Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post Reply
User avatar
Madhue
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 902
Joined: May 9th, 2007, 8:10 am

Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by Madhue »

Well like I was saying following this event, its a dud. Looks like there really is now real cost savings from switching from Ironman. City proprietors made more money, cost city less money (in the long run), less media coverage and well we have an inferior product to spectate... Like I said day after the event... time to put some folks together and figure out how we as a community can bring back Iron in 4 years.


http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/news/236303131.html
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by fluffy »

Do we have a clear picture of just why the association with the Ironman organization was terminated?
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
southy
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3507
Joined: Jun 1st, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by southy »

I believe the bottomline was increased cost and less control. I could be wrong though.
User avatar
Madhue
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 902
Joined: May 9th, 2007, 8:10 am

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by Madhue »

fluffy wrote:Do we have a clear picture of just why the association with the Ironman organization was terminated?

Ironman Canada was asking for more money, and playing hardball with the City, City of Penticton kissed off the 20 year relationship with Ironman, which moved their venue to Whistler. City got into bed with Challenge Family a group that had limited success in Europe but was untried in North America. Long story short the hope was Penticton was looking for a cheaper alternative and that wouldn't try and call the shots when running the event. Now the City is picking up the shortfall, this is pretty ugly when you consider the City is increasing taxes to cover a $600k deficit, i'm not sure if that includes the $200k from Challenge. We loose a Marquee Event, and loose a large wad of cabbage on a fool would see the value in such an endeavor. Ironman only has a 5 year contact with Whistler, with 4 years remaining, time to get ourselves in a position to retain Ironman back to Penticton.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by fluffy »

I don't see the reasoning in trying to rekindle a relationship that has already been deemed inadequate without giving the new one a chance to prove itself. Complaints against the Ironman ownership are mounting worldwide, they are more and more about turning a profit and less and less about the racers/volunteers and local business. Going back to Ironman hat-in-hand at this point would be a monumentally poor strategic move that would just invite an increase in the sort of behavior that got their greedy butts thrown out of Penticton in the first place.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Madhue
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 902
Joined: May 9th, 2007, 8:10 am

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by Madhue »

fluffy wrote:I don't see the reasoning in trying to rekindle a relationship that has already been deemed inadequate without giving the new one a chance to prove itself.
I think its opening proved quite a lot. It was a bad choice passing up on Ironman.

fluffy wrote:Complaints against the Ironman ownership are mounting worldwide, they are more and more about turning a profit and less and less about the racers/volunteers and local business.
... and yet they were better attended, provided a better product and this year gave away more swag... Ironman has grown, they need people and a city that expect that growth. Of course the alternative was Challenge, and everyone gets to pay for their short falling. People keep saying Ironman has grown and become too interested in profits, however not caring is costing taxpayers $200K this year. How much next year? the year after? in 5 years if this trend keeps up it will cost the good people of Penticton 1,000,000.00... are we getting our moneys worth? I think it displays a cavalier attitude of an event whos not worried about their bottom line. Thats an issue.

fluffy wrote:Going back to Ironman hat-in-hand at this point would be a monumentally poor strategic move that would just invite an increase in the sort of behavior that got their greedy butts thrown out of Penticton in the first place.
being prepared to compete for Ironman bid when it becomes available makes complete sense, first off it lights a fire under Challenges *bleep*, secondly being prepared to make an offer for Ironman Canada before it comes available is a much better position to be in than not being prepared. Your logic model needs some glue.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by fluffy »

I'm not convinced. Ironman was asking for a significant stipend in cash and in-kind concessions to operate here, the exact details of which have never been disclosed, but it had grown to the point where council felt it was no longer a good deal for Penticton. That alone speaks volumes. I also think it's premature to pass judgement on Challenge after one year's operation, I'm willing to give them a fair shake to prove themselves, after all it's not like Ironman Penticton didn't come from humble roots. Things seemed to go south with the local race when we lost our local connection within the race management structure, and suddenly the whole thing became less Penticton and more big business. I'm willing to trust council's judgement until some more concrete evidence becomes available.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
acbarry
Newbie
Posts: 48
Joined: Mar 29th, 2010, 7:46 am

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by acbarry »

No where does it say that Penticton has to pay for anything. If the race gets more support from community with not so many nay sayers, than this race could do a lot better. Penticton is only guarantor. They went into this knowing they were going to take a loss. You would hope they wouldn't go into this without thinking about how to pay it back before all the 'angry' people of Penticton come yelling abuse.

"Penticton taxpayers on the hook for Challenge losses" is a great headline if you are anti triathlon or sport. It does really instill a great deal of negativity into what could be a great event. But if you are looking for that easy headline, why not?
User avatar
Madhue
Generalissimo Postalot
Posts: 902
Joined: May 9th, 2007, 8:10 am

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by Madhue »

fluffy wrote:I'm not convinced. Ironman was asking for a significant stipend in cash and in-kind concessions to operate here, the exact details of which have never been disclosed, but it had grown to the point where council felt it was no longer a good deal for Penticton. That alone speaks volumes.
I agree is speaks volumes, to em it says two things, 1) the City was coasting not investing in Ironman infrastructural relying solely on the ambiance of the area and the the volunteers as being the chip in the game in negotiating with Ironman, 2) it speaks to a lack of capacity in negotiating with an international event organization.



fluffy wrote: I also think it's premature to pass judgement on Challenge after one year's operation, I'm willing to give them a fair shake to prove themselves, after all it's not like Ironman Penticton didn't come from humble roots.
I think that a very apologist attitude, comparing the two time periods is very misleading, when Ironman began here, it was close to the inception of the sport, what we are seeing is a sport close to its apex. Comparing the two in such a way would be like comparing the performance 2014 SI Civic to 1979 Honda Civic.

Challenge claimed to be a very established group in Europe and was boasting that they were planning on entering the North American marketplace to give Ironman a run for their money, what we witnessed was a lackluster event poorly attended and poorly managed. Its about deliverables, I'm not sold on the caliber of event that Challenge is able to deliver. We need to stop making excuses, this is not the organizations first race, its not charity event, this is not a feel good weekend. They claimed to be able to provide a sporting venue that would be appealing to top athletes as well as entry level competitors, they claimed they would attract more competitors because teams could compete not just solo participants. in return we ended up with less of everything. why do you feel we deserve less?

fluffy wrote:Things seemed to go south with the local race when we lost our local connection within the race management structure, and suddenly the whole thing became less Penticton and more big business.
really all big business? well I guess we should tell Wal Mart to move out, Canadian Tire and Real Canadian Super Store... we want things to feel more Penticton like and lets open up Mom and Pop stores... why is that we have to settle for less, why cant we expect our city to grow up and deal with things like Big Business. Seriously whats so wrong about Big Business? Sounds pretty benevolent, that we need to make a world class event feel more like us, then us rising to the challenge of being world class.

fluffy wrote: I'm willing to trust council's judgement until some more concrete evidence becomes available.
Shepherds need sheep, I guess.
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by fluffy »

I think the question of why Ironman was "let go" contains the answer to all your questions. If you were to get the real facts on that then you'll gain an understanding of both why they are no longer here, and just what it is you want back. Call me a sheep if you want, makes no difference to me, I'm still confident that council would not make a decision of this magnitude without performing their due diligence and they made their decision with the best interest of all of Penticton at heart.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
User avatar
Anonymous123
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4290
Joined: Feb 8th, 2013, 4:02 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by Anonymous123 »

What credentials do councillors have to make these kind of decisions. A degree in Sport Tourism? Event Management? anything? Did they retain expert consultation on these decisions?
Be careful when you follow the masses.
Sometimes the M is silent
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 28005
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Taxpayers stuck with Challenge Shortfalll

Post by fluffy »

Good questions all. I think this issue would be a lot clearer if we knew exactly what motivated council's decision. As far as I know the details have never been made public, probably due to the same reasons they're staying hush hush about the precise numbers surrounding Challenge's first year. I suppose your personal opinion on this comes down to whether or not you trust council to do their jobs responsibly.
“We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective.” – Kurt Vonnegut
Post Reply

Return to “Central Okanagan”