Legacy ??????? - Div 1 Calendar

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 12:50 pm

Phil Stevo wrote:And now I'm just wondering if after paddling a slalom on Lee Valley will we have to pay for an assessment to paddle on the same course the next day?

I know where I'd put my money (or rather yours)

No offence but if you don't have to pay I want my assessment money back

Is anyone familiar with the 7p principle

boatmum · Post by **boatmum** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:01 pm

I'm going to light a blue touch paper and then stand back

One of the issues as I see it is there is a general lack of sponsorship funding in slalom - I mean events NOT athletes.

I fully believe the trick is to get the media engaged at venues like Cardiff, Teeside, LV etc and to be brutally frank the media will ONLY be interested if our very top elite athletes are competing. This doesn't mean that the Div 1 paddlers cant also get a shot on these courses - but they will not bring in the media guys. Once this has happened then you can start bringing in event sponsors who will take up the marketing opportunity. Also the event venues will probably discount charges if the media are there promoting the venue as it were.

These international level courses are expensive - no getting around it and they need to be able to generate income. Slalom needs to be able to use these courses but currently can not afford to run as many events as it would like to on said courses. So - the gap has to be filled. I'm willing to bet that the majority of paddlers would not want to see entry fees go up to the level of some other sports, so the solution has to lie in some form of third party funding.

Its not easy - you need to know what you're doing and it takes time - but the benefits would be tangible to the sport. In short the sport needs to be actively promoted.

There are many sports that benefit hugely from event sponsorship and some like slalom, could originally have been considered a minority sport!

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:52 pm

I'd agree with all of that but inevitably others won't

Also it was me I would try and piggy-back off of Tesco.
It is great that they are involved for the top level but I pondered whether if they were approached by the right people they would consider sponsoring an event - say at Lee Valley as it's on their HO doorstep.
I'm talking here about sponsoring a Div 1 event and selling it that they could be contributing to the long term future of the sport by giving up and coming youngsters the opportunity to race at a world class site.
They could get a ream of publicity out of it and this in itself could bring in the media - they've got their own media bods

I'm also pretty sure they aren't short of a few bucks.

Maybe if we all got together we could put it on our clubcards (that's a joke.)

boatmum · Post by **boatmum** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:45 pm

Not sure my club card could stand the strain

But I'm willing to bet if sold correctly TESCO would bite. They have a history of "getting involved" in specially things to do with young folk. As you say they have an awesome marketing and PR dept at TESCO both here AND abroad.

Munchkin · Post by **Munchkin** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:58 pm

All a good idea but the following points:

1. The committee are volunteers with full time jobs (many of them) - is anyone else going to help out and find these sponsors?

2. You cannot advertise at Lea Valley until after the Olympics unless you are an Olympic Sponsor and comply with the hefty rules relating to Olympic sponsors - trust me - I am dealing with what feels like 100's of Amush Marketing Agreements on LOCOG's behalf right now . Therefore it would need to apply to other venues right now.

boatmum · Post by **boatmum** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 6:16 pm

I think the cry of "we are just volunteers" falls down here. And who is saying the committee have to be the ones doing this?? Not being funny but I doubt they have the requisite skills anyway - their skills lie elsewhere.

Having said that I fully acknowledge that all the volunteers on the committee work really hard at what they do as do the volunteers throughout the sport

Within the paddling community there MUST BE folk with PR and Marketing skills or similar or folk who know folk with these skills, that could get together and lead this.

Here's the thing - If folk WANT to paddle on these expensive courses, to which I believe the answer has to be they do and IF folk want to be able to improve their paddling skills by racing on increasingly challenging courses, again I believe the majority would say "yes please" then something has to be done or nothing moves forward

I would be willing to bet if a general call went out to the slalom paddling community at large asking for help in this area either directly or through contacts, then there would be a positive response.

trouble is we forget to ask! People don't as a rule put themselves forward because so often they don't see that they have skills that can benefit. I have never known someone to refuse when asked in a clear, positive and respectful way for help.

Nick Penfold · Post by **Nick Penfold** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:08 pm

People

The reason the new courses are very expensive isn't some perverse commercial thing, it's because it costs a fortune to pump them.

5m x 15 tonnes of water a second would run a small power station. To lift that water you have to put in the output of a small power station.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:15 pm

There is discussion going on with Lee Valley re events but at present they do not know when it will be handed back to them from LOCOG and there is then some ground work to do once it is back in Lee Valley's control. At present is is very flat around the course to enable stands to be put in for spectators. The longer term plan if I understand correctly is for banks to be built similarly to HPP & ?? some terracing so it will all takes time and we certainly don't want to promise something we can't deliver - we have learnt that from Tees

I have been talking to BCU as to how we can fund races there and there are some ideas in the pipeline but it won't be 2012, the most we could at a very outside chance is move the British Open there. So please don't think we are not trying - we are!!

As Nick said it is expensive to run!! The hire cost at present is £400 per hour for Olympic course and £200 per hour for Legacy I am not certain as to how much of that is for the pumping of the water!!! Whether it will stay the same after the games your guess is as good as mine!

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 7:47 pm

Anne wrote:the most we could at a very outside chance is move the British Open there. So please don't think we are not trying - we are!!

I don't think anybody thinks that do they, I know I don't.

Re Sponsors I would shoot for Tesco and see what happens - asked in the right way by someone who know the angles it's gotta be worth a shot

Question in my ignorance - Amush Marketing Agreements - I gotta assume it ain't a typo and something to do with some North American Mennonite religion

Mick h · Post by **Mick h** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 8:48 pm

Great to see I have caused a bit of healthy debate and I may have been a bit harsh in my critiscism of the slalom exec. I do appreciate there are many people who put in alot of hours in for free and the sport would not be here if it was not for there efforts.
But as someone who has been racing for 29 years I just want the chance to compete at the these world class venues. Talking to other Div 1 paddlers at the Washburn last weekend there are alot of people who feel the same way.
Another point that was made is the BCU contributed financially to the building of the course shorely it would have made sense to have written in a legacy clause into the contract.
Also from the £400 per hour charge for the course how much does it actually cost to run?
Would Lord Coe have contributed to this video if he knew the truth? http://www.youtube.com/user/GBCanoeingT ... M5WhnasRDk

Anne · Post by **Anne** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 10:15 pm

The BCU as far as I am aware did not contribute in any way to the building costs.

and actually i do think there are folks out there that think we are not trying!

PeterC · Post by **PeterC** » Mon Jul 18, 2011 11:44 pm

Pumped courses unfortunately have to run on a commercial basis. There is cost in pumping water uphill only to let it run down again. The water is also usually quality assured - more cost. Why should slalom be subsidised and by whom - why should we have it cheap? The free lunch really does not exist.

We do need to do something about this and with strategy proposals getting worked through we should have some decisions to make at the ACM hopefully after constructive discussion! These issues have already been identified and all discussion of this type is noted and interesting.

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 9:34 am

Anne wrote:The BCU as far as I am aware did not contribute in any way to the building costs.

and actually i do think there are folks out there that think we are not trying!

Anne - It's a thankless task I guess, do you think that there is anything you could do to change those perceptions?
Inevitably there may still be a few that's just humans

Great course at Lee Valley but I personally find some of the choices for the peripheral facilities a bit weird - changing rooms - small side, Cafe - ditto (no bigger than Cardiff)

And the bridge is really narrow and I'm not sure it has disabled access either (Like HPP) but I could be wrong.)
So just how does someone in say a wheelchair get from one side of the course to the other -I hope it's not by a long trek - I'm not sure how legal that is these days as a layman I understood that disabled people had to have same access rights as able bodied peeps. A laymans view though.....?

Canadian Paddler · Post by **Canadian Paddler** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:15 am

I believe that the bridges across the course are not for spectator access, only for emergency removal of casulaties. Access for all is supposed to be via a long walk.

Changing rooms and cafe were (again rumour) sized for legacy, when the olympic buzz has settled, will they still have the volume of people attending? So do they need larger areas with concomitant costs, both build/clean/heat etc.

Neil H · Post by **Neil H** » Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:20 am

Canadian PAddler wrote:I believe that the bridges across the course are not for spectator access, only for emergency removal of casulaties. Access for all is supposed to be via a long walk.
Changing rooms and cafe were (again rumour) sized for legacy, when the olympic buzz has settled, will they still have the volume of people attending? So do they need larger areas with concomitant costs, both build/clean/heat etc.

Interesting comments but if you were disabled i.e. on crutches you might want a quick route back if it got too much.

The bridge was used for spectator access and as a viewing platform at Selection event????

So are we saying that they have sized the facilities to the small course - if they aren't expecting people to use it in any numbers it seems a strange massive outlay which befuddles me.
I think befuddles is a particularly old fashioned word that isn't used enough so glad to use it here