$240,000 to 4 clubs???????

Exactly "In deed" is obviously out of the loop or out of his mind. Same shit different day.

As someone else pointed out, why, when usatf spends someone elses money, do they expect the credit for the results.

So when you ask what other groups are there that deserve this grant....it seems like a huge political bunch of crap that would be best to avoid....

As an executive for a Fortune 500 company I can tell you that the top Athletes and Training Centers have already backed themselves into a corner. Meb and Deena and Ryan Hall and Dathan Ritzenhein and Katie McGregor and Carrie Tollefson and Blake Russell and several others are no longer able to be marketable for future investors.

All of these athletes have individual contracts and individual agents that preclude them from accepting money from another sponsor and advertise them. For example if General Motors were to approach Team USA California and say we would like to give your center one million dollars a year. In return we need 100% of your athletes to have GM on their uniform. They would have to reject the offer as Deena and Meb and Ryan and Ian all have individual contracts that doesn't allow that.

This is why the Hansons group becomes more marketable. Are they the most talented group? No. But the entire group can be labeled and that is a huge bonus. In most of the other groups they started with a sponsored athlete so they immediately closed the door on future sponsorships. Hansons may be not be the best climate or the best coaches but they are by far the best business model.

We are not willing to invest in Big Sur minus Russell and Carney. We are not willing to invest in Boulder minus all of their athletes. We are not willing to invest in Team Minnesota minus McGregor and Tollefson. We are however seriously looking at Hansons.

Greed Understanding,

You are not an exec of a major company and you know. Stop pretending.

Then you should look at Team XO as well. I am sure Ross would be open to ideas and I know they are looking for funding. As far as I can see, there is no better overall team then XO in the nation.

3rd at clubs, world team members, 8 Olympic Trials qualifiers, Should have over a dozen at the Outdoor championship, just watch their video. Plus all the other things they do for the sport.

I may be a little bias living in Eugene, but whatever, see for yourself. I would think it would at least be worth looking into.

www.teamxo.com

Greed Understanding wrote:

As an executive for a Fortune 500 company I can tell you that the top Athletes and Training Centers have already backed themselves into a corner. Meb and Deena and Ryan Hall and Dathan Ritzenhein and Katie McGregor and Carrie Tollefson and Blake Russell and several others are no longer able to be marketable for future investors.

All of these athletes have individual contracts and individual agents that preclude them from accepting money from another sponsor and advertise them. For example if General Motors were to approach Team USA California and say we would like to give your center one million dollars a year. In return we need 100% of your athletes to have GM on their uniform. They would have to reject the offer as Deena and Meb and Ryan and Ian all have individual contracts that doesn't allow that...

.

Serious Question: How can Tiger Woods do endorsements for AmEx and other co.'s...Lance 24 hour fitness. Are running contracts more specific? Are people just not marketing the athletes right? Isn't Meb on a gatorade commecial?

running is stupid and so antiquated that most contracts allow only one sponsor, and the IAAF doesn't help.

serious answer:in running, we can't wear more than one logo, and it can only be something like 3sq cm or 6sq, can't remember which (thanks iaaf!) I had the same issue in triathlon many years ago, although at least we could wear one large primary sponsor logo, along with 3 small secondary sponsor logos. i think that would actually go well in distance running/track and field.about tiger and such, sure he and meb and others can do commercials and the like, but they can't wear anything other than their main sponsor on their kit (though i think tiger might have a buick logo on one sleeve of his shirt). the way running contracts are set up, the athlete can only- and i mean ONLY- have one logo showing, the shoe company's logo. this means no go on wearing adidas shoes, but slapping a powerbar hat and a pair of oakley sunglasses on (unless you have a contract exemption, like say allen johnson and stacey dragila, for example). thus, it makes it difficult if not impossible for an athlete to obtain anything other than a shoe sponsor. plenty more to be said but another time.dude-

seriousquestion wrote:

/quote]

Serious Question: How can Tiger Woods do endorsements for AmEx and other co.'s...Lance 24 hour fitness. Are running contracts more specific? Are people just not marketing the athletes right? Isn't Meb on a gatorade commercial?

these are all issues that are handled by usatf. we have very weak leadership. every other sports governing body sets the standards. usatf allows others to dictate how things are going to be. our oly trials are afraid of the usoc. why? because it means money. usatf is run by whoever is holding the purse strings. nike and the usoc and now the nyrr make the rules and we all have to live with them.

Finally, someone has a clue . Add to this that the leadership is not only weak, but easily influenced, has no long range plan and zero integrity.

You have got to hear this one. Right now Jim Estes who is employed by USATF is in Yokohama Japan as the USA coach. His wife was on the Chiba staff last year. Are these the most deserving? Or is this just another example of certain perks for certain people.

How is James Carney (Big Sur DP) more marketable than Luke Watson or Matt Gabrielson (Team MN)? Just trying to get an idea what "marketable" means in this instance. This is a fair question.

Greed Understanding wrote:

We are not willing to invest in Big Sur minus Russell and Carney. We are not willing to invest in Boulder minus all of their athletes. We are not willing to invest in Team Minnesota minus McGregor and Tollefson. We are however seriously looking at Hansons.

16x wrote:

I think the NYRR and Twin Cities would have been better off to keep the funds and use it for grass root regional

events and programs - that is where running and track and field have a chance to rise somewhere on the totem pole above snowboarding and Olympic bobsled.

Established clubs could have written for grants to support x-country and track meets for all ages in various regions.

or, I would give all the funds to the sprinters - world class, and plenty of them.

some things never change.

Should of could of, would of.......they are all smart people and made what they thought was a good investment in our sport. Why would people second guess a good gesture to improve our sport.

Or maybe in the long run they should have given it to the Race Walkers to help them.

Come on, send them a note of thanks and let's be happy a movement is underway to make improvements to athlete development in the US.

piling on wrote:

You have got to hear this one. Right now Jim Estes who is employed by USATF is in Yokohama Japan as the USA coach. His wife was on the Chiba staff last year. Are these the most deserving? Or is this just another example of certain perks for certain people.

Almost all US teams are accompied by USATF office staff as the volunteers who are selected as coaches and managers usually do not have the relevant experience to handle the various tasks and responsibilities, especially in a foreign country. I know Jim and he in no way considers the travel a perk.

Almost all US teams are accompied by USATF office staff as the volunteers who are selected as coaches and managers usually do not have the relevant experience to handle the various tasks and responsibilities, especially in a foreign country. I know Jim and he in no way considers the travel a perk.[/quote]

This is one huge crock of shit and you should be embarassed for even writing this. There has NEVER been an ekiden that has been acompanied by office staff. Office staff only accompany trips when it's a decent trip and they want to go. What this is is a waste of staff, resources and money. That is something USATF office staff are good at.

Rainbow room wrote:

Almost all US teams are accompied by USATF office staff as the volunteers who are selected as coaches and managers usually do not have the relevant experience to handle the various tasks and responsibilities, especially in a foreign country. I know Jim and he in no way considers the travel a perk.

This is one huge crock of shit and you should be embarassed for even writing this. There has NEVER been an ekiden that has been acompanied by office staff. Office staff only accompany trips when it's a decent trip and they want to go. What this is is a waste of staff, resources and money. That is something USATF office staff are good at.[/quote]

Rainbow Room wrote:

Finally, someone has a clue . Add to this that the leadership is not only weak, but easily influenced, has no long range plan and zero integrity.

The Hansons are my heroes.

They will speak their mind at every opportunity.

When I opened this, I thought it was going to be about a weak winning hand of Poker

Although this thread is 10 months old, I find it timely. Now that Brooks-Hansons have inked a deal with Saturn. Congratulations to Hansons for a better understanding than most.