PPA versus CSA

[The Guy in Pink]

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

As you point out The JNR Track worlds team was self funded by the cyclists. Of the R681 000 travelling not a cent was for cyclists. Hub members put their hands in their pockets and contributed , but we made sure the money was paid to the cyclists and not CSA as your supporting letter demanded.

[Gerhardvd]

Gerhard, I understand your frustrations but PPA was started with the funrider in mind. They are the ones who organise a multitude of events for their members. As a result they have created a brand that people want to join, not have to join. Their focus is the fun rider and general social projects.

 

Lets turn it around and ask "What events do CSA (or their Provincial Structures) organise that appeal to me as the fun rider? What have CSA done or are they doing to make me want to join their structure?

 

 

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.

[GoLefty!!]

I don't buy into your communist ideals

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

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.

 

And that's why they wanted to get hold of the PPA coffers.

 

Why can't CSA start their own series? A national series which Elite level cyclists enter and get points for, then are able to enter championships through that avenue? Charge a fee for that, get the series going on all levels (junior, Elite, Masters etc) across all disciplines and then get income from sponsorships that will come from individuals and companies wanting their name associated with a national series. TV rights (supersport, for one) and so on?

 

Oh - right. They'd rather go for a company that is cash flush in an attempt to gain control of their income stream.

 

CSA gets lottery funding. CSA needs to use that lottery funding properly. Not mismanage it and spend it all on KFC and Nandos & business class flights when there is a DIRE need for national / provincial level cycling events.

 

Contrary to your belief, CSA MUST make the difference. Proper governance. Proper planning. Proper utilization of the existing properties and proper business management. Only when the CSA is run like the PPA is at the moment will they be able to get past this, though.

 

Stop looking at it as everyone else owing you something, and start looking at it as a body that needs to service the needs of the cyclists which (unfortunately) rely on CSA for funding and guidance for international competition.

 

Start running it like a business. Like the PPA does. Like other cycling bodies do. Use the lottery money to start setting up national and provincial cycling series, instead of going to each event and saying "you must have us here for UCI certification, R 100,000 license fee please" when all the organisers want is a ride that is fun for all (excluding the Epic here)

[ricochet_rabbit]

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.

 

Gerhard,

 

1) Just because I enjoy participating and watching a sport does not mean I should be forced to contribute towards it with no return. Why don't the provincial structures organise races themselves instead of letting event organisers make the money? At an event they can charge an entrance fee (in exchange for the funride) and generate an income stream. They are also able, with a well run event, to attract sponsors. Over time they should be able to grow the event and attract partners, not just sponsors. The model is upside down at the moment. Cycling funding exists because of the fun rider. If you look after the fun rider then your income streams will grow. Look how successful PPA have been with that model. It's not a difficult model to copy.

 

2) The fact the CSA, the authoritative body, cannot get buy in from their sub structures to honour their commitments suggests that the business model is not working and needs to be changed. Again, perhaps they should look at the PPA model ?

 

3) There is plenty of sponsorship money around. The number of sponsors there are for the mountain bike stage events is proof of this. Maybe the sponsors are putting their money where they feel they will get a return on their investment. Again, look after the fun rider, create events for the fun rider where sponsors will get a return on their investment and use the funds generated from these events to sponsor the elite athletes. The return on investment for 20 track cyclists going to worlds must be close to zero.

Edited February 21, 2014 by ricochet_rabbit

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Gerhard,

 

1) Just because I enjoy participating and watching a sport does not mean I should be forced to contribute towards it with no return. Why don't the provincial structures organise races themselves instead of letting event organisers make the money? At an event they can charge an entrance fee (in exchange for the funride) and generate an income stream. They are also able, with a well run event, to attract sponsors. Over time they should be able to grow the event and attract partners, not just sponsors. The model is upside down at the moment. Cycling funding exists because of the fun rider. If you look after the fun rider then your income streams will grow. Look how successful PPA have been with that model. It's not a difficult model to copy.

 

2) The fact the CSA, the authoritative body, cannot get buy in from their sub structures to honour their commitments suggests that the business model is not working and needs to be changed. Again, perhaps they should look at the PPA model ?

 

Snap...

[eddy]

 

 

Thank you for this post. This brings us closer to the real problem.

 

 

• 
   
  
• Upon approach you are constantly told that "we only support the main sporting codes" which is Rugby, Cricket and Soccer.
   
  
• With this support, the three major sports draw more commercial support, and TV rights can be sold due to the exposure.
   
  

 

 

Please stop whining about how unfair it all is towards you. As far as i am aware the following are all cycling events:

• 
   
  
• ABSA Cape Epic
   
  
• Nedbank Wealth Sani2sea
   
  
• Pick n Pay Argus Cycle tour
   
  
• Etc.
   
  

 

Corporate sponsors (who have an obligation to their shareholders) ARE happy to sponsor cycling. They CHOOSE to sponsor individual events and CHOOSE not to be associated with CSA? Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is ....

 

 

[JA-Q001]

There is a lot of talk about Lotto money, PPA's golden egg, Funriders and Pro's.

 

Firstly, Who of you talking about the LOTTO money know what are the regulations set out by the LOTTO fund in regards to the spending of that allocated money? As far as I know, this money can not be spent on "individuals" per sè, but only on materialistic components of cycling, like bikes, clothing, infrastructure, etc....

 

Secondly, How exactly is the CSA able to take the PPA's golden egg? As far as I know, they can only claim the levies, that's it, nothing more.

 

Third. Funrides are there to support the sport, if funriders do not want to support the CSA in gaining funds, then why do a funride, organize a training group, its your choice. It was mentioned to ask a gate fee to races, just imagine the complaining there will be if riders families have to pay to watch them.

 

Lastly, the PRO's, whom most funriders believe its not their job to give them a job. Well, unfortunately thats how sport work and in our country cycling is not a spectator driven sport as with other sports.

 

CSA can try and adopt the PPA's business model, but what does the PPA really have if you leave the Argus out of the equation? Yes, they can start races aimed at only the elites, they have tried, but sponsorship for this type of sport is not strong enough and the event would mostly needed to be run at a loss for approx. 5 years before a substantial event sponsor will start taking notice, the Epic is a good example of this.

 

At the end of it all, we are all cyclists, but we are not acing as cyclists with cycling at heart.

 

I may be wrong in what I'm saying and I am not taking sides of the PPA or CSA, I'm rather taking the side of cycling.

[Gerhardvd]

Gerhard,

 

1) Just because I enjoy participating and watching a sport does not mean I should be forced to contribute towards it with no return. Why don't the provincial structures organise races themselves instead of letting event organisers make the money? At an event they can charge an entrance fee (in exchange for the funride) and generate an income stream. They are also able, with a well run event, to attract sponsors. Over time they should be able to grow the event and attract partners, not just sponsors. The model is upside down at the moment. Cycling funding exists because of the fun rider. If you look after the fun rider then your income streams will grow. Look how successful PPA have been with that model. It's not a difficult model to copy.

 

2) The fact the CSA, the authoritative body, cannot get buy in from their sub structures to honour their commitments suggests that the business model is not working and needs to be changed. Again, perhaps they should look at the PPA model ?

 

3) There is plenty of sponsorship money around. The number of sponsors there are for the mountain bike stage events is proof of this. Maybe the sponsors are putting their money where they feel they will get a return on their investment. Again, look after the fun rider, create events for the fun rider where sponsors will get a return on their investment and use the funds generated from these events to sponsor the elite athletes. The return on investment for 20 track cyclists going to worlds must be close to zero.

 

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.

[Gerhardvd]

There is a lot of talk about Lotto money, PPA's golden egg, Funriders and Pro's.

 

Firstly, Who of you talking about the LOTTO money know what are the regulations set out by the LOTTO fund in regards to the spending of that allocated money? As far as I know, this money can not be spent on "individuals" per sè, but only on materialistic components of cycling, like bikes, clothing, infrastructure, etc....

 

Secondly, How exactly is the CSA able to take the PPA's golden egg? As far as I know, they can only claim the levies, that's it, nothing more.

 

Third. Funrides are there to support the sport, if funriders do not want to support the CSA in gaining funds, then why do a funride, organize a training group, its your choice. It was mentioned to ask a gate fee to races, just imagine the complaining there will be if riders families have to pay to watch them.

 

Lastly, the PRO's, whom most funriders believe its not their job to give them a job. Well, unfortunately thats how sport work and in our country cycling is not a spectator driven sport as with other sports.

 

CSA can try and adopt the PPA's business model, but what does the PPA really have if you leave the Argus out of the equation? Yes, they can start races aimed at only the elites, they have tried, but sponsorship for this type of sport is not strong enough and the event would mostly needed to be run at a loss for approx. 5 years before a substantial event sponsor will start taking notice, the Epic is a good example of this.

 

At the end of it all, we are all cyclists, but we are not acing as cyclists with cycling at heart.

 

I may be wrong in what I'm saying and I am not taking sides of the PPA or CSA, I'm rather taking the side of cycling.

 

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

[JA-Q001]

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

 

Racing Carnival City, But I have to get my track bike out sometime.

[Gerhardvd]

Please stop whining about how unfair it all is towards you. As far as i am aware the following are all cycling events:

• ABSA Cape Epic
  
• Nedbank Wealth Sani2sea
  
• Pick n Pay Argus Cycle tour
  
• Etc.
  

 

Corporate sponsors (who have an obligation to their shareholders) ARE happy to sponsor cycling. They CHOOSE to sponsor individual events and CHOOSE not to be associated with CSA? Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is ....

 

 

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

[Ken Prentis]

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.

 

Trust me PPA was making money out of funrides long before CSA came around........

[ricochet_rabbit]

Maybe I miss something

• CSA does have a structure - by your own admission this is not working and I quote you "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."
  
• As part of the structure they allowed the PPA to make money organizing the fun rides - PPA are event organisers, why shouldn't they make money?
  
• 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) My understanding is that this is where the dispute arises because CSA wanted to relegate PPA to club status and PPA asked uncomfortable questions about where the amounts they had previously paid over were being spent (Open to correction here as I have not read all the details of everything and don't even live in the WC)
  
• Simply put PPA benefitted from the relationship. You cannot have your cake AND eat it - why did CSA then want to relegate one of their largest generators of funds to a club status. Surely you would look after where your funds are coming from - even the government know this (ever wondered why SARS is the best run dept).
  

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 have never refused to contribute. I only ask that we, the fun riders, get something in return for our contribution. Have you considered my support might be towards a sustainable model that works for future generations as opposed to a system that is flawed and failing? Would the money PPA are supposed to have paid over each year have been sufficient to send full teams (track, road, mtb, bmx) to Worlds (Juniors & Elite), Commonwealth Games, African Champs etc. I doubt it. CSA need to create a model that we want to be a part of, not one we are forced to be a part of.

[Blokman]

Take a stand all you want Gerhard but stop giving us the anti patriotic label in every post.

[eddy]

 

 

 

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

 

 

No, your point was that sponsors only want to sponsor the big three sports. This is clearly nonsence. They put their sponsorship money where they get value for money.

 

Your intimation that CSA has had anything to do with the commercial success of these events is, how shall I put it, doubtful. What did CSA do to contribute to the founding and continued success of these events ? I know CSA suits hang around and that they "sanction" or "authorise" these events, but what do they actually DO ?

 

But I think it is big and generous of CSA to "allow" farmer Glen to use it's umbrella

Edited February 21, 2014 by eddy