Scott, you clearly don't have the "passion" (TM) and "ohana" (TM) that embody the ironman (TM) spirit. Perhaps also, CAF is not "international" enough, because Kona is a true "world championships (TM)"

why, as i sit here making myself a recovery shake in my new Ironman blender (TM) and ponder the weight of my passion on my ironman scale (TM), I can't help but think how wonderful it is to truly BE an Ironman, my wallet opening like a tropical flower exposed to the water and passion and ohana of the islands.

perhaps after a little chocolate milk (TM) and a little soul searching, you'll find the passion needed to pony up the $54k. After all, these 5,000 volunteers won't organize themselves. Try not to be so selfish.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Ironman is a brand that we all love, respect and want to be a part of.

IM is like a beautiful Russian girl that you want to marry, only to discover that all that she wants from you is a American Citizenship and an alimony check.

So, is the juice worth the squeeze?

---

~~~~~~~~~
Yours in golf,
PGA_MIKE
Couch Potato to IM SPUD in 4 years

ST,
There are certain things that WTC/ Providence Equity has done to maximize their profits. This being said the organization does enter into communitiies to stage races. These races do cause disturbances to the non athletic members of these communities They need to embrace charities when they can. Look at the PGA tour that also enters communities and causes disturbances to each area, they just passed two billion dolllars in charitable donations. I think there is nothing wrong for leaving the community better than you found it or helping communities that help your brand survive.

The WTC has created such a buzz that participants think they are not in a real or official triathlon unless it has the brand associated to it.

I know those of us who are members of triathlon's founding generation realize time marches on but their are certain characteristics that hopefully should remain. They have volunteers fly to events at their own expense to be a free voulunteer so they can plunk down $700 for the next year's race. What next starting to charge administration fees to them also.

The WTC preach the mission statement of fufilling dreams yet they charge administration fees to another organization that is building lives and restoring pride through sport. Such a sad statement for an organization that is a figurehead to the sport.

I'm unclear about something. You cite $54k. That sounds to me like the total of two slots' selling price. So, did CAF end up getting nothing at all? Or were the fees charged by ebay on the $54k deducted from the donation?

If it's the latter, then as much as I love to hate the machine of WTC (still signed up for immt), I am not all that upset. If i donate something to a charity auction, and the auctioneer takes a percentage, it comes off the sale price. I don't continue to kick in, I made the donation. The recipient gets the vast majority of the price paid. It's the auctioneer that takes the fee.

That's what i would like to imagine is the reality. But I sense that I am way off. Can you say more about the specifics? What fees are we talking about? What sale price? Did they just give away the slots and then say "you deal with the fees?" Or did they themselves "charge" the CAF for a service?

---

===================================
I'll tell you all right now, my seat is too low, I'm not aero and I carry too much fluid on the bike.

Every time I charge my credit card for an event or piece of merchandise I know there is (and should be a profit). Also, the branding done by Ironman, ITU, Challenge or Rev3 ultimately helps develop the sport further which is better for all of us.

BUT, a corporation that does not give back to their community shows poor leadership and ultimately will not survive the long-term (don't get me wrong the brand might survive just not the ownership). I can't think of a better relationship for WTC/Providence to foster than with Challenged Athletes.

Ironman Foundation?

Also, I can think of a LOT of small, medium and large size businesses that don't directly "give back" to the community and do just fine. I know a lot of business owners that don't have foundations set up to give back.

---

-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3

those IM Foundattion slots, the $ goes to the organizations that volunteer (which IM used to pay out of profits). I'm not sure if all of it does, but some does.

Also, the branding done by Ironman, ITU, Challenge or Rev3 ultimately helps develop the sport further which is better for all of us.


As much as I think everyone has the right to make profit and I understand how private equity firms operate, I really don't understand how people can think throwing the IM brand on everything from blenders to weigh scales does anything to develop the sport or make it better for all of us. To me it completely cheapens the brand and I really wonder who much of that brand exposure has helped the people who race. The entry fees are up and the races are more crowded so I think it's putting money in some pockets but certainly not helping the average triathlete.

I was under the impression that Kona slots usually auction off in the neighborhood of $40k each? If that's the case, then WTC is still giving CAF a $26k net donation by donating these slots at a cost far lower than market.

Scott, is it possible that this particular donation is a one-time / 'additional' donation of Kona slots over and above their usual and customary annual donations? If yes, their need to charge for the slots is very plausibly budget related.

---

---
Team OC/AD D
Team Juicy Racing's Skip Barber Racing School and Race Series Forums: http://www.skippyforums.com/

You seem to be enforcing my point by bringing in the Ironman Foundation and then slamming it by saying companies don't need to give back. You are missing two subtle points.

Fact is that Ironman Foundation might be a good thing but it should still align with others to supplement it's weaknesses. I actually work for a non-profit but we know we can't do it all ourselves. We work with other non-profits all the time to further our mutual goals.

As to giving back, I think you maybe missed two important words...leadership and long-term. WTC is a leader in the tri business and so I apply that expectation to them. As to surviving long-term NO company can do that without giving back in some way. It is called establishing your relevance.

The fact is Providence is an equity capital firm. According to Wikipedia "The firm specializes in leveraged buyout transactions as well as growth capital investments and has invested in more than 130 companies globally since its inception in 1989." By that definition Providence's interest in WTC/Ironman is not long-term in nature. That isn't bad in it's self (I have worked with a lot of equity firms in my business that are good people) but their investment will not be long-term in nature. That creates a risk that the brand known as Ironman could be negatively impacted by the short term financing strategy.


Personally I think Providence/WTC is doing an incredible job of growing the brand known as Ironman and thus growing triathlon. They are professional and thoughtful in their strategies. But I think there are areas where would encourage them to be more thoughtful stewards of the most important symbol in triathlon.

I really don't care whether they "give" slots to your charity or sell them at a reduced price or do nothing to help you.

I care about my experience at the event. Whether they help your particular charity or not, means nothing to me.

Spoken like a true triathlete.

If WTC were smart they will slowly whittle away AG slots they "give away" at $750 and slowly increase the slots that they sell via ebay or otherwise for $40K each. Clearly the fair market value of a Kona slot is a lot more than the $750 entry fee.

What always ticked me off was the 6% charge to Active.com for ActiveGiving fundraising donations.

-----

Let me guess,you are a newbie to the sport right?



-----

Hey Scott, we have been talking about this takeover of the ironman since they bought it. I guess this is the first time it has hit you personally( I know you and your families involvement in the CAF), but they have been trying to milk the folks of our sport since day one. Remember the ironman $1000 dollar club? There have been many squeezes on the athlete and we have talked about them all here. Most do not think private equity is a good idea for such a historic event and race series. There MO is to smash and grab, then sell to the next sucker who has to squeeze even more.

Glad you are on board now, better late than never..

"I'm unclear about something. You cite $54k. That sounds to me like the total of two slots' selling price. So, did CAF end up getting nothing at all? Or were the fees charged by ebay on the $54k deducted from the donation?"

my understanding is that there's an auction, or something like an auction, put on by CAF, and that auction raises money for CAF. historically, and for 20 years, WTC has donated 2 slots to be auctioned off by CAF. all that money goes to CAF. now, it's the auction, and that money, minus $54,000 for these 2 auctioned slots that goes to CAF.

in other words, the way it seems to me pending information about which i do not know, CAF is retailing 2 slots. its price for 20 years previously for these 2 slots was $0. its price now for these 2 slots just becamse $27,000 per slot.

this means that if the auction raises, say, $44,000, that is, if 2 people in the aggregate pay an average of $22,000 for their slots, then CAF has spent $10,000 for the privilege of this fundraiser (in other words, this fundraiser cost CAF $10,000; it now has $10,000 less money than if it had not done this fundraiser at all). if, on the other hand, CAF raises $74,000 in the aggregate for these 2 slots, then CAF makes $20,000 in this fundraiser and WTC makes $54,000 in this fundraiser.

which, if this is the case, is a problem. first, it's a problem because a lot of people who might have been willing to pay, $30,000 or $40,000 for that slot aren't going to bid anymore, because while they like the idea of all that money buying prosthetics for challenged athletes, they're not wild about paying that amount of money if $27,000 out of that money, per slot, is going to WTC and its shareholders.

the second problem is that WTC is getting paid a premium for its slots because its sliding in under the cover of a cause people like.

if i'm misunderstanding this i'm ready to hear the other side. but at face value this is what it seems like to me, pending additional information that i don't have.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I see. Thanks for the clarity. I was hoping that wasn't the case. That it is, makes me wonder if in fact, C. Montgomery Burns is the real head of the WTC. I can see claiming a tax writeoff of that value. But to actually charge CAF a price that no one else pays to WTC? How the hell can they charge more than the standard entry fee?

Balls man. Giant brass ones.

---

===================================
I'll tell you all right now, my seat is too low, I'm not aero and I carry too much fluid on the bike.

Ironman is SO jumping the shark right now

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Thanks for the info Dan. I guess my question is was CAF aware of this? It would seem that business common sense would say they agreed to it. Or was this WTC making an 11th hour or post event change?

If they did agree to it, then I don't understand being upset (even if I don't agree with it). If it was the later, then shame on WTC and people should be outraged.

That is the missing piece of information.

Well said Mark but the fleecing was going on pre-providence as well. Prices were going up, while more people were being let into races....a laughable "refund" policy, less and less "extras" at the races. It had already begun to be about the margin before the private equity firm showed up.

Maybe so but now it's getting beyond a joke.....roll up roll up, buy your doormat!


http://ironmanstore.com/...carpet-door-mat.html

---

Robbie
http://www.instagram.com/trisutto

I think we all want to see WTC give back since, in some ways, their events function as a social enterprise (with large volunteer/community support), however I'm not willing to jump in a say they are hijacking that ideal by no longer donating free spots to CAF- are they allocating free spots to other charities or organizations in their place? Are they making a company wide decision to no longer give away free spots at all and all nonprofit partnerships are all being affected? Are they choosing, as company to pursue Ironman Foundation work in a different direction that affects the numbers of Kona spots out there to give away?

Donor/sponsor/nonprofit relationships are two way streets - WTC benefits from partnering with charitable organizations, but the organizations benefit greatly as well - both monetarily and through increased exposure. If CAF is receiving valued goods and is able to still auction them for fund raising (just not as much as years past) that still benefits CAF. No, they can't tell their potential auction participants that 100% of the proceeds go to CAF, but they can say 'all profit goes to CAF'.

If I donate to a 501c3, per the IRS, I cannot received more than $75 back in goods or services in exchange for that donation. How is that fee structured? When is it assessed? Is there a threshold or forfeiture of fees if a minimum auction price isn't met? If a $54k up front cost is now involved then, to me, this marks a change in the 'classification' of those kona slots within the accounting realm. That hints at a change in a business plan/accounting around those slots but I DO NOT have enough information to substantiate that, I'm simply saying that it makes me want to ask more questions. There is a valuation given to these spots. I don't know what that is/was/should be.

If a car dealer wants to sell my nonprofit a car at or below cost and let us auction it as a fundraiser - I view that as part of the overhead of the event. It absolutely affects what I would call a 'donation' and what I would call a 'sponsorship' and how I word the marketing. It is up to the nonprofit to spell that out to potential bidders. Some would argue the people bidding just want the car, the cause is the bonus and helps them feel better about spending the money. Others would say the cause drives the motivation to bid. That's a subjective opinion and will vary from person to person placing the bid. Does it negatively affect CAF's bottom line? sure, they now have a $54k fee to roll up into their auction and make sure they overcome - $54k that would have gone straight to their nonprofit in years past. Is WTC out of line for charging it? no idea. maybe.

I have great respect for Scott and CAF (which his wife, Virginia, has headed up the CAF very successfully), but as a nonprofit board chair, I would need more information on this before I decided WTC was usurping our dreams for profit or purposefully exploiting fees under the guise of a great cause.

I would need more information on this before I decided WTC was usurping our dreams for profit or purposefully exploiting fees under the guise of a great cause.//

How about the $1000 dollar cut to the front of the line club? What information do you need? I don't think Scott is lying, so have to assume that what he said is the truth. What spin exactly from WTC will make this ok for you? Selling slots to a charity that this sport really created, and is now one of the top charities of our injured troops, and at a huge premium(otherwise known as profit), i guess i want to hear the reason too. But for me i just cannot imagine one that could possible change my mind.

If it is not true then shame on Scott, but what is he trying to gain other than exactly what is happening in this thread, shining a light on the scurrying bugs. And just to refresh, it is threads like these that got them to change or just drop many programs that were not well thought out at the time..

Can you update us if you do get confirmation? I'm confused as to why WTC, if they feel they have to charge for a spot, couldn't charge the basic rate? Profiting off a charity seems like an exceptionally greedy move, I can't fathom why they'd do so.

If it is the case, I know that WTC doesn't give a damn what I think but Go Pro and some of the other race sponsors might be interested in my opinion, and I will be sure to share it with them. I'm guessing screwing over amputees isn't really something they'll be into supporting.