CSA / PPA. The Heat is on

[Stretch]

The problem with this if that a national body is just that a national body.it is not going to go away..just like we will always pay to license our vehicles. Litigation costs and the net result will be increased fees. And for all of us outside ppa land aka western cape.. it means *** all to us and a big waste of money...they need to dry their eyes in my opinion

Edited June 11, 2013 by Stretch

[(Deon)]

This is very much like the standoff between the enduro world series and UCI. The EWS stands for corruption free/cheat free racing and does not take lightly to the apathy shown by the USI boss and his minions. Same in this country, not knowing all the details it seems PPA have stood their ground regarding the "lack of service" from CSA. ED: PPA gets my vote to change the CSA system.

 

Andrew Neethling was sleeping on friends floors while touring the WC, does that sound right?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Pain or shine

[carbon29er]

And to add insult to injury, despite us all having to pay R35 extra per race to CSA, the pro riders are taxed 10% of their winnings by CSA. Business class travel is expensive, and our administrators deserve to sit up front when attending events that they can't afford to send athletes to.

 

Is this 10% tax the real reason for sanctioned events? Guaranteed income at the expense of competitors?

[scotty]

PPA gets my vote to change the CSA system.

 

 

 

Have my own gripes with CSA but a body that resides only in the WC has the right to change a system that affects me.??

[DJR]

I'll pick the PPA side. CSA, I hope you get your worthless arses handed to you. Shame on you for treating your milk cow so poorly. Using SASCOC as an excuse just expose your lack of management / negotiation skills.

['Dale]

Oi booi

 

Messy

[JA-Q001]

Sheesh, with a crowd like this, I can see why our country struggles to get professional cycling going.

[(Deon)]

Have my own gripes with CSA but a body that resides only in the WC has the right to change a system that affects me.??

 

Its not locality or who stands up that is being questioned, it's CSA's commitment to sport development that is my gripe, this affects you indirectly, but directly in SA's offering..

Edited June 12, 2013 by Pain or shine

[(Deon)]

Sheesh, with a crowd like this, I can see why our country struggles to get professional cycling going.

Pro cycling is going, it's just not going well.

[Slowbee]

Morning Madmarc, had your coffee yet ?

 

But what a mess!

 

To much self interest and not enough interest in the sport.

 

Where are those figures from the PPA and how much money they have in their savings account ?

[flymango]

And to add insult to injury, despite us all having to pay R35 extra per race to CSA, the pro riders are taxed 10% of their winnings by CSA. Business class travel is expensive, and our administrators deserve to sit up front when attending events that they can't afford to send athletes to.

 

Is this 10% tax the real reason for sanctioned events? Guaranteed income at the expense of competitors?

 

Well, if you think business class travel is expensive, wait til you see the cost of this High Court action. There goes all our CSA and PPA membership fees ...

[Wayne Booysen]

If CSA got hold of the Argus, UCI rules would apply.

 

Each batch start would be limited to 200 "licensed" riders.

 

With 175 batch starts at 3 minute intervals, the last groups would leave after 14h00

[Lucky Luke.]

CSA are simply the goverments lap dog, ensuring they have their fingers in every essence of sport. It's just another type of tax from the fun riders license fees and the money raked in from being collected by CSA for the so called sanctioned cycling events. Which is a portion of our entry fees. the more they collect the less they need to ask goverment for. thats why we are so poorly represented in international pro events. Most pro riders have to pay themselves or get pvt companies to sponser them to go race overseas. It will never end unless the fun riders stand up and do something.

 

Just a thought

 

If every non-pro rider refused to take out CSA license and simply boycotted every CSA sanctioned cycling event I wonder what their repsonse would be or how long it would take for them to go bust because of no income.

 

Yes we would lose out on a lot of races for however long it took, but maybe it would work.

 

Imagine if only the elites arrived to do the 94.7 or the ARGUS.

 

Unsanctioned races would mean the pros or elites would be banned from participating. But the masses of fun riders would be there and so would the money and the sponsers. I personally don't ride these events because the pros are riding them, so let them race in CSA organised and sanctioned events. But i suppose trying to organize a road event would mean having the local authorities (which is goverment) agree to it and they could make if difficult.

 

On the other hand MTB events are largely hosted on private land so why do they need to be sanctioned by CSA. A non-sanctioned MTB event would still attract us fun riders, with the elite bunch missing. So the entry fees would be there and the sponsers, because we are the people they are trying sell to, certainly not the pro's.

 

Last week at the USN cup the race com. was very vocal about CSA rules and swore he would DQ any rider caught with a video camera on his body or helmet. I thought WTF!!!! or HTF!!!! cares if i wanna film my race i'll film it, if you wanna DQ me then go ahead. I would still get my stupid medal and i don't need an official time because i have a perfectly good Garmin which will give me my time.

 

Just a thought - use it; don't use it; use it.......

 

As soon as I can see CSA engaging with riders, showing a human presence at events (or anywhere) and visibly contributing value to my experience as a cyclist, I will continue to ignore all of their press releases. Actually I ignore press releases as a matter of course. So if they want my attention at all they'll have to try another channel.

[DJR]

........................Where are those figures from the PPA and how much money they have in their savings account ?

 

That's what CSA was after initially.

 

It would solve their financial woes so they could continue wasting money while doing nothing but complicating matters for the ordinary rider.

 

I recon that if the bulk of the funding comes from PPA, then they should have the bulk of the say - that wasn't to CSAs' liking - and that is what caused the PPA to walk away, and rightly so.

 

I do think, however, that it is time for some really grownup negotiations between the two bodies - because cycling needs one strong voice - for ALL of us, not just the CSA management.

Edited June 12, 2013 by DJR

[Lucky Luke.]

At the end of the day it's the bike under our asses that makes us cyclists, not some faceless government body. The vast majority of us don't live or die by which events CSA sanctions. If it implodes tomorrow there will still be roads and mountains to ride on, and I'd be willing to bet there will still be racing too.

[(Deon)]

Does the CSA have any influence over how the sport is viewed by government? i.e. does CSA have the power or mandate to help pass the 1.5m rule, or influence active support for trails on a national level like the NZ Gov with major investment in mountain biking?