CSA / PPA. The Heat is on

[Wannabe]

the latest from the ppa (just heard it on the radio) , the csa want all recreational cyclist to take out a license (r75). the ppa call this an unneccessary tax but they don't mention that when ppa were part of the csa structures all ppa members were automatically made a licensed member of csa. the ppa increased their annual fees BUT the ppa did not pay the R75 over to csa they kept it.

What was the PPA increase?

Asking because I paid my PPA and CSA fees without looking at increase in Affiliation fees (if any)

[HappyMartin]

Out of interest. What % of cyclists doing the Argus are from outside of the PPA geographic region?

[dirtrider]

Out of interest. What % of cyclists doing the Argus are from outside of the PPA geographic region?

 

And how many of them are actually members if CSA , i.e got a license .

[ccc2]

It's interesting reading all the different views on the this subject. One thing that i'm seeing is two distinct camps on the issue. 1. The competitive rider i.e. Racing Vets, elite and or Pro riders. 2. The recreational cyclist.

 

Camp 1 needs and organization like CSA as the national controlling body of the sport, they may even see benefit from the member fees and other monies they need to pay to belong or be licensed by them. The will have to play by the rules set out by the controlling body if they want to RACE on a provincial, national or international level. In any country in any sport, a controlling body needs to be established to ensure the playing field is level and the rules and standards are adhered to. Or the sport will simply go to POT.

 

Camp 2 don't need a controlling body like the CSA (In my personal opinion). A recreational cyclist simply wants to enter a fun ride of his or her choosing and ride the best possible time they can and have a good time. We are not there to challenge for a podium finish and win money or even have any aspirations of racing overseas. The only racing that goes on is the individual racing to beat their last time or a bit of rivalry between riding mates or other club members, hell there are even some clubs and companies who have their own little internal race competitions all in the fun and spirit of cycling.

 

The problem is that camp 2 is being taxed to maintain the controlling body, and not seeing any benefit. why would you pay and not receive goods or service in return. Camp 1 is far too small to finance their own controlling body so that burden is placed on the recreational cyclist. Which I have no problem with as i'm happy to contribute towards the professional part of our sport in the hope of seeing our country represented on an international level. But this is not happening, virtually every cyclist going overseas or even racing on a national level has to pay the bulk themselves.

 

When CSA can show me, how my club or me as an individual recreational cyclist can benefit from being licensed or a member, then I will gladly pay and support them.

But until then they can get knotted, and go to provincial or national government for their funding, because that's where it should be coming from.

 

i hear what camp 2 say and its true but they still need to be regulated just like any other recreational sport. ask any golfer about cheating - u are banned for life. get sent off in a rugby or soccer game, u appear before a disciplinary (i know, got a red card 3 times over a 22 year period).

recreational cyclists use public roads to enjoy their sport - and i'm talking about organised fun rides not your social club ride, fun riders need to be regulated. period. so that u have recourse to some body/association if all rules and regs are not adhered to.

i reported to the ppa that one of their members was continously cheating in league events by taking short cuts. i got told , they have no evidence, he started and finished. he was a member of the same club as me so we set him up. after i as a normal ppa member arranged statements from riders in the vets league, tandem fun ride and u16 league did the ppa take me seriously and banned him for 2 years. and then to top it all he still rode in their fun rides because they had no control at the entry tables. i reported this to the ppa and got told if u see him then report it to the start marshals ( as if i need this type of aggro at 6 in the a.m.).

now if he was licensed , his licensed would have been taken away. no license no ride.

[ccc2]

What was the PPA increase?

Asking because I paid my PPA and CSA fees without looking at increase in Affiliation fees (if any)

this was about 4 years ago and was included when you entered the argus.

i found out when i tried to license thru my club only to be told that i was already licensed

[DJR]

I asked the same question when starting the epic prologue this year. I had my GoPro on my helmet and was told to remove it. It has to do with safety - if you fall and land on that camera, the helmet offers little resistance. Also whilst you are falling the weight of the camera can move the positioning of the helmet on your nut; so again the effectiveness of the helmet is compromised. Thats what the safety marshall told me and it made sense.

Very little to do with safety imho. All to do with UCI rules, binding the Epic. UCI don't want you to film its big races because of them selling the TV rights. Bidders for that would normally want a clause saying nobody else may film etc. Or am I starting to sound a bit like a conspiracy theory junkie?t

[Wannabe]

That is why I was asking. This is the first year that the CSA license was not part of the PPA deal. Think the CSA part was previously subsidised by PPA (Kandui, correct or not?)

Edited June 13, 2013 by Wannabe

[madmarc]

Out of interest. What % of cyclists doing the Argus are from outside of the PPA geographic region?

 

Not sure, but from memory in one of the entrant packs they indicated % and Western Cape were in the minority

[Java001]

And therein lies the problem. PPA does f-all for me outside the Western Cape, but now they go an raise an application in the high court which is going to cost me (as a CSA member money).

 

On the other hand, what do i see for my R75 from CSA? I see them at every race I partake in spending 4+ hours to make sure that the results are correct, there has been no cheating, people who have had an accident are helped and in general the rules are followed. I see them organising provincial and national d'h and Xc races, which is ultimately promoting the sport, and I see them lobbying for and helping bring the World cup and World champs to this country. For R75 that looks like a good bargain to me.

 

Are you not confusing CSA with the event organisers of the race ? The event organiser is "forced" to use and pay CSA officials to fulfill certain functions and every rider pays for this via entry fees ............... if you see a CSA race commissaire, surely he is not at the race because of any CSA involvement, but rather because he is supplying his services to the race organiser at a fee? If PPA ( or for that matter, any other cycling body) was allowed to train and accredit officials, they would be able to supply the same services to race organisers.

[carbon29er]

this was about 4 years ago and was included when you entered the argus.

i found out when i tried to license thru my club only to be told that i was already licensed

You're all over the place with the facts on this.

 

You 1st state the PPA increased their fees and didn't pay it over to CSA, then The Argus charged the fee. Which is it?

 

Factually this is the situation:

 

Since the 2004 Constitution was adopted, the PPA has paid the following amounts to CSA, for which it has received little or no benefit:

1. Initially, when CSA did not have any funds, PPA undertook and paid for the salary of CSA’s employees for a period of two years. The amount paid to CSA in this regard totalled R551 000;

2. Calendar fees of R43 115;

3. Membership levies of R2 128 087;

4. PPA has collected and paid to CSA day license fees of R66 416.

 

If the CSA constitution is upheld then:

(a) “none of [PPA's] events will be able to take place as they will not have Provincial or National approval” (paragraph 3.12 e); and

(B) “effectively this means that the Cape Argus Cycle Tour will not take place without the approval and sanction of Western Cape and Cycling SA.” (paragraph 3.5)

 

You have a beef with PPA, don't use it to hide the facts that PPA does a huge amount for all types of cyclists, CSA brief is to look after racers and elite cyclists and win medals.

 

The court action is simply to protect PPA position to continue to exercise its autonomy over funrides, including timed fun rides, without regard to Western Cape Cycling and CSA. In particular PPA intends to exercise the right granted in clause 11.6.1 “in perpetuity” to “continue to carry on [PPA's] business; set and operate [PPA's] domestic fun ride calendars and generally operate and control all [PPA's] recreation tours; fun rides and league races (after consultation with the Road Commission).

 

Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Greybeard]

YES , YES , YES, I AGREE. but they won't as they don't have the capacity to do it.

ppa have an exco (volunteers) just like the csa.

they have a full time office staff just like the csa (admin staff who don't know one end of the bike from the other)

they only operate in the cape, which means they would have to form regions (csa have this already(unpaid volunteers))

they don't have dedicated commissions ie road, track, bmx,mtb,paracycling (csa have this already(unpaid volunteers))

The "Unpaid" volunteers should ask who got the R300,000 paid to CSA by PPA for salaries???

[Velouria]

I just want to ride my bike - safely - on the roads and trails around the Western Cape. I want to do the odd race here and there, occasionally venturing upcountry for something different.

 

At least I see PPA standing up for me as a cyclist with City and Provincial legislators, the most recent example being the rather ridiculously titled "Safety of Cyclists" draft legislation . I see them handing out lights and helmets to cyclists that aren't as well off as me. I see them investing money in new trails and campaigning landowners for access. I see them growing the sport and at the same time making a difference to those less fortunate than I am.

 

PPA, through their up to date, current seeding system, also gives me the opportunity to recreationally race against my peers - to all the other "racers" out there - get over yourselves. Unless you are earning a salary from cycling you're still just recreational cyclists, you just go a little faster than the guys behind you.

 

The one time I've ever actually wanted something from CSA, after paying fees and subs for years, they didn't even get back to me. I realised that day that they need me far more than I need them, and I'll rather spend my money on an organisation that makes a difference. To all our pro's that have made it overseas I think they made it despite CSA, not because of them.

[Java001]

The "Unpaid" volunteers should ask who got the R300,000 paid to CSA by PPA for salaries???

 

Aha, now we are getting to the gist of it all - it is ultimately all about the money ! Whilst there might be a few unpaid volunteers, who really earn nothing and are involved for the love of the sport, there are MANY who live quite handsomely and/or supplement their lifestyles very nicely, thank you. It will never reflect in the financial statements as salary, but there are many creative ways of doing this - dealing irresponsibly or recklessly with LOTTO funds and equipment, creative reimbursement claims for travelling local or abroad, visiting pals in Australia/UK that just happen to coincide with some or other World Cycling Event or training camp - these things have been going on for years and there might in fact still be a few involved within CSA, who are being investigated. If memory serves correctly investigations came about as result of concerns expressed by members of WPCA ............so handing over large sums of money to CSA without being able to see EXACTLY what they are doing with it, will never fill PPA with much joy.

 

As pointed out in a few previous posts, CSA, as far as I am aware DO NOT in any direct or meaningful way contribute to selected cyclists overseas travelling costs. So they make the selection of who can represent SA, but it is then up to the cyclist ( or parents) to make a "commitment" . The recent announcement of juniors ( 17 & 18 year olds i.e. the future of SA cycling) to represent SA at the World Track Champs, being a good example - each training camp came at a cost and Overseas costs carried by cyclists in the region of R 35 000 - R 50 000.

So, saying that CSA looks after racing activities, is a bit like saying McDonalds is looking after your health !

Edited June 13, 2013 by Java001

[Cheese]

All cyclists from previous years were forced to have license from what I remembered , either Day or annual license, you could add it to the basket if you did not have one, why is it a problem for PPA now.

As all other provinces currently fall under CSA it will mean no cyclist from upcountry will be allowed to do Argus if the Argus is no longer sanctioned .

I think this number will be more than the 1% PPA are talking about. It will remove a large number of the Elites, VA,VB&VC riders from the bunch.Maybe that is what they want.

But I thought the Western cape see this as tourism opportunity so they would not want this to happen.

[ccc2]

You're all over the place with the facts on this.

 

You 1st state the PPA increased their fees and didn't pay it over to CSA, then The Argus charged the fee. Which is it? i pay my Argus entry and PPA subs together

 

Factually this is the situation:

 

Since the 2004 Constitution was adopted, the PPA has paid the following amounts to CSA, for which it has received little or no benefit:

1. Initially, when CSA did not have any funds, PPA undertook and paid for the salary of CSA’s employees for a period of two years. The amount paid to CSA in this regard totalled R551 000; Great , and i commend them on that.

2. Calendar fees of R43 115; like every other promotor of cycles events but why didn't they pay before 2004?

3. Membership levies of R2 128 087; see above

4. PPA has collected and paid to CSA day license fees of R66 416.see above

 

If the CSA constitution is upheld then:

(a) “none of [PPA's] events will be able to take place as they will not have Provincial or National approval” (paragraph 3.12 e); and

( B) “effectively this means that the Cape Argus Cycle Tour will not take place without the approval and sanction of Western Cape and Cycling SA.” (paragraph 3.5) if they are within the csa structures it will be approved!!!

 

You have a beef with PPA, don't use it to hide the facts that PPA does a huge amount for all types of cyclists, CSA brief is to look after racers and elite cyclists and win medals. take the time to read all of my replies

 

The court action is simply to protect PPA position to continue to exercise its autonomy over funrides, including timed fun rides, without regard to Western Cape Cycling and CSA. In particular PPA intends to exercise the right granted in clause 11.6.1 “in perpetuity” to “continue to carry on [PPA's] business; set and operate [PPA's] domestic fun ride calendars and generally operate and control all [PPA's] recreation tours; fun rides and league races (after consultation with the Road Commission). but the Road Commission is a CSA structure. you can't have it both ways

 

Nothing more. Nothing less.

[Kranswurm]

It works in the reverse

I have to buy a day license for all my up country events because PPA is not affiliated to CSA

Sucks!