Jonkershoek Closure

[Iwan Kemp]

The branding is not at your expense. The shop owner has a deal with Scott and brands for them. It could have been coke/Castle/Amstel/Playtex/some woman's toiletries etc. What then?

 

Would you raise the same issues?

 

No, they wouldn't. Clearly this is just a bullying tactic which is not allowed under free trade. Trying to manipulate the market by telling sponsors to give money only to them otherwise they threaten with (stupid) action.

[droo]

Subtle like a paving stone .....

 

Heritage will have their guts for garters. Phone Ms van Heerden and make us some popcorn.

[Dicky DQ]

Come to think of it, if trail maintenance stops just think of it.......

 

It will revert to what it was in the past.

 

A real mtb riders paradise with way fewer riders and better, more challenging trails. As long as a few people keep riding the trails they will stay open and just become more and more challenging, with the trails to ourselves.

 

There is no way you can close the trails, unless you spend more money and dig up the trails. However the trail will remain and as long as a few people keep riding them they will remain.

 

an example of this it the "New" trails that Murant opened above Kanonkop, Kudos to him, as he has rebuilt the old trails that we had been riding "secretly" for the last 7 to 10 years and those trails stayed openish for that whole period.

[Skylark]

I'm really struggling to understand what's going on, granted the signs are not elegant or nicely placed, if the signs were as they are but sponsored by Coke or Ola Icecreams would that be ok? Or let's say the signs were as they are but only the Cafe's name, would that be fine?

 

If it's not the signs themselves but rather what's on them then this whole issue is ridiculous, perhaps hard to swallow but thats life.

Cafe owner guy may have no style but he's fully entitled to use his business acumen to grow his income and sustainability of his business, nothing new. The place is mtb riding heaven and you seem surprised he brings a bike company on board to co-sponsor his site, logical if you ask me, nothing about hijacking of anything, if the signs are legal and on his site then all good, maybe put Spez signs on the trail entry or exit etc if you feel you need to offer Spez better exposure and you think that is fair use.

 

Only leg you have to stand on is if there are site rules regarding signage size/placement/co-branding, if not just suck it up and roll on by, maybe get back to enjoying the trails you cherish so dearly - that's what the park is all about at the end of the day!

 

Edit. Looks like I was beaten to the post about the coke/Icecream sign thing, oh well I'll carry on flogging the horse.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Skylark

[LanceB]

“It is us withholding funds because we are not happy with branding going up at our expense.”

 

Trailmansam, If you are not a commercial entity, how do you calculate the expense? If you are not a rival bike brand, how do you ascertain the concept of Scott’s branding being present at your expense?

 

The lot of a principled volunteer is not one which sits easily in the commercial world. But as I said previously: if the issue here is credit, how should we justifiably apportion it?

 

I have worked on projects, found crucial solutions, only to see a team leader take all the credit. If the project is delivered within scope and cost, on deadline, and I do not get a sticky star on my forehead come performance review time, well, it happens. Often.

 

Solutions? Because the issue at hand would appear to an abstract one. I asked about build days or the Jonkershoek trial fund account number. And no answer, so one must assume the conflict is not about funding or manpower assistance, but rather credit. And that is not going to be easily solved when a commercial interest sits so close to a volunteer build organisation.

 

If Mr.T does not remove the signs, are we going into a total impasse? Is this 1986?

[Dicky DQ]

I assume Giant bikes will be allowed, be seeing that they make bikes for Specialized.

and Merida as they are large shareholders in Spez.....

[capediver]

How is it at your expense? Is there money involved in the first place or did Scott pay for the branding and put some bikes there F.O.C?

 

Closing trails because there's Scott branding at the gate is cutting your nose to spite your face.

Oh oh oh...that's what I wanted to say ...the nose and the face thing......

[Iwan Kemp]

At their expense in that they (Sam etc) are claiming that the branding implies that Scott is sponsoring the trails. Which is a very large leap given that the signage relates to the CAFE ONLY

 

To me, and I'm into branding, the sign says Jonkershoek Cafe and it has a Scott logo on it. It doesn't say The Scott Jonkershoek Trails Cafe brought to you by Scott.

 

Seriously. This is stupidity. I'm sure Spez, Giant, Merida and Coke all had equal opportunity to get involved and chose not to. Or didn't take initiative. Neither this or Spez branding or sign boards will make me go out and change my buying pattern, but freaking hell well done to them for getting involved on grass-root level.

 

As not the biggest Spez fan I was impressed that they decided to spend the money they did on trails. I didn't moan case there was a Spez sign on ALL the signage on the trails. Neither did Scott or the Cafe.

 

What utter, illogical stupidity and then to start a thread like this.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Iwan Kemp

[Dicky DQ]

Anyway got to go and have dinner at Ride Inn, fancy that ....... them getting so much free publicity out of this, but oh wait......... there is a Spez link there too if I recall the owner's involvement with the Spez racing team. So round and round it goes.

[(Deon)]

The closure has nothing to do with Specialized.

 

It is us withholding funds because we are not happy with branding going up at our expense. I have nothing against Scott (other than their ambush marketing).

 

The funds were used for maintenance on all trails, regardless who built them in the first place.

 

All trails will be inspected and a decision taken in conjunction with the powers in charge on dangerous or potential dangerous trails or sections.

 

If a trail is considered not dangerous it will remain open.

 

Only sections / trails that is considered dangerous or potentially dangerous to the riders will be closed.

How were the funds raised? Has the public contributed? Do you have the right to withhold the funds? What organisation is TMM? Bank account in who's name? Has TMM got too much authority? What consultation process has TMM gone through to seek public input?

 

Time for some relevant answers.. we're waiting.

[capediver]

The closure has nothing to do with Specialized.

 

It is us withholding funds because we are not happy with branding going up at our expense. I have nothing against Scott (other than their ambush marketing).

 

The funds were used for maintenance on all trails, regardless who built them in the first place.

 

All trails will be inspected and a decision taken in conjunction with the powers in charge on dangerous or potential dangerous trails or sections.

 

If a trail is considered not dangerous it will remain open.

 

Only sections / trails that is considered dangerous or potentially dangerous to the riders will be closed.

What will be your criteria for selecting dangerous trails for closure? Whose opinion will it be based on and what skill of rider is chosen as your base line model?

Maybe a dangerous trail for me is a few roots and 1% gradient, god forbid a turn here or there...but that's a cakewalk and done manual style by the likes of DuranDuran and Oom Karl...

[DJR]

How were the funds raised? Has the public contributed? Do you have the right to withhold the funds? What organisation is TMM? Bank account in who's name? Has TMM got too much authority? What consultation process has TMM gone through to seek public input?

 

Time for some relevant answers.. we're waiting.

 

Check post #5 on page1 of this thread, I asked basically that, but no clarity this far.

 

I smell lots of interpersonal issues, undisclosed information, smoke, mirrors, bull****..... (feel free to add or delete as you think fit)

[LourensD]

So let's see... I rode there yesterday afternoon...

 

Canaries:

• seemed fine on the way up.
  

"New" sections above canaries (new canaries, upper upper upper canaries, stumpjumper) or whatever their names are:

• has one or 2 extra exposed rock sections, but nothing serious if not taken at a scary pace.
  
• breaking bumps into corners felt better than when I last rode there.
  

Old dh track from below the double black diamond trail:

• Best condition I've seem this trail since i started riding there
  

Flowtrail/slangpad:

• Damn good condition
  
• New work done recently (withheld maintenance? where?
  

Firehuttrail:

• Good trail no matter how rocky and breaking bumps there are
  
• no real berms that can be destroyed
  
• also recently had maintenance done
  

Neverending story:

• No comment... haven't ridden that in a while
  

So which trails have potential for closure due to poor maintenance/safety concerns?

[Hellwarp]

This a clandestine marketing strategy to boost popcorn sales, or am I missing something ?

Edited May 23, 2014 by Hellwarp

[T-Bob]

joggie prinsloo ‏@joggieprinsloo May 20

Jonkershoek Cafe on the slopes of the famous Jonkershoek Mtb trails! Powered by Scott Sports Africa @FLANDRIACYCLES pic.twitter.com/tRLsLUr4mX

 

 

OH MF... is that it? Really I was expecting the whole building to be painted Scott yellow or that bad fluro green that they did the scales in a few years back. Stuff hanging off the roof. That is nothing. Give that place to me for 20 minutes and I'll mock up something that will make your eyes weep in a storm of Scott that would leave people with no doubt who owned the whole of JH.

 

There is a tea cup... here is a storm. If that is threatening your relationship with your contributors (past and future) then you are doing that part all wrong! Sorry if that seems harsh.

 

No branding is all well and good for Spez if you don't have someone doing something (not at all unreasonable) right in the middle of your patch... with logos. Even if that guy stumps up coin you can't expect him to match spez and he sure as heck will want something more than 'no branding'. He's made a deal within his rights and honestly morally it doesn't stink, could be a million times worse.

 

Honestly you can't complain about that, what you need to do is have a proper strategy session that focuses on what you can offer, how you can exploit and make attractive all the opportunities available to you which will allow you to maintain and build trails and move forward. You said you have a sizeable slush fund so things can't be that bad.

 

Then you find someone (aka a big bike company or a discovery / momentum to invest in it big time and take all the glory of exposure, brand and PR to a unique, captive, audience of riders... Spez could buy that guy out of his contract @ the cafe in a heartbeat and turn it into a riders club, cafe, test centre.

 

I applaud your hard work and commitment for all you've done and so little that 90% of riders how go there have sweated in to the land but also that arrangement has to be looked at as well as it seems you're getting short changed over all if get fees are going else where and you're whole thing is threatened by a couple of branded toilet boards and the rest.

Edited May 23, 2014 by hellocolour

[georges]

The closure has nothing to do with Specialized.

 

It is us withholding funds because we are not happy with branding going up at our expense. I have nothing against Scott (other than their ambush marketing).

 

The funds were used for maintenance on all trails, regardless who built them in the first place.

 

All trails will be inspected and a decision taken in conjunction with the powers in charge on dangerous or potential dangerous trails or sections.

 

If a trail is considered not dangerous it will remain open.

 

Only sections / trails that is considered dangerous or potentially dangerous to the riders will be closed.

 

 

This all about Specialized!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

They have missed out on a marketing opportunity to their opposition and now placing your under pressure by withholding funding.You in turn are trying to hold the greater biking community at ransom. Not a good tactic and doing more damage to the brand.

Edited May 23, 2014 by georges