Race fees (from the email list)
I think the original poster specializes in time trials, so that is part of his issue with having less time trials (it also makes puzzling his preference for piddling races if he doesn't do any of them except the time trials.) He is also overlooking the non sanctioned club time trials like the Santa Cruz Swanton Road TT, Pat's Beat the Clock series, the SJBC winter series(with TT's) and it seems like every other Peninsula club's Canada or OLH TT.
My recollection (which could be wrong ) is that turnout for TT's is low in our district and perhaps is not that great a turnout compared to a crit or RR in similar areas, i.e. Winters RR versus Esparto/Dunlop TT.
Having recently moved from Oregon, I *like* "piddly little races in the
middle of nowhere."
I see that the NCNCA calendar has all of 4 individual TTs during the season.
By contrast, OBRA has 13. . . . .just in the month of June.
Yet OBRA membership is roughly the same as here, despite having only a
of the population base. And, I note the *big* stage race on the NCNCA
calendar is where?.....
Could it be that piddly little races are what generage high interest, high
and the "high profile" races that you desire?
On Mar 10, 2006, at 12:42 PM, Captain Nimrod wrote:
It's called the USAC "Race Prevention Tax", and nothing irritates me more -
as you will read.
It is discourages promoters making any extra effort to raise more prize
money from sponsors to make their races bigger and better, therefore
guaranteeing that the sport never rises above the status of obscure weekendhobby - comparable to Horseshoes, Tiddly Winks and Badminton.
I don't buy the grass roots racing excuse. We don't need more piddly
velopromo races in the middle of nowhere with no prizes and/or glory. The sport is already diluted by having way too many of those events. Yet,
that's exactly who gets subsidized by this policy. They don't need
subsidizing. They make their money off taking entry fees and not giving any of it back in the form of prizes. What we need is more big time races with big time prize lists in exciting metropolitan venues that promote the
sport - not obscure it from view. USAC should be encouraging more bigger races NOT more smaller ones, which is what their policy does. A little competition amongst promoters to attract racers would be healthy for the sport. Instead they penalize anyone who tries to truly promote the sport and then tell them that it is so they can subsidize velopromo, who does nothing to promote or move the sport forward - because they don't have to.
I am reminded of the Early Bird Criteriums where we were told that they had to raise their entry fees to $15 and quit scoring the finishes so that we
could subsidize all the piddly races they put on in the middle of nowhere.
How many times do we have to subsidize them? Ever wonder why no one goes to all those little races in the middle of nowhere? ...why they need to be subsidized? Exactly because they're piddly little races in the middle of
USAC is very short sighted on this. They shouldn't penalize the real
promoters and sponsors who are trying to make sport bigger and better so that they can funnel their hard-earned cash to those who don't lift a finger to find sponsors and promote the sport. Their policies are what are keeping cycling in the dark ages.
Why would any self-respecting race promoter go through the trouble of
raising more cash to promote their race and/or the sport in general if an
increasingly significant portion of the money is going to be channeled in
one way or the other to the competition? And for what? Don't we already
pay enough fees and taxes to USAC? Additionally, if they know it up front, most sponsors won't put up money to subsidize USAC or other promoters.
Sponsors want to sponsor races. THEIR races. If they want to subsidize
USAC, they can simply make a donation. USAC is of course free to go out and get its own sponsors.
We have gone through this the last 2 years with my team's race that we
promote in SoCal. Notice that the race flyer below lists the Pro 1/2
category prize money at $1999, even though the promoter in this case, my friend and teammate Roger Worthington is more than capable of putting up [and sincerely wants to] WAY more cash than that. He personally writes the check for this race. Originally the goal was to make this event one of the biggest single-day Pro 1/2 + Masters race cash prize lists in SoCal, but he could not bring himself to pay the ridiculous USAC tax on top of all the other fees, surcharges and associated costs of promoting the race. This is in spite of the fact that he does NOT take ANY of the profits from race for himself as promoter - all profit goes back into the race itself and to the city of San Clemente, this year going towards a new public swimming pool.
Last year in its inaugural race it brought in something like $6000 cash to
the city. No matter, USAC still imposes its tax. USAC should at least have the equivalent of a 501c3 designation fr promoters who give back.
The San Clemente Challenge is a great race, but it could be a lot greater if USAC wasn't so greedy. We feel your pain, Scott. If USAC needs yet another tax, it should be a small per racer fee ($1) and not penalize promoters and sponsors for doing a better/great job! Where's the logic in that?
Anyway, you're all invited to come on down for an awesome event in SoCal where the prize list is guaranteed by USAC to never be more than $1999 per category. But, get your entry in early because last year most of the popular categories filled and the Cat 5/Public race was so huge it was split into 2 races! This is a absolutely great race course and a really fun event! Larry Nolan can attest to this as he came down for the day last
2nd Annual San Clemente Challenge:
Thank you for going the extra mile with your race, Scott. It was great last
year and I'm sure it'll be even better this year. I know it doesn't pay the
bills, but we really do appreciate it!
Chris Hipp | Labor Power
email@example.com wrote:I know, I'm a little behind the ball here, but
I'm promoting the Pacific State Bank/Anderson Home Crit here in Stockton.
Our sponsors have committed a decent sum of money for the race. I just
realized after reviewing the new fee structure that we'll pay quite a bit
more than year past. It doesn't seem to be very fair to base the permit fees off of the total prize list. Our prize list may be over $10k and 7% of that is a hefty chunk of change, yet I'm not sure what benefits are gained from it. This as most of you know doesn't include the insurance surcharges and extraneous charges, permit fee, outside insurance fees, police fees, etc.,. that come along with putting on an event.
Has anybody (once again sorry if I've missed the boat on this) questioned
this fee structure? If this isn't negotiable is there a way to call them
primes (i.e. last lap for the P/1/2 is a $1000 prime) and not have that
counted towards the actual prize list?
President Delta Velo