.

 

The points calculation was a problem and this is handled by racetec (outsourced)

 

There are options to Title Sponsor the league and we hope these are entertained and provide additional value to the league in summer.

 

laugh.png

 

CL wanted 150 000 to run a National Pro Classic series...not for a local league.

 

Just hope MTB_Roadie's LBS is supporting racing in the Western Cape wink.png

Edited by AuctionLamb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

League was better orginesed last year, PPA should maintain focus on the fun rides, they are good at that, the requirements for racing is much different though and this should be handled by someone that understands racing, ascthe requirements of a racing snake and that of a fun rider is as far apart as their respective BMI's, maybe they can co sanction some events ut the league portion to be handelled by someone else than PPA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

laugh.png

 

CL wanted 150 000 to run a National Pro Classic series...not for a local league.

 

Just hope MTB_Roadie's LBS is supporting racing in the Western Cape wink.png

 

Why would PPA want to invest into a National series if the overwhelming majority of their member base is in the Western Cape and the events they would want their members to ride in are hosted in this region? Is there a different number for having a local league as this seems to fit the requirement.

 

Either way its beside the point, as I'm still trying to figure out why CL would want that money AND still collect entries. PPA are definitely getting the raw end of the stick then. That makes no fiscal sense.

Edited by Tubehunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout