# Jake Kaminski vs USAA



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Ditto Jim.

I have the utmost respect for Jake as an athlete and competitor. He has no doubt done everything USArchery and their sponsors have asked of him since 2006. Hopefully he finds a way to continue competing. But I for one would totally understand if he just said "screw it" and walked away. USArchery and its politics and policies can do that to a person, and has many times. #noaccountability #justlikecongress


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Hmmm... so much for a less backhanded approach. Of course, we do not know the other half of the story, but it is sad to see.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

SO, is this why he is shooting Recurve Flights in Vegas?


----------



## granite14 (Nov 10, 2014)

Can anybody explain the situation and rules?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

All this over a trip to China? Something ain't right........


----------



## wabbit (Jan 12, 2016)

j.conner said:


> Hmmm... so much for a less backhanded approach. Of course, *we do not know the other half of the story*, but it is sad to see.


exemplary observations and this is the main reason to leave the rumor & gossip mills roll on w/o our 'enlightened' speculation as i am sure the 'rest of the story' will be flowing shortly!!


----------



## ksarcher (May 22, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Ditto Jim.
> 
> I have the utmost respect for Jake as an athlete and competitor. He has no doubt done everything USArchery and their sponsors have asked of him since 2006. Hopefully he finds a way to continue competing. But I for one would totally understand if he just said "screw it" and walked away. USArchery and its politics and policies can do that to a person, and has many times. #noaccountability #justlikecongress


John, Your Hash Tags says it all!


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Every company in the USA that provides health insurance and pay, has requirements for that health insurance and pay. mandatory work, minimum work hours etc. 

USA Archery is no different. Jake is/was an employee of USA archery. He has to abide by the requirements to keep insurance and the athlete stipend. 

While i dont know exactly why he cant attend the required tournament or tournaments, If USA archery is no longer paying him or insuring him, i would imagine they will use that money to go to another qualified archer on the Rolling Rank list. And Jake is free to work for another company. 

Personally, 99% of archers fund themselves for tournaments. And shoot quite a few to an expense that is not cheap. So if he wants to quit the sport because USA archery wont pay him any more, then bye. Join the club of the rest of us that have to work a regular job and afford shooting on the side. 

Many of us do this sport because we love the sport. Not because we get insurance and a stipend. 

You can be a stellar employee for 5 years, but if you start not showing up for work, the company will fire you. Doesnt matter your dedication previously. 




Chris


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

The rules provide for illness or injury. Any other excuse is a slippery slope. All the athletes know the requirements.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

In all reality, being a paid archer for USA Archery, can only be classified as a part time job and not a full one. There is no way that I can see from the numbers I have seen that an archer could make a living just off of what USA Archery/USOC pays. Jake, from listening to some Bow Junky podcasts, does a lot of other things so he could make a living off of archery. If this is the case USA Archery should make concessions for their archers so that they can make a living, just like any other part time job should do. If USAA wants to have full control over what their archers are doing then pay them a living wage and be done with it. Until then USAA needs to pull their head out of their rear ends and make concessions for their archers so that they can make a living as well as represent the country.

Heck our beloved country pays millions of people to do absolutely nothing for a living, and yet we can’t pay our elite athletes a living wage? Come on man!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

If you want to change how things are done, perhaps that is a different topic of discussion. Is this athlete being treated fairly and under the guidelines of which they are all well aware? That is the salient question for this thread.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

We seem to have been able to field competitive Olympic and world championship archers since the 70s without paying them a full time living wage. Up until a few years ago, the athlete was required to be an amateur. Daryl Pace worked on radio towers with his father inlaw as his real day job during his Olympic runs. 

Reo Wilde worked for UPS until a few years ago. And on, and on, and on. 


The issue isnt the wage. The issue is not fulfilling the requirements for the benefits. 

Chris


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose,

If I'm not mistaken, archers like Jake have the option to remain at the OTC which would take care of their room and board. Again, I'm not privy to all the details, but it seems to me that if someone were to train full time and live at the OTC, and be eligible for the stipends that Mike mentioned, that's a pretty good paying gig - especially for a young person without a college degree. Plus they get to travel all over the world. 

It's when a full-time archer decides to leave the free room and board of the OTC that they are going to have to face the realities of life (mortgage/rent, food, utilities, etc.) 

It's a business decision as much as a personal one.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

And after learning a few more details of this situation, I want to apologize for my hashtag comments above. 

There was oversight in this instance, and accountability. So my apologies to Rod and the board.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

Look, if this is how we are going to do it, by fielding part time archers against full time archers, then our expectations need to drop significantly. We are just never going to be competitive except for that one or two archers who can get enough sponsorships to survive. 

One can say well they can live free room and board at the OTC, and I know quite a few do; but in the case of Ellison and Kaminski and others as well, if you want to have a life i.e. get married, then the OTC is not an option I don't think. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if the OTC had family accommodations for their athletes. And seriously who would want to spend 4 to 10 years living in a dorm room, sharing bathrooms and showers? 

Just my opinion, nothing more than that.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> We seem to have been able to field competitive Olympic and world championship archers since the 70s without paying them a full time living wage. Up until a few years ago, the athlete was required to be an amateur. Daryl Pace worked on radio towers with his father inlaw as his real day job during his Olympic runs.
> 
> Reo Wilde worked for UPS until a few years ago. And on, and on, and on.
> 
> ...


I disagree completely on this matter. The Olympics is no longer an amateur event, it just isn't. So to expect amateurs to be competitive against full time professionals is not reasonable. And to expect our archers to throw away any possibility of a personal life just so that they can live at the OTC isn't reasonable either in my opinion. 

That being said, if USA Archery and the OTC is okay with this arrangement then I don't much care either, but we shouldn't be expecting our fair share of medals either, and when Ellison retires, we probably shouldn't expect any and be surprised when our country wins one.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

erose said:


> we shouldn't be expecting our fair share of medals either, and when Ellison retires, we probably shouldn't expect any and be surprised when our country wins one.


That's an interesting statement. When a single injury (god forbid) could mean the collapse of the US men's recurve program, that's a symptom of deeper problems.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Look, if this is how we are going to do it, by fielding part time archers against full time archers, then our expectations need to drop significantly. We are just never going to be competitive except for that one or two archers who can get enough sponsorships to survive.
> 
> One can say well they can live free room and board at the OTC, and I know quite a few do; but in the case of Ellison and Kaminski and others as well, if you want to have a life i.e. get married, then the OTC is not an option I don't think. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if the OTC had family accommodations for their athletes. And seriously who would want to spend 4 to 10 years living in a dorm room, sharing bathrooms and showers?
> 
> Just my opinion, nothing more than that.


erose, who says the full-time Korean archers have a life outside of archery? I mean, let's compare apples to apples okay? Park Sung Hyun -arguably the greatest of all time - retired from archery to start a family. She could have gone on to win many more competitions.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> but we shouldn't be expecting our fair share of medals either, and when Ellison retires, we probably shouldn't expect any and be surprised when our country wins one.


It's amazing we ever won any before '08, ain't it? 

I guess we'll just have to see. As Vittorio has pointed out before, you don't need 100 world class archers to be competitive in this sport. Only a handful. And so long as we invest in the foundation and encourage those who demonstrate talent and commitment, we will continue to have at least a handful of world class archers. Now that we have a dedicated women's head coach, I think it's just a matter of a few years before both of our programs are routinely fielding competitive archers.

Looking back, I'm curious how many of our world class archers over the years had families while they were at the top of their game. Not many I can think of.


----------



## tigersdad (Jun 13, 2009)

John, you had a family and were a part time archer. You exhibited great talent and athletic ability. You still do. That said, you were an anomaly and I wonder how you would have done with full time support and practice . Look at Butch Johnson...only now slipping. 

I dare say, using pro sports as a guide, full time archers with families might be more stable and achieve more IF they were paid to be fulltime. What's the salary of the leadership board? If we expect fulltime results from these people to run the place...we pay fulltime salary...then expecting full time results (medals) from part timers is, as psychologists, cognitive dissonance...aka horse apples .


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Perhaps you're right. 

I'm not sure how much leverage USArchery has here to make that happen though. Compared to other sports, are we paying our full timers any less? Or is this just the nature of a small niche sport that doesn't attract a lot of attention?

I just think it's notable that the Koreans have to retire to build a home and start a family, but we think we can have it differently here in the U.S.?

Who knows. Maybe we can. At least one person has figured it out now. And one other before him. 

For now, our archers just need to learn how to marry right. Perhaps that can be a course at the OTC  (joking of course)


----------



## Ds22030 (Jan 18, 2018)

I don't know the details but I heard Korea gives a stipend to each athlete for life for each medal won for the country with higher amounts for the Olympics.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

I wonder what a pro Luger (Luge person...???) clears in a year? I don't imagine our sport is that different from many of the other niche sports. It is easy to hold up tennis, golf and others as examples of what we would like our sport to be, but the reality is we are small, and most will have to work for a living. Outside of those countries who fully fund their athletes and perhaps provide them a pension, in the rest of the world those few who can scratch out a living are lucky to be paid to do something they love. But then I guess the question becomes how long does it stay "love" if your livelyhood depends on it? I don't know. 

Cheers


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'd really like to know what those medals are worth. 

Here's what I mean by that - after we failed to medal in '04, some folks (most notably our beloved gt) went on and on about what that will "cost" archery. I never could tell if he just meant USArchery, or if he meant what that will cost the industry (and by default, him personally). So the question in my mind was, what difference would it have made if we had medaled? And how would USArchery or the industry then invested that difference into the athletes? Or would they have?

A truly objective (ha, ha, good luck) cost/benefit analysis would be interesting for archery or any other fringe sport - like luge or ski jumping - just to see what difference medals would actually make. I'd like to see that report before we all agree to mortgage the farm for medals. 

As John Candy's character from "Cool Runnings" famously said about Olympic medals - 

*"Derice, a gold medal is a wonderful thing. But if you're not enough without one, you'll never be enough with one."*


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

Ds22030 said:


> I don't know the details but I heard Korea gives a stipend to each athlete for life for each medal won for the country with higher amounts for the Olympics.


Up to a certain age. It’s not really a lot, but, when you accumulate it.......


----------



## theminoritydude (Feb 11, 2013)

You could take out a lump sum at once but that’s where they wash their hands off. So you choose what fits you.


----------



## yegon (Aug 15, 2017)

Unfortunately archery is not selling out stadiums or being all over tv with the support of non endemic advertisers. The archery equipment manufacturers are already getting what they want so all new money for the shooters will probably have to come from other archers.

It should not be too difficult to setup a fund online for example on patreon to help top archers - if enough people feel that the top 5-10 recurve shooters in the US should be able to comfortably live on archery it could work. The question is if people are ready to put their money where their mouth is or they are just ready to throw around money if its not theirs.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

...this paying the elite athletes a decent living wage has got me thinking...how do they do it for other similar sports?

am referring to the less popular ones like curling and the like..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

yegon said:


> Unfortunately archery is not selling out stadiums or being all over tv with the support of non endemic advertisers. The archery equipment manufacturers are already getting what they want so all new money for the shooters will probably have to come from other archers.
> 
> It should not be too difficult to setup a fund online for example on patreon to help top archers - if enough people feel that the top 5-10 recurve shooters in the US should be able to comfortably live on archery it could work. The question is if people are ready to put their money where their mouth is or they are just ready to throw around money if its not theirs.


Along those lines... there were a lot of people in the stands watching the Vegas finals. I wonder what those same people would pay to watch that, or how much $ NFAA could make by selling tickets to those finals to the general public. Surely there are folks in Vegas who would come and watch the archery finals? 

Maybe they already do this. I can't recall.

I know when I was there in '13 as a competitor, I would have still paid $20 just to see the finals live, especially if I knew that money was going to support the archers. Heck, same would have been true of Louisville and other events.


----------



## Dillinger1 (Aug 14, 2017)

limbwalker said:


> Along those lines... there were a lot of people in the stands watching the Vegas finals. I wonder what those same people would pay to watch that, or how much $ NFAA could make by selling tickets to those finals to the general public. Surely there are folks in Vegas who would come and watch the archery finals?
> 
> Maybe they already do this. I can't recall.
> 
> I know when I was there in '13 as a competitor, I would have still paid $20 just to see the finals live, especially if I knew that money was going to support the archers. Heck, same would have been true of Louisville and other events.


You would be surprised how few people show up for the World Cup event in Salt Lake City. Stands are basically empty even with free admission.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I know, but how many archers and archery fans were there to begin with? When you look at the number of just archers who registered for Vegas, let alone friends and family, that put thousands of archery fans in one place - many of whom would be glad to pay and admission fee to see the finals.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

In terms of USAT, I think there should be a 2 spot carveout where 6 or so people make it on merit and a couple spots are left for discretionary projects or to keep archers involved at the international level who are in more mature situations, or otherwise who the coach wants involved. It might be worth it to be able to get younger talent, perhaps even RAs, involved a cycle before USAT will reflect their ascendancy (it will always lag). I also see some use in being able to fast track "defectors" like Park or "parents" who maybe can't hack enough events to qualify but given the chance to represent would put the work in. But this is getting into, does everything have to be all merit for every slot. And this is still not the Kaminiski issue as I am understanding it.

Kaminiski, to me, separate issue, we are supporting x number athletes because in reality the sport isn't providing many athletes a workable living where they are truly professional. Ok, well, I would then expect obligations. To get that stipend you'll do x world cups, maintain y score level, etc. So part of this, coming at it backwards from John, is it's not a pro sport and you have to be able to tolerate the existence it does provide, somehow. That's far easier for high school or college age people without bills, student loans, families, mortgages. Having not really "gotten started yet" is an advantage there.

When we have gotten into the related discussion about the women's team -- which has even more attrition that seems topical -- my suggestion has been they need to come up with a "parent variation" on the USAT/RA/support system. The dorms and cafeterias and stipends sounds like a college sports concept, like when I played soccer and ran track. A higher falutin version, mind you, Olympic level, but it's a college kid premise. Or extension of same. Or like barracks for the military. At some point the military recognizes this and there becomes base housing. Or you give the athletes side jobs with an income, who have families. Instead of strangers they are the USAA web master or camp coach or whatever needs doing. If you're going to take this that seriously.

And going back to the "coach's discretion slots," this would also be where there might be some value in having some room built in the system where proven but not dessicated veteran athletes could as a matter of discretion be kept in the world cup pools but not have to earn their way back annually, or be going 100% all year. Maybe that would break down discipline and ethic or maybe it might keep some of the elite athletes, particularly women, who seem to wash out regularly. I mean, it might be worth it to say, ok, x, y, and z, you're USAT emeritus and you can keep doing the grind and be a shoo-in, or at perhaps the risk of us replacing you, we can put you in a special part of the pool with an eye to 4 years from now. Recognizing somewhat that it's not self sustaining and that the primary desire is the team every 4 years.

It's at least debatable. Before US Soccer got any good they used to make side deals with players based in Europe professionally that they wouldn't have to be on the team every friendly or tournament in the cycle, that when their phone would really start ringing is next qualifying cycle. Now, if they come back unfit or broken, no promises. But it recognized sometimes it's better to keep people in the pool than draw a line in the sand. Granted, I see this both ways, and understand enforcing the letter and spirit of whatever they agree to for the stipend. But if it happens enough you might consider creating a "daddy/mommy track" like it's reality.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

i have had some experience in running sports organisations mostly those involved in golf and archery and have been a member of the archery special committee of our Philippine Olympic Committee among others..

based on that i have found that getting sponsorship money for sports is a relatively easy sell if you approach the right companies /sponsors and when they are confident that their sponsorship funds are going to be spent for the right reasons..

sports development specially for the youth is a great platform for those politically motivated also..

the most important things sponsors look for are a credible and clean sports organisation leadrship--we call them NSA's or National Sports Organisations representing 43 sports so far in our POC- and a clear sports program outlining the uses of funds..

the IOC also frowns on government interference in sports so NSA's cannot look forward to any significant government funding and their only recourse are sponsors from 
the private sector..

these have not been a problem for the popular sports like basketball,boxing,golf and even soccer gets a good hunk of their financial support from FIFA..

the so-called "minority" support such as archery and the like have to pretty much fend for themselves..

in the USA i can see the difficulty in getting large sums from the private sector unless they can tap more institutional sponsors rather than those directly involved in archery such as Hoyt, etc..

our major golf sponsors for example were the large utility/petroleum companies and major food and beverage manufacturers including large food chains and before it was banned Philip Morris was a great sponsor.. 

these are the companies with normally big advertising and promotions budgets and if properly wooed may be able to provide the funds needed to fund a really viable and sustainable archery sports program..

..just putting my thoughts out there.. 

PS: BTW the most successful sports leaders have also been great at marketing their sports..


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

erose said:


> I disagree completely on this matter. The Olympics is no longer an amateur event, it just isn't. So to expect amateurs to be competitive against full time professionals is not reasonable. And to expect our archers to throw away any possibility of a personal life just so that they can live at the OTC isn't reasonable either in my opinion.
> 
> That being said, if USA Archery and the OTC is okay with this arrangement then I don't much care either, but we shouldn't be expecting our fair share of medals either, and when Ellison retires, we probably shouldn't expect any and be surprised when our country wins one.


I understand your disagreement, however that is not the reality nor has it been. 

I am sure the Olympic Pole vaulters dont make bank, before, during, or after the Olympics. even if they win a gold. Neither do the indoor volleyball, fencing, rowing, canoeing, curling, luge, badminton, Ice skating, Gymnastics etc etc. Ice skaters and Gymnastics only make the money AFTER they win gold. Ice skaters get to do paid tours after the olympics with Disney etc. They cant do that before. Then they would be pro and not allowed. 

For years we sent our nations best college kids to play basketball against pro teams in the olympics. Now we send our NBA. Golf and Snowboarding also make big bucks and the olympics is a vanity and prestige accomplishment. 

Archery has always been amateur since its recurve. The only people making a living at archery shoot compound and the one recurve archer. Use to be Vic, now its Brady. All the rest dont. 

99% of the USA olympic team work a day job. They struggle and sacrifice, thats why there are so many commercials showing the dedication and sacrifice it took to make the olympic team. They arent showing Kobe Bryant in those. its track and field, gymnastics that cost a fortune. parents mortgage their house to fund the kid's olympic dream. They take second jobs, etc etc. 

And in my humble opinion, anyone shooting Olympic recurve to make a living is choosing the wrong sport. There are some college scholarships but thats about it. Recurve sales pales in comparison to hunting bows. You choose this sport because you love it, and you could possibly represent the country someday. Not for making a living. 

here is a great video on Daryl Pace deciding to go for another Olympics. It shows his day job, talks with his wife and family etc. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQDoNjcLDZU


Chris


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> erose, who says the full-time Korean archers have a life outside of archery? I mean, let's compare apples to apples okay? Park Sung Hyun -arguably the greatest of all time - retired from archery to start a family. She could have gone on to win many more competitions.


We don’t live in Korea. Here in the USA in other sports there plenty of very very elite performers who juggle a family with their FULL TIME JOB as an athlete. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> It's amazing we ever won any before '08, ain't it?


 Yeah back when it was amateur vs amateur; not amateur vs professional as it is today.



limbwalker said:


> And so long as we invest in the foundation and encourage those who demonstrate talent and commitment, we will continue to have at least a handful of world class archers.


. That is what is debatable. I read today what the compensation our top five archers get, and quite honestly a PFC in the military is paid more money than even our very best archers. Heck if it wasn’t for sponsors, there is no way an elite archer could make just shooting arrows, unless they are RAs. 



limbwalker said:


> Looking back, I'm curious how many of our world class archers over the years had families while they were at the top of their game. Not many I can think of.


There is quite a few shooting compound.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## chang (Sep 16, 2008)

When people keep talking about the Korean system, Please bare in mind that it is 100% government owned/created/supported and Olympic game oriented. Athletes were considered public servants when they made it into the national team, and well rewarded who if (any only if) won Olympic gold. 

There is no doubt this system is more cost effective, as it can concentrate the effort on a few techniques, training style and even the athletes with certain physique. 

However, The Korean system had eliminated many sports activities based on their performance in a very short period of time during the early 80's. and most of these Olympic sports have never any recreational communities existed in Korea. 

In Australia, traditionally the recreational community and the national program used to support and benefit each other. Attempt was made to adopt the Korean like elite training system did shown some quick results among the few selected archers with KSL. but it heavily shifted resources away from recreational community, and I remembered Simon Fairweather had written an open letter over 10 years ago concerning about this.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

chrstphr said:


> I am sure the Olympic Pole vaulters dont make bank, before, during, or after the Olympics. even if they win a gold. Neither do the indoor volleyball, fencing, rowing, canoeing, curling, luge, badminton, Ice skating, Gymnastics etc etc. Ice skaters and Gymnastics only make the money AFTER they win gold. Ice skaters get to do paid tours after the olympics with Disney etc. They cant do that before. Then they would be pro and not allowed.


It kind of depends. There are definitely other sports organizations affiliated with the OTC, that pay higher stipends to their elite athletes more than USA Archery, and I’m sure there are some that pay similar and maybe even less. 

That really isn’t the point. The point is that being an Olympian in most sports can only be equated to a part time job; so with every other part time job there should be made concessions made for your part time employees knowing that is they aren’t kids still living at home, then most probably they have another job to make a living. It’s as simple as that, IMO.






chrstphr said:


> Archery has always been amateur since its recurve. The only people making a living at archery shoot compound and the one recurve archer. Use to be Vic, now its Brady. All the rest dont.


Okay. But it is telling that the only OR archer in this country that can seriously compete against the best in the world is the only professional USA OR archer. 




chrstphr said:


> And in my humble opinion, anyone shooting Olympic recurve to make a living is choosing the wrong sport. There are some college scholarships but thats about it. Recurve sales pales in comparison to hunting bows. You choose this sport because you love it, and you could possibly represent the country someday. Not for making a living.


On this I agree wholeheartedly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

erose said:


> Okay. But it is telling that the only OR archer in this country that can seriously compete against the best in the world is the only professional USA OR archer.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I think you maybe be confusing cause and effect. Can he compete vs. the best in the world because he is the only professional USA OR archer, or is he the only professional USA OR archer because he can compete vs. the best in the world. I think it's the latter. 

And I would argue that anyone who makes 51% or more of their income from archery, is a professional archer. Some are better paid than others though.


----------



## zal (May 1, 2007)

For a number of European countries, elite athletes get their funding through military service, or at least they are listed to military schemes, like in Italy or Germany.

I well remember the talk that Jari Lipponen gave some years ago. He was pretty much the last professional archer in Finland, and received noticeable grants through lottery fund, plus an advertising contract with them. But what he stated was that the ability to focus on the sport pretty much went away (with a drastic drop in performance) after moving into his own home, and the normal family life that came with it. So maybe there is a point in that dedication requirement.

Some people would see it as a sacrifice, for many it seems like a big opportunity. Our maximum grant is 20,000 euros/year, tax free, but you really need to constantly be in top 5-8 in the Olympics to get that. Currently two para-archers get half grant (10k) and our top women's competitor gets quarter grant (5k), that's it. There is no real sponsorship money anymore, apart from few bow deals, but that's pretty much equipment and contingency only.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

we give cash awards to our medalists in the southeast asian games, asian games and the olympics...

these range from a minimum of $1000 for bronze in the sea games to a high of $200,000 for our lone silver medalist in the last olympics...we have yet to get a gold at the olympics but have had a few in the asian games and many in the sea games..

in addition some of the medalists also get lucrative endorsement contracts if they have some charisma and personality...

am wondering if the US has a similar incentive for their athletes..

PS:the cash incentives come from a combination of government funds as provided by a law plus private sponsors and donations..

..i believe our NSA for soccer also receives $1M a year from FIFA inspite of their low international ranking--perks of belonging to a rich sport organisation.


----------



## Montalaar (Jan 26, 2008)

zal said:


> For a number of European countries, elite athletes get their funding through military service, or at least they are listed to military schemes, like in Italy or Germany.


True, but you still have to qualify and be somewhat successful to be part of it. And as soon as you do not place high enough you have to do whatever job is assigned. And even then there are dozens who do not get the chance to be in the sports division of the military or federal police. Those have to fund themselves basically completely on their own, which is the majority, given that you qualify for a paid career at around 18. Still, there is considerably more money in the system compared to the US and it is more evenly distributed over the olympic sports.


Not sure, but wouldn't it make sense in such a small business as archery eventually is to actually just hire top athletes as normal employees? Thinking about Steve Anderson who is apparently working for Hoyt and a known name in international archery.


----------



## AdAstraAirow (Aug 22, 2011)

I conversations with 10 successful archers from Spain, France and Italy at the most recent WA 3D Chamiponships in France, their best athletes in Barebow and Longbow division received from the government enough of an income so that they did not have to work at any second job. They did have instructional, training and performance requirements to maintain their income. Additionally all competition costs were paid by their association. The range of payments was from $32,000 to 80,000 per year plus expenses. Many of their archers were worried that their performances at Robion, would result in being dropped from their National team of result in a reduction in payment. This was in contrast to the USA archers where every expense including entry fee and shooters jerseys were self funded ($3,500+ to participate).

Mark


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Paying them more and having them conduct coaching certification and training programs makes sense. Many of our full-time archers need a job anyway. You simply cannot shoot arrows 8 hours/day every single day, nor do you need to. And who knows the current coaching techniques better than our full time archers?


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

Yeah, but teaching and coaching are a different skill set unrelated to being an elite athlete. That is more typically the career path after the competitive prime. Even so, it would not hurt.

I too have heard the other half of the story and it is a pickle indeed. It is understandable why it went down this way.

Having discretionary spots on USAT seems like a good idea but would run into merit and favoritism issues. Another route would be to become USAA staff, but there is no big money there either and not many spots.

The bottom line is that archery is a niche sport in the US and very few people make a living at it. This is also why, I believe, there is a strong tendency towards young athletes - not just the youth physical part but that financial support is there (or less needed) pre-marriage/family. The push for collegiate archery is good, as this is often the last hurrah before the realities of self-support set in.

LOL, it might be time for us retired old farts to kick in and start competing. 

Oh yeah, and I could not help but notice the siren call of the compound in the thread above.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Yeah, but teaching and coaching are a different skill set unrelated to being an elite athlete.


I keep hearing this but I'm still not buying it. In fact, it's one of the most preposterous statements I think I've ever heard relating to archery. Elite athletes (archers) by defenition, have had to learn how to master the instruction they have received, and put it into action - unlike so-called "elite" coaches who may have done neither. 

I've seen several RA's teach before, and they are very good at it. I would put Mackenzie at the head of any coaching class, or many more for that matter. I don't know where this idea that the RA's are not experts at technique and well qualified to teach keeps coming from. Personally, I think it's a narrative that many coaches use who never shot at a high level. 

Some of the best instruction I've ever heard has come from the likes of Guy, Brady, Jake, Mackenzie, Jacob, Joe F., Kristin and other RA's who were immersed in the instruction for years. If they don't know it, I have no idea how the hell someone who barely even shoots a bow is expected to. 

Sorry, but that's a hot-button issue for me. If nothing else, people like Jake can and should be out there selling their knowledge and experience of how to shoot a bow and compete at the elite levels. They are the experts. Far more than most (if not all) L3 and L4 coaches today.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> I know, but how many archers and archery fans were there to begin with? When you look at the number of just archers who registered for Vegas, let alone friends and family, that put thousands of archery fans in one place - many of whom would be glad to pay and admission fee to see the finals.


The real cheese was the quarter and semi finals in the Exhibition Hall ... 16 of the very best recurvers in the world going head to head, side by side. That by itself was worth the trip for me, and I would have gladly paid $20 ... side by side -
Olympic medalists and world cup champs ... https://photos.app.goo.gl/n4kjBKIL0LcuiV0L2


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Exactly what I mean Larry. I have no idea why NFAA isn't capitalizing on this every year, and making annoucements throughout the Vegas strip that this is going on.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

https://www.diamondleague.com/rules/

Track payouts (including pole vault). One thing they have different than archery is a busier season. So you might have a meet every week or two for the warmer months. Those payouts are only for the winners, though, and for every NCAA champion coming in and taking the series by storm you have some guy who made the NCAA final and maybe makes the payout, maybe doesn't. That's one thing about the current model is without teams and salaries the performance bit is contingent on finish each archery event.

Plus sponsorships.

Plus, and I don't know if archery does this, but appearance fees for the marquee names to show up, independent of how they finish. And about half the time a big name shows up either in a down season or a place in their progression where they don't actually do well or win. I assume they collect that year's fee but maybe don't get one, or as big of one, to come back the next year. But it provides a tent pole to sell tickets for the meet.

Elite athletes do well, they are being paid just to show up, plus if they do well, plus lucrative sponsorships. Marginal athletes are probably in our position, nothing for showing up, maybe a small sponsorship just so half the lineup for the race is obviously in Nike, and it all hinges on how they do each time.

But then to be fair I assume that's how golf and tennis are too, at a bigger scale, very lucrative at the top, people at the margins maybe covering expenses maybe not. That strikes me as the prize money model. You want off that teeter totter someone has to make it a team sport or at least be willing to fund the equivalent of the Korean chaebol teams. But our current model seems more like we'd rather tout a small set of regular sponsored winners than a bigger set of leaders and prospects.

In terms of the present model, I mean, we've had this discussion, the women's team attrition discussion, an earlier discussion on Kaminiski switching to Uukha, etc. If just within a year or so of the Uukha thing you then have the I quit serious archery because of funding thing that should be some cause for concern. Or, alternatively, a sign this is somewhere between amateur and truly pro.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Easton family sold out 10 or 12 years ago for 300+ million$$$. Purchasing corp then went bankrupt a couple years ago, and now Easton owned by an investment group ... new ownership aggressively cutting expenses and overhead to figure out how to return to corporate profitability; not gonna find an angel in that scenario.

Maybe USA Archery should have $1 of dues for each member go toward buying lottery tickets, and if they hit it big then establish a big archery endowment to fulltime fund 6 men and 6 women archers on a year to year basis ... or figure out how to turn George Clooney onto target archery and he can establish the endowment out of some of his vodka $$$ windfall. :cocktail:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

One thing USA Archery should definitely be doing is paying for some of our best recurvers to travel around and put on shooting demonstrations at some of the NASP state championship tournaments. Thousands of kids and their families, all in one place. Some percentage of them very interested in archery (many of them not so much); with very few of them being educated by NASP as to their archery options outside the school 10yd and 15yd beginner phase. Huge opportunity to educate/market/recruit new young recurvers to local JOAD clubs and get them inserted into the USA Archery pipeline


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Azzurri said:


> https://www.diamondleague.com/rules/
> 
> Track payouts (including pole vault). One thing they have different than archery is a busier season. So you might have a meet every week or two for the warmer months. Those payouts are only for the winners, though, and for every NCAA champion coming in and taking the series by storm you have some guy who made the NCAA final and maybe makes the payout, maybe doesn't. That's one thing about the current model is without teams and salaries the performance bit is contingent on finish each archery event.
> 
> ...


Jay, I've said for more than a decade that I have no idea why USArchery does not give lifetime memberships to every Olympic team member, along with free registration to any USArchery event. Likewise, USAT members should receive free registration to every USArchery event the following year. 

It's absolutely beyond me that the highest profile athletes - the ones EVERY amateur wants to meet, shoot with, get autographs from, etc., is having to pay the same membership and registration fee as everyone else. I would think it is only in USArchery's best interest to ensure those archers are at as many events as possible. 

Appearance fees have been done before. The shrewd athletes demand them, along with room and board.


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Next in Line to be in the Top 4 World Cup traveling Team is: Thomas Stanwood.
I've heard he's a Practicing Lawyer. Similar life complications to Jake? Will he drop his Law Practice for a couple months this summer? Most Lawyers Hate their job, they're thrilled to quit and start up their own coffee or sandwhich shop, etc... So, maybe. 
After him is Ziyi Sun, an RA. I'd think he'd obviously be thrilled at the opportunity.


----------



## SHPoet (Nov 13, 2009)

lksseven said:


> Easton family sold out 10 or 12 years ago for 300+ million$$$. Purchasing corp then went bankrupt a couple years ago, and now Easton owned by an investment group ... new ownership aggressively cutting expenses and overhead to figure out how to return to corporate profitability; not gonna find an angel in that scenario.


I guess this is why Easton is importing some arrows now?


----------



## Bigjono (Apr 21, 2009)

If darts, snooker, curling and poker can become money generating TV sports, it should be a gimme for archery. It may require a revamp or a TV only rules series but it should be easy to promote.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

We talk about this every year (or is it month?). About archery becoming more viewer friendly and generating more TV revenue. 

Personally, I think Rob and his folks at the Lancaster Classic are on to something. Probably the best format I've ever seen to have a chance to be picked up by a broader audience.


----------



## yegon (Aug 15, 2017)

sorry to say that poker has not done so hot either, other than espn wsop coverage all others have to pay for being on the tv and there is very little non endemic sponsorship for players, even the online pokersites have cut back their sponsorship programs a lot

snooker is doing well in the UK, probably because of long tradition, but billiards/pool even though played by many more people worldwide has very little sponsorship or tv coverage. Watching pool on TV is in my opinion much more fun than watching poker or archery but it does not seem to help that much.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

OCBrent said:


> Next in Line to be in the Top 4 World Cup traveling Team is: Thomas Stanwood.
> I've heard he's a Practicing Lawyer. Similar life complications to Jake? Will he drop his Law Practice for a couple months this summer? *Most Lawyers Hate their job,* they're thrilled to quit and start up their own coffee or sandwhich shop, etc... So, maybe.
> After him is Ziyi Sun, an RA. I'd think he'd obviously be thrilled at the opportunity.


assuming facts not in evidence counselor  

even a decent senior associate in a mid sized law firm in a mid sized city will make more than any pro archer will over the course of 20 years. Most of the 200 or so attorneys I worked with in the course of 5 years or so in Private practice and another 24 in federal service were happy with their jobs.


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

Snowboarding


"Father gives up job to help daughter chase dream." 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/sport/chloe-kim-dad-jong-jin-kim-trnd/index.html

Sounds like a lot of sacrifice during her training and chasing being a world class athlete. 

Chris


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

If you take a step back, it's somewhat amusing. Father, immigrant from Korea, moves here and subsequently gives up career to support American dream of daughter, to compete in the Olympics, which she accomplishes....in Korea. It's like an uroboros.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Azzurri said:


> If you take a step back, it's somewhat amusing. Father, immigrant from Korea, moves here and subsequently gives up career to support American dream of daughter, to compete in the Olympics, which she accomplishes....in Korea. It's like an uroboros.


How does one "give up their career" and support anyone, including themselves? I don't get those stories.

Also, I wish the Olympic network coverage would interview 10 families that "gave up everything" and their child did *NOT* make the Olympic team, for every one they interview who did. Because that's reality folks. Actually it's probably 50:1

But if all you hear from are the winners, then it sure makes it seem worthwhile.

I guess I'm old fashioned, but I can't really support the idea that we need to encourage people to put their lives on hold to pursue a sport - particularly one where the end goal is only attainable every four years.


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> How does one "give up their career" and support anyone, including themselves? I don't get those stories.
> 
> Also, I wish the Olympic network coverage would interview 10 families that "gave up everything" and their child did *NOT* make the Olympic team, for every one they interview who did. Because that's reality folks. Actually it's probably 50:1
> 
> ...


Especially when you watch the downhill events and all the issue they have had with the wind. Can you imagine putting your whole life on hold and it is over in a heartbeat because your board caught a gust and you landed upside down (luckily only bruised not with a broken neck), a trick you could do every day of the week otherwise?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

bobnikon said:


> Especially when you watch the downhill events and all the issue they have had with the wind. Can you imagine putting your whole life on hold and it is over in a heartbeat because your board caught a gust and you landed upside down (luckily only bruised not with a broken neck), a trick you could do every day of the week otherwise?


Actually, I can. Do you recall the wind in Athens? Simon Fairweather described it to the media as "playing rock, paper and scissors to determine an Olympic champion." 

I chuckled a bit when I saw them pause the skiing and ski jump competitions due to wind. I was like, how much heavier is a person than an arrow? LOL


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

perfect rundown for this thread. 

Here you go.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/wi...at-do-they-owe-in-taxes/ar-BBJ5yij?li=BBnb7Kz


Chris


----------



## OCBrent (Sep 27, 2007)

Jim C said:


> OCBrent said:
> 
> 
> > Next in Line to be in the Top 4 World Cup traveling Team is: Thomas Stanwood.
> ...


It'll be interesting to see if we lose 2 of our Top 5 to "other things in life I'm chosing to do."


----------



## bobnikon (Jun 10, 2012)

limbwalker said:


> Actually, I can. Do you recall the wind in Athens? Simon Fairweather described it to the media as "playing rock, paper and scissors to determine an Olympic champion."
> 
> I chuckled a bit when I saw them pause the skiing and ski jump competitions due to wind. I was like, how much heavier is a person than an arrow? LOL


True,

But a missed 10 ring (or bale) isn't quite the same as landing on your neck.

All the same, it is a shame that a career can culminate in being knocked out by the environment. It is totally another thing if taken out by an opponent, or oneself. But like you say, with gusts and inconsistent winds, someone has a huge advantage if they are in the lull. 

Just to the point of keeping it all in perspective with respect to jobs, careers, family, etc.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

chrstphr said:


> perfect rundown for this thread.
> 
> Here you go.....
> 
> ...


Very timely.


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

jmvargas said:


> we give cash awards to our medalists in the southeast asian games, asian games and the olympics...
> 
> these range from a minimum of $1000 for bronze in the sea games to a high of $200,000 for our lone silver medalist in the last olympics...we have yet to get a gold at the olympics but have had a few in the asian games and many in the sea games..
> 
> ...


We do have a system, which I found at: https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA...hash=12BC81150DB504AB39346341821C8BBA93FB56D8

In the Olympics you have the biggest payout for medaling with a Gold medal getting you $37,500, Silver paying out $22,500 and Bronze $15,000.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

limbwalker said:


> I keep hearing this but I'm still not buying it. In fact, it's one of the most preposterous statements I think I've ever heard relating to archery. Elite athletes (archers) by defenition, have had to learn how to master the instruction they have received, and put it into action - unlike so-called "elite" coaches who may have done neither.
> 
> I've seen several RA's teach before, and they are very good at it. I would put Mackenzie at the head of any coaching class, or many more for that matter. I don't know where this idea that the RA's are not experts at technique and well qualified to teach keeps coming from. Personally, I think it's a narrative that many coaches use who never shot at a high level.
> 
> ...


Amen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

erose said:


> We do have a system, which I found at: https://www.teamusa.org/-/media/USA...hash=12BC81150DB504AB39346341821C8BBA93FB56D8
> 
> In the Olympics you have the biggest payout for medaling with a Gold medal getting you $37,500, Silver paying out $22,500 and Bronze $15,000.
> 
> ...


thanks..

that's actually a pretty good program but unfortunately still not enough to make a living on without supplemental income..


----------



## j.conner (Nov 12, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> I keep hearing this but I'm still not buying it. In fact, it's one of the most preposterous statements I think I've ever heard relating to archery. Elite athletes (archers) by defenition, have had to learn how to master the instruction they have received, and put it into action - unlike so-called "elite" coaches who may have done neither.
> 
> I've seen several RA's teach before, and they are very good at it. I would put Mackenzie at the head of any coaching class, or many more for that matter. I don't know where this idea that the RA's are not experts at technique and well qualified to teach keeps coming from. Personally, I think it's a narrative that many coaches use who never shot at a high level.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but I do not think that is common. The RAs specifically work alot with Roadrunner, the Groupon classes, and the many events at the Easton Center - which is very smart because it grooms them for the public eye and gets them out there. The change from OTC to EATC has greatly increased public exposure too. Even so, not many become a collegiate coach/teacher (not enough pay to solely do that either in most cases, must teach a portfolio of sports or an academic subject too), or become a director at a major archery center (very few of those), or become an author (not enough money to support yourself either), or a publisher, etc. A best, it is a lead to something else. In addition, the drive, focus, stamina, and support required to be an elite athlete is not indicative of the desire, propensity, disposition, inclination, or aptitude for teaching or running a program. This happens in other sports too. My high school biology teacher (not the baseball coach) used to be a pitcher for the LA Dodgers. I would not expect Kobe or Shaq to be good coaches (plenty of money for them though) or any given pro athlete. I got to spend a little bit of time with Emmitt Smith and found that he does public speaking and real estate development (went on Dancing with the Stars too). Given the numbers, I would say it is a bit like being struck by lightning twice for an elite athlete to end up supporting themselves using their sport. Possible but rare.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I'll only make this point one more time...

Take two groups of people - those who have learned to shoot world class scores, and those who never have. Among those two groups there will be those who are good teachers, and those who aren't. 

No matter how great a teacher one is from the group that never learned how to shoot world class scores, they will never have that experience to draw from. 

We all agree that beyond a certain point, this is largely a mental game. Anyone who has learned to shoot world class scores has had to master the mental side of this sport. 

So to dismiss that skill set and say that basically anyone who is a good teacher can do a better job is utter nonsense. It's entirely disingenuous to those who have put in the work, made the physical and mental investments required to actually DO what it is we are trying to teach. Anyone else is just guessing. Maybe they get good at guessing, and maybe they guess right most of the time. But the fact is, they are still guessing because they will never know.

As for Kobe or Shaq not being good coaches - another preposterous statement. Both men were leaders on their world championship teams. You don't think they were doing much of the coaching on the floor? Are you kidding me?

The narrative some people have in their heads just blows me away. 

Our RA's have received daily instruction for years, and then put that instruction into practice - actually learning what works and what doesn't work. How many L4 coaches can you say that about? Hmm? 

I've said for years now that given the choice, the elite athlete is going to turn to someone who has elite experience for help. Whether that be as a competitor, or as a successful coach of elite athletes, or both. It's nearly impossible for an athlete to have genuine confidence in a coach who has neither.

I've also said for years now that until our coaching certifications are merit-based and not just classroom based, there are not even worth the paper they are written on.


----------



## stevebster (Feb 5, 2018)

Just curious. tried some quick googling with no luck. Does Kisik Lee have a track record as a world class archer?


----------



## erose (Aug 12, 2014)

jmvargas said:


> thanks..
> 
> that's actually a pretty good program but unfortunately still not enough to make a living on without supplemental income..


Especially considering you have to stay consistently in the top 8 in Worlds and top 3 in Olympics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

John, I see what you are saying and agree that someone with that skill set have a leg up on those who dont. I would even go as far to say the RA's all have the ability to teach that, however, having that skill set doesn't guarantee you'll be a good teacher and be able to convey that information. You may have all that but not have the people skills to relate to the student properly or the ability to convey that information in an understandable manner. 

As an example, I was a scout leader for nearly a decade, one scoutmaster had all the skills, above and beyond all scout knowledge relating to anything you could want, but his rapport with the boys and parents was terrible. Countless boys left due to his poor people skills.

And dont forget archery isnt the only game in town where mental skills are learned, business world included.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

stevebster said:


> Just curious. tried some quick googling with no luck. Does Kisik Lee have a track record as a world class archer?


He was on the Korean team before becoming a coach. Since then, he has a track record for helping enough world class archers that his ability to produce - at least as a men's coach - is without question.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toxoph said:


> John, I see what you are saying and agree that someone with that skill set have a leg up on those who dont. I would even go as far to say the RA's all have the ability to teach that, however, having that skill set doesn't guarantee you'll be a good teacher and be able to convey that information. You may have all that but not have the people skills to relate to the student properly or the ability to convey that information in an understandable manner.
> 
> As an example, I was a scout leader for nearly a decade, one scoutmaster had all the skills, above and beyond all scout knowledge relating to anything you could want, but his rapport with the boys and parents was terrible. Countless boys left due to his poor people skills.
> 
> And dont forget archery isnt the only game in town where mental skills are learned, business world included.


Nobody ever said it "guarantees" they will be a good teacher. Good grief. This is the problem with these debates. Nobody takes the time to actually hear what the other person is saying. They take a specific statement then turn it into a "all or nothing" scenario. That's not at all what I said.

My point is that someone who has never figured out themselves how to shoot world class scores will always lack that knowledge compared to someone who has. They may think they have it, but frankly they are just guessing. Maybe they guess right enough times and actually help a student get to that level. If so then great. That goes on their resume. But please don't dismiss the education and understanding required to actually DO something. This is so often ignored in our certification system that it frankly makes me sick.

The one saving grace is that the athletes know the difference and you can only fool them with paperwork for so long. Eventually they figure out what a person does or doesn't know, and then they go to the coach that has actual experience. Thank goodness for that at least.

I would encourage every RA to secure their L4 if they don't already have it, and then go out and start their own archery training academy. They are IMO infinitely more qualified to do so than many of the paper-certified coaches we have walking around out there now, many of whom still cannot select the proper arrow spine, tell when an archer is collapsing or have any idea how to train.


----------



## toxoph (Mar 24, 2005)

Then my apologies John, then we are in agreement. I misread you implied all RA's would be good coaches. I was just pointing out that MAY not be the case.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

toxoph said:


> Then my apologies John, then we are in agreement. I misread you implied all RA's would be good coaches. I was just pointing out that MAY not be the case.


Certainly. I'm sure the % is about the same. Some people just have a knack for teaching. And some of those also have great experience in the area of which they teach.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

elite athletes who become great coaches are still a hit or miss..

it happens a lot in golf and even basketball..

i have talked to some of our elite archers who can't event tell me their exact draw length or the weight they're pulling..and elite pro golfers who have no idea of their swing weights and the length of their drivers.

the best coaches have seldom been the best in their sport.. 

God is fair..


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, if you just looked at the numbers of coaches vs. the numbers of elite athletes, that might be the easiest math you do all day...


----------



## fdog (Feb 17, 2018)

Dillinger1 said:


> You would be surprised how few people show up for the World Cup event in Salt Lake City. Stands are basically empty even with free admission.


Janet and I TRIED to get tickets in the month prior to Salt Lake 2017 - endless emails and phone calls with no reply. The web site said you needed tickets...

Finally received an email 2 (two) days before the event. Too late to make travel arraignments. 

Stands were empty because of flailing at the event management level, I think.


All the best, James


----------

