The promoter puts on a race...if the race is sucessful, the promoter makes a profit...if it is not successful, the promoter looses money. That is how business works. In that you are an ECU grad, I fully understand why you don't get that concept. It's a good thing that you pretend to be a coach and not a business person.

For the same reason they cannot offer a registration fee of $0. It costs money to put on a race. For this year that money has been spent (for the sake of argument). You are then proposing that for next year he put on a race with no revenues to pay for it.

Yes, 25% seems a bit chintzy. 50% is probably more reasonable, but will dramatically impact his margins the next year. He didn't cause the fire, why should he absorb all the loss? Triathlon management is a thin margin business. You should give it a shot.

I see a lot of "crap" written in this thread as well as other threads. But I tolerate other people's right to be wrong.

---

As I understand it there is no serious health advisory and no evacuation order along the course. So Mother Nature did not cancel the event. Try to be accurate.

---

I was out bicycling one day. I had about 50 miles in and 4 miles to go to fill my water bottles. There was smoke ahead and then fire on one side of the road - moving toward the road. Fire crew was letting people through. A bit of smoke for several miles but no real problems. Filled my bottles up and came back through the smoke - fire had crossed the road. Finished up my ride. No big deal.

Yes I agree. I was taking issue with the argument that simply because the money has been spent there should be no refunds. As I said in an earlier post however, if the couch store buried this waiver in the fine print on all of their standard form invoices - then I am not sure it would necessarily be binding.

As a general comment, It seems that people put on races, in part, to make money. Making money involves some risk to get some reward. In this case, the "no refund" camp is basically saying athletes should all bear the risk of force majeur events, rather than the RD. However, none of the racers ask for a cut of the profits if the race goes ahead successfully - so why are we so worried about mitigating the RDs' risk when things go bad?

I believe this sort of situation, from a legal point of view, really revolves around the effect of the waiver. All the other stuff are red herrings.

It doesn't. It simply tries to explain why the organization doesn't have the money sitting around to pay you back, since you have admitted you didn't understand that concept.

Clearly you also don't understand the concept of personal responsibility. You had no problem agreeing that there would be no refund, but now you are whining about it.

Suck it up cupcake.

That is not really true. A lot of costs: timing, police/safety, ambulatory service, post race food, volunteer donations, food for volunteers, equipment rental, moving and set up expenses, permit fees and awards may or may not have been paid for in entirety. Some vendors require a down payment, some do not. There is no doubt that the company is going to save SOME money by cancelling.

Where this is really going to hurt is next year's registration. Especially if the company didn't handle the fall out well which it appears that they don't.

Go ahead and start a company that advertises full refunds for races. If there's really a demand I'm sure you can make money. If not and you have to cancel have fun paying back the bills. Everyone bitches that real businesses can't get away with this, but what about outdoor concerts or sporting events? Want to demand a refund next time one of those is cancelled?

why should he absorb all the loss?
The exact same reason that he retains all of the profits. Races are normally not a joint venture between athletes and promoters. The promoter keeps 100% of the profit and should absorb 100% of the loss.

ETA: In the case the promoter made a larger profit by cancelling the events. Good work if you can find it!!!

You are comparing legal constructs against common sense. The two are completely different.

The no refund policy of races is not buried in the fine print. It is almost an almost universally adopted industry standard.

You also seem to have decided that a 25% discount would not hurt the RD in the pocket book. I am not so sure that is correct.

I wonder if anyone ever stopped to think that maybe 25% is approximately equal to the portion of their costs that the race organizers were able to recoup.

Perhaps the other 75% is down the drain in the various line items that have been mentioned (permits, rentals, admin, SWAG, etc.).

Thanks. I'm not necessarily pro athlete or pro business, I'm just anti-idiots.

I think this company is being pretty short sighted by not offering more than 25% off. It looks like Big Blue puts on a ton of events. Yes, it might hurt, but they should absorb the loss for the one race. I'd expect lots of these participants to swear off future events, which would hurt the bottom line even more. Granted, I don't know much (well, anything) about their finances, but it doesn't seem to be a good long-term move.

---

speedySTATES

There won't be any races left if promoters are exposed like that. Margins are thin. If the potential profit is single digit % of registration fees and potential loss is 100% of registration fees, you will have no one putting on races. As it is, feel free to pick and choose your races amongst those that offer full refunds. Pickings will be slim.

Ouch, such hostility. I just see your statements as 'straw men' with no real evidence behind them.

Business is business, and if you're going to say 'Sorry dude, race cancelled, no full credit for you...just pay for another race and we'll give you $20 off'...you're going to lose business.

Well as an ECU grad and somewhat of a business person, after all I ran a $1.25+ million dollar territory for years, I do know it is lose money not loose money. Loose money is what you find on the ground with nothing attached to it. But I digress.

As a former RD I know that there is almost always a mother nature clause in the form you agree to in order to pay your money to enter the event. Therefore when you press enter you are accepting this risk as a participant. Now you can choose not to enter and not accept this risk.

The promoter is accepting some risk by having to pay for stuff up front, accepting some risk bc Mom Nature may burn down his village, bc someone may bomb the start area. He's got skin in the game, in fact he's often shelled out money before anyone has signed up. That's a risk.

Could you, riltri, be bold enough, brave enough to actually put on a race, even a 5k? Do you have the audacity to step up to the plate or are you satisfied being an armchair quarterback telling us you know how to do it. If you are so bold to do it, I'll sponsor your race to the tune of $1000.

You're already in the black and you haven't even put a thought down on paper. Step up or armchair quarterback, your call, you've already got 1 sponsor.

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

If I tell you that if you give me $20 I am going to do my best to provide you a service. But, if I cannot do it for any reason, I am going to keep all your money. At that point I have already told you that you are going to share the risk with me. It has been your decision to accept that risk. Don't like it, don't agree to the terms.

Nobody takes any responsibility for their own actions anymore.

"something something we are not responsible for acts of God."

Sucks, but this is what those provisions are in there for. It seems like it would only be fair for the RD to cover his non-recurring non-refundable costs of putting on the race and then refund whatever is left. That may be what they're doing. Or the WTC could be making a boatload of money. I don't know.

---

__________________________

I tweet!

Yes, but this is a legal issue. There is a contract between two parties. It may be standard, but it comes down to what is written on the contract (ie. the sign up form).

I have not decided at all that a 25% discount would not hurt the RD. I have decided that the economic harm to the RD is an irrelevant consideration regarding the legal resolution of this issue.

Yup, but just maybe the lost business has a lower financial impact than refunding everybody their fee.

Nah, that couldn't be.....

I don't expect any kind of a refund if I choose not to race, be it from injury, burn out, or my chinchilla being eaten by my girlfriend's cat. A canceled event is something different, to me.

There was actually another tri that was canceled here in May. It was held on a military base. And after Boston, the base freaked out and wanted full social security numbers, driver's license numbers, addresses, and more for 500 participants and and of the spectators. The race organizers canceled in on Tuesday or Wednesday (the event was Sunday) and gave full refunds, turned it into a donation, or gift cards to a local sporting good store.

That, to me, is a better business move.

---

speedySTATES

Actually court action is a civilized way to handle things.

It beats physical action to take the promoters property. It also beats the internet debates that resolve nothing.

But if you want to argue, it seems like this is as good of a place as any. But noone wins. Noone loses.

Personally, I'm not asking for my full fee of $225 to be given back to me. Give me a chance to race in one of your next events with a full credit. Telling me to PAY for another event with $20 off...bad, bad, bad.

Different thing altogether. Refunding individuals for personal reasons (WTC refunds $125 on $700) is totally different than refunding everyone due to event cancellation. WTC is absolutely making a boatload of money on their individual refund policy, because they know they will get 25% no-shows and are able to overbook by 25%. Even if all 25% of those get their $125 back, WTC is still way, way up because they can overbook. The fact that they give $125 back surprised me. It is one of the very few, if not only, unnecessary but generous policy towards participants that they have. My guess is they have come to the conclusion that if they give $125 back they actually make money because otherwise they would see many more people forcing a refund via credit card disputes. Point is, though, individual refund policy is a very different thing than wholesale refund policy due to event cancellation.

You can't compare New York Road Runners with most organizers, other than WTC and a few other large/corporate even coordinators. NYRR is a HUGE operation, that pretty much puts up sold-out races every weekend (at a high cost for a low cost venue like Central Park usually). They pay their president $$$$$$ and had the means to cover the cost (with their insurance company).

The discount question really comes down to the marginal cost of adding an extra person to an existing race. Those generators and other expenses are already covered for the most part. I personally think a 25% discount is a little "cheap". I wouldn't enter a race put on by that promoter; the market will probably speak and they will go out of business.

Being a Harvard of the South grad (WCU), I have too much business sense to get into a venture with the rick/reward that race promoters deal with.

Actually, on second thought, go ahead and send me the $1000 and I will get started putting one together. I will even give your athletes a 10% discount on entry fees. PM sent with my mailing address.....and we do accept PayPal ;)

I would be surprised if a focus group study was performed to determine that answer, and had such study been done I suspect a different decision would have been made.