New National Schedule Called Into Question - Discussion

[jfarmer]

At the risk of being chased off this board, I would like to make a few constructive suggestions:

1. Restore the Division I events to April. I have stated my reasons in previous posts and in e mail to the USFA.

2. Move the Pan Am Zonal Competition to NYC, in early August. Restore Div I Championships to the Summer Nationals.

3. Let a local club with volunteers run the event, with USFA oversight and support. The Fencers Club has already shown that it can handle a World Cup. If I were in charge, I would insist that the USA women fencers work during the men’s events and the men during the women's.

4. Get the event on cable TV. Sell either on air advertising, or get sponsors to support the cost of televising the event. Tim Morehouse is already laying the groundwork, see his posts about televised fencing, but I am sure with NYC being the media capital that there is at least one parent of a NYC fencer who could help make the proper connections.

5. Let the sponsoring club sell the video from the event: DVD’s and split the profit with the video producer and the USFA.

If this is done properly, it might even make enough “profit” to help subsidize the National Team.

There are enough smart people out there who care about fencing to turn this into a positive for both the national team and the majority of Division I fencers, not to mention the rest of the USFA membership.

You know, this isn't a bad set of ideas.... Sigh, means it probably couldn't happen this way...

[Capt. Slo-mo]

4. Get the event on cable TV. Sell either on air advertising, or get sponsors to support the cost of televising the event. Tim Morehouse is already laying the groundwork, see his posts about televised fencing, but I am sure with NYC being the media capital that there is at least one parent of a NYC fencer who could help make the proper connections.

5. Let the sponsoring club sell the video from the event: DVD’s and split the profit with the video producer and the USFA.

One minor fly in the ointment: the FIE likely assigns Zonal Championship TV "rights" to someone. You'd have to have their permission to shoot the event and sell any related video.

[misha]

One minor fly in the ointment: the FIE likely assigns Zonal Championship TV "rights" to someone. You'd have to have their permission to shoot the event and sell any related video.

I think at least for Grand Prix it is the opposite: to get it you have to promise to televise it:

(From HANDBOOK OF SPECIFICATIONS Grand Prix Competitions)

"The organiser formally accepts the responsibility of promoting fencing at a regional, national
and international level, by means of all forms of media, and particularly through television.
This action, particularly important for our sport, will be dealt in close collaboration with the
President of the Promotion and Publicity Commission of the FIE."

"In order to be granted the title of « Grand Prix », the organiser must make an
agreement with the national or local television to produce at least the final. The
TV signal must imperatively be made available to the company which is
streaming the images so that they may be broadcasted over the Internet."

.

[Mr.MightyMouse]

make it 2 lbs of Dungeness crab and I'll throw in anchovies.

Kosher crab - a XXI century invention?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Misha: that's true for GP events, good call.

I was by the FIE told that the "Championship" events were an entirely different matter, though, and I had to secure permission from the US TV rights holder in order to shoot. This was in the context of the Cadet/Junior/Senior World Championships. I never shot at the Zonals, though, so the issue of Championship rights is a little murky at that level.

I just wanted to be sure that if someone began advocating for a TV deal for these Zonals we're talking about, they made certain to ask the right questions.

[ysbadadden]

I think the best outcome that can be hoped for is that the new BoD slaps the Deciders on their wrists but approves their actions retroactively.

[philly123]

live packed in dry ice, overnight delivery. BTW, I'm talking Patsy Grimaldi here, not some ubiquitous Ray's knock off pizza. Alternatively, I could do a Carnegie Deli pastrami/corned beef combo or some pickled lox from Barney Greenglass. If you insist on the sour dough bread, I'd do H & H bagels.

Dammit heretic! That's cold. There's NOTHING open here! ..... [where'd I put that Amtrak schedule] . . . . . . . BTW, Brooklyn or Queens? Remember, I'm from out of town .....

[edew]

Eric ships the crab, but via ground mail and without the ice.

Which Eric? Or rather, the other has to eat it!

[hello?]

I think the best outcome that can be hoped for is that the new BoD slaps the Deciders on their wrists but approves their actions retroactively.

I said a while back that this is what WILL happen. However, I don't think this is the best outcome. We will be left with a schedule that does not benefit the majority of fencers -- and that makes all the discussion that went into the approved schedule a joke. (So the Deciders would get a slap on their wrist...the fencers a slap in the face.)

[TensingNorgay]

And, may I ask, what if ANY response did you get from the USFA? Did you send your email to the ED, the BoD...

I have sent the same set of ideas to the USFA. Specifically the ED. To date, no response. However, in fairness it has only been one day. I hope I am not on a no response list for sharing the previous e-mail with this forum.

At the risk of sounding repetitious:

There were 516 men and 276 women competing in Division I events at Virginia Beach. That was the April Division I event for 2010, the third Division I event of the year.

Is the Board of Directors really going to be so foolish as to deny 768 ( grand total minus the top 24) fencers the chance to compete in order to protect 12 men and 12 women?

If I were running the organization, I certainly would at least listen to the majority of the membership.

I appreciate the additional information about TV rights. I still see it as a potential source of revenue. Deals for residuals are made all the time. With all the lawyers involved with fencing there must be someone who could negotiate for the USFA.

[pillow]

I have sent the same set of ideas to the USFA. Specifically the ED. To date, no response. However, in fairness it has only been one day. I hope I am not on a no response list for sharing the previous e-mail with this forum.

At the risk of sounding repetitious:

There were 516 men and 276 women competing in Division I events at Virginia Beach. That was the April Division I event for 2010, the third Division I event of the year.

Is the Board of Directors really going to be so foolish as to deny 768 ( grand total minus the top 24) fencers the chance to compete in order to protect 12 men and 12 women?

If I were running the organization, I certainly would at least listen to the majority of the membership.

I appreciate the additional information about TV rights. I still see it as a potential source of revenue. Deals for residuals are made all the time. With all the lawyers involved with fencing there must be someone who could negotiate for the USFA.

By this time, it is unlikely you will get a response from the ED.

And yes, I believe the Board would sacrifice an entire Div I NAC to benefit those few you mention.

The irony will be ( and we will have to wait for the 2012 Olympics) is that this Pan Am/Div I mess will not in any way help those fencers at the next Games.

[TensingNorgay]

In a spirit of fairness:

Greg did respond and offered to hand my letter with my suggestions to the members of the Board when they arrive.

Perhaps others with similar constructive suggestions would like to also communicate directly with the USFA.

It is now up to the Board.

[heretic]

I think the best outcome that can be hoped for is that the new BoD slaps the Deciders on their wrists but approves their actions retroactively.

We can always hope that the BoD clips Dilworth's wings and reinstates the NAC (at least a minor repairs compromise) and fixes the nationals, but IMO, your realistic best case scenario is on the money.

to Philly123 - Brooklyn, without a doubt; but you'll always have cheese steaks.

[pillow]

We can always hope that the BoD clips Dilworth's wings and reinstates the NAC (at least a minor repairs compromise) and fixes the nationals, but IMO, your realistic best case scenario is on the money.

to Philly123 - Brooklyn, without a doubt; but you'll always have cheese steaks.

So in your opinion: No significant penalty for Greg, and no Div I NAC for the rest of us?

[fdad]

So in your opinion: No significant penalty for Greg, and no Div I NAC for the rest of us?

Other than appointing him the (non-interim) ED, no penalty.
Don't forget the BoD/EC fired Kurt without much of a plan in place to replace him and Greg stepped up to rescue them from themselves.
They aren't about to do now that would jeopardize that.

[pillow]

Other than appointing him the (non-interim) ED, no penalty.
Don't forget the BoD/EC fired Kurt without much of a plan in place to replace him and Greg stepped up to rescue them from themselves.
They aren't about to do now that would jeopardize that.

Maybe. We can still hope that the Board does the right thing and restores the Div I NAC.

Let's remember that the loss of the NAC was a result of our hosting the Pan Ams during the Summer Nationals. It was the end product of the USFA trying to "game the system" by hosting the Pan Ams on our soil because we are so "afraid" of poor treatment of our fencers by other countries. Maybe so. But I think the best fencers will do well regardless of where the competition is held.

[silver2e]

Maybe. We can still hope that the Board does the right thing and restores the Div I NAC.

Let's remember that the loss of the NAC was a result of our hosting the Pan Ams during the Summer Nationals. It was the end product of the USFA trying to "game the system" by hosting the Pan Ams on our soil because we are so "afraid" of poor treatment of our fencers by other countries. Maybe so. But I think the best fencers will do well regardless of where the competition is held.

We should restore the NAC to the SN. As long as the Pan Am events precede the Div1 events--with a couple of days between them, I don't think our "protected" fencers would mind in the least. They do love what they do, afterall!

[Mr.MightyMouse]

We should restore the NAC to the SN. As long as the Pan Am events precede the Div1 events--with a couple of days between them, I don't think our "protected" fencers would mind in the least. They do love what they do, afterall!

Agreed!

[Inquartata]

So in your opinion: No significant penalty for Greg, and no Div I NAC for the rest of us?

If he threatens to quit if they try reversing anything he's done---what are their options? Is there anyone else out there willing to take the job, given recent history? Are they willing to do without an ED for a substantial period this late in the Olympic lead-up? What will the USOC say?

I don't even expect to hear of a slap on the wrist. If there is one it will be in private and there will be no outward sign that anything happened. All decisions will be confirmed.

[pillow]

If he threatens to quit if they try reversing anything he's done---what are their options? Is there anyone else out there willing to take the job, given recent history? Are they willing to do without an ED for a substantial period this late in the Olympic lead-up? What will the USOC say?

I don't even expect to hear of a slap on the wrist. If there is one it will be in private and there will be no outward sign that anything happened. All decisions will be confirmed.

Let him quit then. There are many who wouldn't mind. There are those who would be happy to take his place. I also don't think that the input of any ED is vital regarding the Olympics.