|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 25, 2009 16:39:07 GMT -5
Matt, thanks for the great response regarding suggestions for race sponsorships, etc. Lots of things to think about; thanks for sharing and congratulations on the great efforts you've done in AB.
To the group in general, while i understand the passion on this issue, i agree with Sully's thoughts on AC in general. Rather then commit a whole lot of emotional energy to demonizing AC over the net i would suggest that we focus our efforts on developing grass roots participation and enjoyment of competitive distance running (over all surfaces) in each of our respective communities. Note that i referred to 'competitive' distance running. I have little doubt that distance running in general is growing in popularity (at least here in SK it is) but that interest in competitive running at the national/international (ie. post college level) seems extremely weak. Here in SK we have developed a host of great runners who have represented Canada, and yet during that time races offering prize money have practically disappeared from the SK race calendar, provincial funding has declined, and post-collegiate running of any kind is extremely limited (Jason Warick being the only example i can think of off-hand of a national class distance runner in the last decade who stayed in SK while trying to pursue national class running and work full-time).
I think what Matt and others are doing by starting grass roots racing with prize money is great for the sport. Sure the money won't let anyone quit their job and train full-time just yet but it is a great start and shouldn't be discounted.
Based on my past experience in track club administration i've noted that while passion is important it needs to be tempered by reason and business common sense. I would think that few businesses are going to support a movement that is seen to be fighting with its federation. I would suggest that a more productive strategy would be to develop a funding mechanism which offerred athletes support based on both financial need and athletic potential. Note that support does not necessarily need to be a cash handout, it could be employment in a field the athlete is interested in (ie. so they can continue to develop a career path for after running), subsidized housing, travel re-imbursement, clothing sponsorship, etc. The list is pretty much endless.
My point is that i think the 'solution' to this problem will likely look different for each athlete, each geographical area, and the skills of each enthusist who pursues the effort. If there are individuals here who have the skills and abilities that would benefit AC then i would encourage them to begin the groundwork of getting involved in AC (at what-ever level) with the goal of effecting the desired change in AC. At the end of the day i don't think AC is the ultimate problem, or the ultimate solution. The solution as i see it is with those of us who love the sport to effect change in our local areas to the point where the ordinary business owner considers competitive distance running to be worthy of sponsorship and the ordinary citizen wants to watch it on tv and in person in their city.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 25, 2009 17:18:58 GMT -5
Matt, didn't mean demand - just pointing out that you and others (Ron particularly) have already presented a potential solution (Feb XC Trials) that would be a good suggestion to make to AC, presented along with other positive ideas/examples of ways of working together towards the common goal of getting Canadians to run (well) at international events and ensuring they are fully funded.
I don't know all the details, but my general understanding is that there was discussion between AC and 'not-AC' that included collaboration re: 2009 World Champs marathon team. 'Not-AC' presented that they had a common goal with AC, had the means to help fund towards common goal, and suggested that events they ('Not-AC') put on be used as part of the selection process. In the end, at least on the men's side, the best healthy Canadians exceeding the minimum IAAF standards went to Worlds fully funded. This is almost exactly, word-for-word, what we are now getting at in this thread re: World XC! While organization and raising $ are still to be done, once these are started on there is nothing wrong with presenting to AC "Hey, we're looking to work together in a manner somewhat similar to the '09 marathon process, which seemed to go quite well." AC says: "Yes, that did go fairly well. We are interested in working together; let us know when you are closer to being capable of providing what you claim and we'll continue this discussion." Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 25, 2009 17:44:21 GMT -5
Matt, didn't mean demand - just pointing out that you and others (Ron particularly) have already presented a potential solution (Feb XC Trials) that would be a good suggestion to make to AC, presented along with other positive ideas/examples of ways of working together towards the common goal of getting Canadians to run (well) at international events and ensuring they are fully funded. I don't know all the details, but my general understanding is that there was discussion between AC and 'not-AC' that included collaboration re: 2009 World Champs marathon team. 'Not-AC' presented that they had a common goal with AC, had the means to help fund towards common goal, and suggested that events they ('Not-AC') put on be used as part of the selection process. In the end, at least on the men's side, the best healthy Canadians exceeding the minimum IAAF standards went to Worlds fully funded. This is almost exactly, word-for-word, what we are now getting at in this thread re: World XC! While organization and raising $ are still to be done, once these are started on there is nothing wrong with presenting to AC "Hey, we're looking to work together in a manner somewhat similar to the '09 marathon process, which seemed to go quite well." AC says: "Yes, that did go fairly well. We are interested in working together; let us know when you are closer to being capable of providing what you claim and we'll continue this discussion." Fair enough. Totally agree with the above, great post. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 25, 2009 17:45:37 GMT -5
More interesting comments, guys. I am in total agreement with those who are saying that we need to work with the best interests of our athletes in mind, and co-operate with AC in every way possible, that supports the athletes and their aspirations, and the growth of our part of the sport in Canada. I am in disagreement with those who see this possible new entity being narrowly focused on raising money to send a XC team, especially when we have no idea how many of our athletes are really even interested, and whether AC would see this as a possibility at all. And, as has been pointed out, AC clearly has "the hammer" on any International Selection issues.
I feel a bit disappointed by some of the levels of negative energy that I sense, coming from both "sides", if you know what I mean. There must be some common ground in here...
1) Is the sport (in the greatest sense) of distance running healthy and thriving throughout Canada, from the grass roots to AT LEAST getting in the same "time zone" as the Podium???
2) Or are there possibly a number of ways that a group of experienced and passionate advocates of our sport might be able to provide some positive ideas, energy, and momentum???
My answers are 1) NO and 2) YES.
Anybody that agrees with those answers? Anybody disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 25, 2009 19:39:31 GMT -5
Anybody care?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 25, 2009 22:37:47 GMT -5
Serious question here, folks: Has there ever been any indication whatsoever that AC wants, or would even have the organizational flexibility to employ, help and/or input from a group such as the one we are proposing here? If not, could such an indication be solicited in some way? My sense from their response to collective communication last time was that they will only recognize individual "members" acting through established channels (i.e. provincial branches) and not collectivities like the one proposed, although I'm open to being proven wrong. And, notwithstanding Kevin's suggestion, I don't think this has anything whatsoever to do with the tone of this previous communication. I think we might all get a quick lesson in how bureaucracies typically "dis-organize", by refusing to recognize, potentially meddlesome collectivities if we were to approach AC as a voluntary group attempting to operate outside of established representative channels.
You can call me "negative" if you want, but an "optimism of the will" must be preceded by a sober "pessimism of the intellect" (to quote a great Italian, who never blood-doped).
Edit: The WC marathon could count as an example of AC being willing and able to make use of outside "help", but I'm not sure how far this could work as a model. For instance, we don't even know if AC plans to accept this "help" in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 25, 2009 23:46:46 GMT -5
More interesting comments, guys. I am in total agreement with those who are saying that we need to work with the best interests of our athletes in mind, and co-operate with AC in every way possible, that supports the athletes and their aspirations, and the growth of our part of the sport in Canada. I am in disagreement with those who see this possible new entity being narrowly focused on raising money to send a XC team, especially when we have no idea how many of our athletes are really even interested, and whether AC would see this as a possibility at all. And, as has been pointed out, AC clearly has "the hammer" on any International Selection issues. I feel a bit disappointed by some of the levels of negative energy that I sense, coming from both "sides", if you know what I mean. There must be some common ground in here... 1) Is the sport (in the greatest sense) of distance running healthy and thriving throughout Canada, from the grass roots to AT LEAST getting in the same "time zone" as the Podium??? 2) Or are there possibly a number of ways that a group of experienced and passionate advocates of our sport might be able to provide some positive ideas, energy, and momentum??? My answers are 1) NO and 2) YES. Anybody that agrees with those answers? Anybody disagree? I'm not sure there has a been a ton of negativity lately Ron? I thought the majority of us (on both sides of the argument) have been pretty positive lately (with what might work and what might not work) and there has been some good discussion. Am I wrong? I know I was personally very negative early on but I felt I had made a very good effort to be more positive and had even agreed to go with the idea of holding hands with AC (there really is no other option at the moment). Am i missing something? SI and KRS1 have provided some sound negatives to some of the proposals (yes SI could have been nicer to SKUJ) while a few of us continue to try and turn our complaints into some sort of action plan... So apart from possibly raising funds for our athletes to go to world XC, what else would you like to do? Saskatchewan had a few ideas, I'd be interested to hear what else you would like to do? As it stands right now (as far as I can tell?), the only thing that we can do in terms of helping to send athletes anywhere is to reimburce them for their costs of going to inernational XC events. This is the only things that AC allows self funding for. Everything else has standards set in place and you either make them, or you don't. There is no self funding to go to world athletics or the Olympics. Perhaps one day a friends of distance running group might be able to convince AC to send athletes with B standards and that group would foot the bill but right now XC is the only thing with self funding. I'm not saying that's right but I'm trying to be positive here and do something about what we can. And it seems like putting up some funds for those that want to go and make Americas or world XC is a good start. In my mind (and I could be wrong here?) giving AC a bunch of money with the stipulation that it must be used to send teams to international XC events probably isn't going to work. Again, I could be wrong? But if athletes can be reimburced for their costs for the self funding portion than perhaps we can get competitive teams to world cross while working with AC. Hell, we don't even have to talk to AC if we are just writing cheques to those runners who go to worlds or the Americas. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 26, 2009 8:44:28 GMT -5
Junior and youth track teams continue to be almost 100% self-funded, notwithstanding the "aspirational" targets expressed in AC's response to the first "Friends" communication 4 years ago.
From their letter:
"Athletics Canada prefers not to self-fund major national teams. As you may or may not know Athletics Canada is still in the process of retiring a deficit incurred in the period 1998- 2000. This and a tough corporate marketplace have impacted our ability to deliver all programs. An amount of $ 60,000 to $ 100,000 is dedicated to deficit redressment each year and along with a tight budget has presented challenges in all areas of association business. It is not uncommon for athletes in many sports (as well as aspiring musicians, dancers etc.,etc) when representing Canada to pay for part of the costs. In fact it is an international practice in youth and junior sport.
With the advent of new dollars from both Sport Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee we have been able to reduce the amount of self-funding required in our junior and youth programmes. We expect the Pan-Am Junior team this year to be fully funded or at the very most pay a fee of approximately $ 300. The World Youth team will receive additional support as well. Member branches have agreed that junior and youth programs as well as “la releve – under 23 “ programmes are essential to our sport and in doing so have also agreed that funding for these teams is a partnered responsibility. In many cases member branches and clubs provide direct athlete support for these programmes."
P.S. This "retiring a deficit" thing, while it is not untrue, is something that goes back as far as the Ben Johnson era, and was, I believe, one of the original reasons given for the cancellation of WXC funding in the early 90s.
Also:
-AC refers to a "tough corporate marketplace"... in 2005, when the corporate world was absolutely awash in money when compared with today!
-AC is philosophically cool with self-funding, despite its expressed "preference" not to use it, because "everyone else around the world is doing it too"-- except, no doubt, the world's top 16 track nations, whose athletes Canadians are supposed to be able to compete with if they want to make major teams. As always, it's one standard of "excellence" for athletes and another one entirely for their federation, which is fine with being "middle of the pack".
I may be alone on this (and I'm fine with that), but I still I think that what Canadian, athletes, coaches and other stakeholders need is a political pressure group to ensure that our federation is kept on its toes, and made transparent and fully accountable. This is not vindictive or otherwise "negative"; it is actually very healthy. Bureaucracies have a way of becoming insular, and of drifting away from the interests of those they are meant to serve, so it helps to force them open and coax them back once in a while. However, if Canadian athletes and coaches don't see the need for this, then who I am to disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 26, 2009 9:29:40 GMT -5
SI and KRS1 have provided some sound negatives to some of the proposals (yes SI could have been nicer to SKUJ) while a few of us continue to try and turn our complaints into some sort of action plan... . I'm not sure SI or myself have really been that "negative." More just trying to keep you realistic on what you plan to accomplish and how you plan to go about it. Just because I don't agree with the Parti Quebecois attitude that many have towards this issue doesn't make me negative. |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 26, 2009 9:40:20 GMT -5
I think there is value in pursuing a two-track approach on this issue; one track being an organized group that lobbies AC on distance related issues, and the other track being a fund-raising group.
I think the NYRR model of road scholarships to up and coming athletes is something that needs to be explored in Canada (this is providing funding directly to athletes and not through AC).
As well, has anyone touched base with Whitfield to get his thoughts on fund-raising and dealing with a national federation. From reading his blog he seems to have built an informal fund-raising network with local business people in the area. As an individual who has reached the highest spot in the sport i think he would be an invaluable resource in this discussion. Let's take advantage of all the resources we have at our doorstep in terms of athletes who have gone through this.
Given AC's limited financial resources, if a group is able to raise a reasonable amount of funds it will have leverage in meetings with AC. As i stated earlier, i don't believe that AC is the ultimate problem or solution. There is lots of money out there (even in today's economic climate) if the 'product' (in this case distance running) is attractive. I just don't think that distance running in Canada has been marketed nearly as well as other sports, and we need to catch up. Good news is that we have lots of room to improve, so the future can look very bright!
|
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 26, 2009 10:12:52 GMT -5
SI and KRS1 have provided some sound negatives to some of the proposals (yes SI could have been nicer to SKUJ) while a few of us continue to try and turn our complaints into some sort of action plan... . I'm not sure SI or myself have really been that "negative." More just trying to keep you realistic on what you plan to accomplish and how you plan to go about it. Just because I don't agree with the Parti Quebecois attitude that many have towards this issue doesn't make me negative. Sorry, negatives is not quite the right word. Strong counter arguments to some of the proposals? |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 26, 2009 10:31:07 GMT -5
I think there is value in pursuing a two-track approach on this issue; one track being an organized group that lobbies AC on distance related issues, and the other track being a fund-raising group. I think the NYRR model of road scholarships to up and coming athletes is something that needs to be explored in Canada (this is providing funding directly to athletes and not through AC). As well, has anyone touched base with Whitfield to get his thoughts on fund-raising and dealing with a national federation. From reading his blog he seems to have built an informal fund-raising network with local business people in the area. As an individual who has reached the highest spot in the sport i think he would be an invaluable resource in this discussion. Let's take advantage of all the resources we have at our doorstep in terms of athletes who have gone through this. Given AC's limited financial resources, if a group is able to raise a reasonable amount of funds it will have leverage in meetings with AC. As i stated earlier, i don't believe that AC is the ultimate problem or solution. There is lots of money out there (even in today's economic climate) if the 'product' (in this case distance running) is attractive. I just don't think that distance running in Canada has been marketed nearly as well as other sports, and we need to catch up. Good news is that we have lots of room to improve, so the future can look very bright! Very much a chicken or the egg situation. With respect to Simon W, it would be interesting to see how much fundraising he was able to accomplish prior to Sydney. Obviously, things would have been much easier for him after the Olympic gold. Canadian XC is in a situation where our last 4 WXC senior men's teams were 2008: 14th of 15, 2006: 17th of 20, 2005: 18th of 20; 2004: 18th of 19. That is a tough maketing spot to start from. |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 26, 2009 10:54:50 GMT -5
interesting points Kevin.
If you are trying to mkt the x-c team to a sponsor i agree it is likely a harder sell (though i would argue that the first place AC should go for sponsorship of the x-c team is to former x-c team members now working in the business world who have control of sponsorship $).
I just happen to believe that athletics in general doesn't seem to be taking advantage of marketing common seanse to maximize its sponsorship opportunities. For example, i have family and friends that mountain bike race semi-competitively (they have full-time jobs, families and lives outside the sport, but train 10-15hrs a week and are serious weekend warriors) and have been able to obtain $10K-$15K in sponsorships from local businesses (even though they barely made any effort to mkt themselves) simply b/c business people were involved in mountain biking and wanted to get involved in sponsoring a local athlete.
As someone involved in finance, i would have no problem recommending my company sponsoring a local athlete, but would struggle to see the value in sponsoring a team of athletes who may not even be currently living in the country.
I think that many ideas advanced by both AC and sport enthusists are well intentioned but don't make much business sense. It isn't the best team or fastest runner that gets the most sponsorship, its the team or individual who offers the sponsor the most opportunities to leverage that business in the marketplace.
Just my $.02.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 26, 2009 10:56:06 GMT -5
The "Party Quebois attitude" ? That isn't a negative means of expression? Certainly seems like it to me. As for Whitfield, his new book is out, but I haven't read it yet - I'm sure it will be a great read. Simon is very approachable, and would be willing to share any expertise he might have, especially if it was something that might improve the lot of Canadian athletes.
I hear he's a doing a bit of running with Jon Brown's group - good stuff !
As for marketing Cross-Country, you start by marketing any International team as representing the efforts and achievements of the 100,000 or so Canadian kids who are racing this Fall. And the Canadian men's soccer team is usally ranked 60th in the World plus or minus, but it doesn't mean they aren't worth supporting.
We need to look for ways to make good things happen, not how to stop them from happening...If we had taken that attitude in 1980 about what might be possible or not, nothing good would have developed.
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 26, 2009 11:47:40 GMT -5
i personally think there are lots of great opportunities for sponsorship of local athletes across Canada, regardless of the economic climate. If a local athlete has access to $ then they can travel to competitions regardless of whether AC is funding or requiring them to self-fund (just my opinion here).
In general I don't believe AC wants to kill x-c, it just wants to use its limited $ in the best way possible. We will never agree with all of AC's decisions but they are the governing body and likely aren't going any place soon. I agree with Kevin that we need to work with AC rather then fight them (working together doesn't mean we always have to agree with them). However, i agree with Oldster that AC's comment about 2005 being a hard time for corporate sponsorship is rather odd as that appears totally out of touch with the financial marketplace. Personally i believe there is always $ if the idea is good (regardless of the economic climate).
Each person should find that area of athletics where he or she feels they can most influence and which is a best fit for their skill set. Personally i know that means i won't be involved in the admin side of the sport, b/c i simply lack the patience. I wish AC well and admire the work Sully and others are doing.
I also really admire what Matt and others (Halverson, etc) are doing at a grass roots level to strengthen distance running in their local areas.
One should never underestimate what can be done by a bunch of people who are committed to a cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Oct 26, 2009 12:29:32 GMT -5
I find that Sully's input on this, if it can be called "negative", is negative in the best sense: he's offering an honest, straightforward, version of reality from his perspective. Given his experience, we can all learn from this, even if we don't always agree with him. As I've been saying, one person's negativity is another persons reality, and it goes both ways in this discussion.
Saskatchewan, good contribution. In the end, we all work for the sport according to our passion and skill set, and usually locally. The trouble is, however, a lot of great energy and initiative from below can be throttled if the top leadership in the sport is going in a different direction, or has lost touch with what's going on at the base of the sport. I'm not alone in thinking that this has been the case in Canada for quite some time.
|
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Oct 26, 2009 13:19:22 GMT -5
I think there is value in pursuing a two-track approach on this issue; one track being an organized group that lobbies AC on distance related issues, and the other track being a fund-raising group. I think the NYRR model of road scholarships to up and coming athletes is something that needs to be explored in Canada (this is providing funding directly to athletes and not through AC). As well, has anyone touched base with Whitfield to get his thoughts on fund-raising and dealing with a national federation. From reading his blog he seems to have built an informal fund-raising network with local business people in the area. As an individual who has reached the highest spot in the sport i think he would be an invaluable resource in this discussion. Let's take advantage of all the resources we have at our doorstep in terms of athletes who have gone through this. Given AC's limited financial resources, if a group is able to raise a reasonable amount of funds it will have leverage in meetings with AC. As i stated earlier, i don't believe that AC is the ultimate problem or solution. There is lots of money out there (even in today's economic climate) if the 'product' (in this case distance running) is attractive. I just don't think that distance running in Canada has been marketed nearly as well as other sports, and we need to catch up. Good news is that we have lots of room to improve, so the future can look very bright! Very much a chicken or the egg situation. With respect to Simon W, it would be interesting to see how much fundraising he was able to accomplish prior to Sydney. Obviously, things would have been much easier for him after the Olympic gold. Canadian XC is in a situation where our last 4 WXC senior men's teams were 2008: 14th of 15, 2006: 17th of 20, 2005: 18th of 20; 2004: 18th of 19. That is a tough maketing spot to start from. I think those results are somewhat out of touch for what we could have achieved if all the top guys competed at world XC, sure the guys have there reasons for not going to world XC with self funding probably being the first I am definitely not going out on a limb in saying if last year for example if Simon, Eric, Dylan, Rob, Reid (if was healthy), Jon B, Steve O and few others went to worlds then Canada would not have been 14th out of 15th if we (meaning Canada) could fund are teams to world XC this year then maybe would help create more leverage for marketing for future years, I guess if the top guys decide not to go in any event we are back to square one, getting the teams funded IMO might make it more attractive for them to go to worlds |
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 26, 2009 13:59:24 GMT -5
I agree oldster that we should work for change within AC leadership as well so as to take advantage of the great work you and others are doing at the grass roots level of distance running in Canada.
|
|
|
|
Post by ahutch on Oct 26, 2009 16:16:01 GMT -5
I think those results are somewhat out of touch for what we could have achieved if all the top guys competed at world XC... Definitely. That being said, WXC is a very deep race. One of the things I've disagreed with in AC's approach is their suggestion that, if we could only get our top guys running, the team would suddenly be sexy and sponsorship dollars would start flowing (which is one of their justifications for this year's strict standards). In 2008, when we finished 14th out 15, what would it have taken to meet the famous "top half of the field" goal? Well, the team that finished eighth -- i.e. not in the top half -- was Spain. Here's the credentials of their top six guys in that race: 24. 13:09, 27:27 36. 13:17, 27:45 56. 13:11, 27:30 64. 13:11, 27:39 83. 8:12 steeple 85. 8:11 steeple Oh, and one of their non-scorers was a 3:30, 7:37 guy. Anyway, sorry for the digression. I just thought some people might be interested in a reminder of how deep the race is! Also, I think it suggests that saskatchewan and Ron are right that sponsorship opportunities may be most likely to flow from a local, grassroots level rather than a company excited about the world-beating potential of the team. |
|
|
|
Post by Shaftoe on Oct 26, 2009 17:59:03 GMT -5
...Well, the team that finished eighth -- i.e. not in the top half -- was Spain. Here's the credentials of their top six guys in that race: 24. 13:09, 27:27 36. 13:17, 27:45 56. 13:11, 27:30 64. 13:11, 27:39 83. 8:12 steeple 85. 8:11 steeple ... Yes, but how does Spain do in synchronized sports invented since 1990? |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Oct 26, 2009 18:44:53 GMT -5
I think those results are somewhat out of touch for what we could have achieved if all the top guys competed at world XC... Definitely. That being said, WXC is a very deep race. One of the things I've disagreed with in AC's approach is their suggestion that, if we could only get our top guys running, the team would suddenly be sexy and sponsorship dollars would start flowing (which is one of their justifications for this year's strict standards). In 2008, when we finished 14th out 15, what would it have taken to meet the famous "top half of the field" goal? Well, the team that finished eighth -- i.e. not in the top half -- was Spain. Here's the credentials of their top six guys in that race: 24. 13:09, 27:27 36. 13:17, 27:45 56. 13:11, 27:30 64. 13:11, 27:39 83. 8:12 steeple 85. 8:11 steeple Oh, and one of their non-scorers was a 3:30, 7:37 guy. Anyway, sorry for the digression. I just thought some people might be interested in a reminder of how deep the race is! Also, I think it suggests that saskatchewan and Ron are right that sponsorship opportunities may be most likely to flow from a local, grassroots level rather than a company excited about the world-beating potential of the team. point taken ahutch but if you look at the 2009 results and the USA team, they finished 8th and was obviously not they "A" team but even so if we had sent our top guys I am 100% sure they could have competed with them (USA) and more then likely finished ahead of them I have to argue that comparing track times to how well one does in XC is irrelevent, realize you have much more knowledge in the running game then I have and this is just my opinion world XC is one race and really anything could happen, just be nice to see our "A" team go, if nothing else could create some buzz about world XC in the Canadian running community and who knows maybe some sponsors |
|
oasis
Full Member
Posts: 205
|
Post by oasis on Oct 26, 2009 18:58:04 GMT -5
ahutch, just checked out the 2008 world XC results and the USA finished ahead of Spain and if you compare track times with these two teams Spain is superior
I would argue again that if we (Canada) sent out top guys in 2008 also that they could have competed with the USA team who finished 7th, no offense to you because I realize you were on that team but include Simon, Eric, Reid, Rob W. and we are whole lot stronger to move into the top 10
|
|
|
|
Post by fastrunner155 on Oct 26, 2009 19:31:46 GMT -5
Just wondering, do shoe sponsors throw in any bonuses if athletes make the world x-country team? Does this have cache with shoe sponsors at all?
From the perspective of AC, if people are declining competing at World X, then it is probably considered a fringe event at best. Us distance people complain about sprinters getting to go to World Track Champs for relays but we don't see sprinters declining. They jump at the chance and commit 100%. Don't think the relay program would have so much support if sprinters weren't committed to the program. I realize relays have a higher profile than x-country but from a sponsorships perspective, how does AC even sell sponsorship for a team when our top athletes decline.
Some options:
- talk to Jane Roos (Can Fund)
- start a Canada Cross-Country Running Series for elite and age groupers (similar to the road series). A lot of people don't realize x-country exists outside of grade/high school.
- fund a team to one of the cross-country grand prix meets instead of world x-country (we maybe more competitive at one of those meets and a date can be chosen based on availability of our top runners)
|
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 26, 2009 20:42:39 GMT -5
Just wondering, do shoe sponsors throw in any bonuses if athletes make the world x-country team? Does this have cache with shoe sponsors at all? Highly unlikely, especially given the relative ease of making a Can XC national team (by that I mean depth of competition, not the specifics outlined in the selection criteria). My last contract had bonuses for a TOP 10 individual finish at World XC. |
|
|
|
Post by krs1 on Oct 26, 2009 20:45:22 GMT -5
The "Party Quebois attitude" ? That isn't a negative means of expression? I'm not the one that suggested forming a separatist, my way or the highway, breakaway XC group, which is how the group was initially presented (and many still feel that is the way to go) Just calling it how it is. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 26, 2009 20:57:10 GMT -5
The "Party Quebois attitude" ? That isn't a negative means of expression? I'm not the one that suggested forming a separatist, my way or the highway, breakaway XC group, which is how the group was initially presented (and many still feel that is the way to go) Just calling it how it is. Kev., I don't think anyone really feels that way, other than expressing a bit of frustration. And I think you know that, as well... And I don't think the term "breakaway XC group" accurately represents the considered opinion of the vast majority of those contributing their opinions here... Obviously, there are growing pains, or perhaps birthing pains that we are working through here, but I have no reason to doubt the sincerity or passion or knowledge of those opining on this board, and nor should you, imo. Of course, that is up to you, and up to our Governing Body to determine how to react to the reality that a lot of people care, and are willing to go very public with their concerns...What a concept, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Weiler on Oct 26, 2009 21:45:09 GMT -5
I'm not the one that suggested forming a separatist, my way or the highway, breakaway XC group, which is how the group was initially presented (and many still feel that is the way to go)... Thanks to valuable input from yourself and SI, there is now a better understanding of how things work. People with Passion who are heavily involved in this sport, but at least some of whom have limitted contact with or understanding of AC, want to help Canadian distance runners. That's a good thing. How do you feel this group is currently being presented, based on the last few pages of this thread? Do you believe this could develop into a useful entity for Canadian distance runners? |
|
|
|
Post by HHH on Oct 26, 2009 22:11:42 GMT -5
The "Party Quebois attitude" ? That isn't a negative means of expression? I'm not the one that suggested forming a separatist, my way or the highway, breakaway XC group, which is how the group was initially presented (and many still feel that is the way to go) Just calling it how it is. I didn't chose my words wisely when I said KRS1 was presenting 'negative' points. I should have said 'counter' points of view. |
|
|
|
Post by ronb on Oct 26, 2009 22:25:17 GMT -5
So, picture a blank canvas...."tabula rasa" in Latin...
A circle in the middle is entitled Athletics Canada. This is the turf that AC has, owns, and has the right to make decisions over, especially as related to International events. That isn't going to change, nor should it. There is one Association in Canada that is an IAAF member, just as in every other country.
And next to that, touching on the circle, but not overlapping, is us/we/ourselves...
And we can build as big a tent as possible, without infringing on the AC Campground.
So we are neighbours. Neighbours can go one way or the other, and the relationship is dependent on each neighbour. Neither can forge a relationship with the other, without mutual agreement...
That is how I perceive the dynamics of the current and future situation...
|
|
|
|
Post by saskatchewan on Oct 26, 2009 22:28:33 GMT -5
Just for the record, i personally am not advocating a breakaway from AC or anything of the kind. What i am saying is:
1. AC is neither the ultimate problem nor the ultimate solution.
2. AC is the governing body in Canada and as such we need to work with them.
3. Advocating a committee or group such as has been voiced here is not advocating breaking away from AC.
4. Competitive distance running in Canada has failed to market its self nearly as successfully as other sports (snowboarding, mountain biking, etc). Good news here is this means that there is a huge potential upside if we can get it right.
5. Local sponsorship at the grass-roots level should be aggressively pursued and can be easier to obtain then national sponsorship.
6. Local options usually work better then national options (here is my bias as a stereotypical westerner and finance guy - i.e. "less government is better government").
7. There has been fantastic dialogue here which will hopefully lead to envigorated competitive distance running options across Canada.
8. Some of the best thinking comes when people disagree passionately on a subject.
|
|
