USPA's "Championship" Demo Team?

Mr Bilvon. I apologize for my abrupt answer. I guess I was fired up in all of this. We are both entitled to our opinions.

Quote

Assuming your recollection of the conversation at the board meeting is accurate, this thing is stinking worse as the details come out. Here's the "official" version of the meeting as recorded in the minutes...

10) James Hayhurst made a presentation on a proposed sponsorship development plan that
centers on using members of the U.S. Parachute Team to perform demonstration jumps at
airshows and other events. His proposal resulted in the following motion:
Motion 19: Passed, 20/0/0 (Mr. Smith)

“Move to establish a pilot program to form a demonstration team comprised of current and
former U.S. Team members and other highly qualified skydivers to raise money for the United
States Parachute Team Inc. The team will prepare for and attend the ICAS (International
Council of Air Shows) Convention to market the Team’s shows. The U.S. Parachute Team Inc.
will reimburse USPA for seed money and expenses supporting the team from the profits earned.”

The above minutes seem to match up with what Ed Scott said in his October column, which directly contradicts your version of what was actually said in the meeting.

My account agrees with the minutes. The editorial makes no mention of using other highly qualified skydivers.
That is the big bone of contention that many demo jumpers have asked me about.
There are a lot of demo jumpers here in SoCal.
There are several team leaders that arrange demos using the same roster of demo jumpers.
These demo jumpers are part of the other highly qualified skydivers that are supposed to be used by the US Demo Team.

The concept, as it was explained at the BOD mtg, would work in a similar way, but would NOT encroach on the existing demos that the team leaders anywhere in the US have had for years and years.

The concept, as it was explained at the BOD mtg, would be very similar to how the GK demo team works. They have one group out providing publicity for the US Army and another group doing competition jumps.

If the plan is implement and only uses US Team members for demos, then it will fail. The Coors/Vision team used to do demos for Coors all over the US. It took time out of their training (back then most every team was a weekend team).
If you look at the training schedule of most competitors, doing demos across the nation would interfere with their training and other coaching duties.

FYI the US Parachute Team is a separate organization than USPA. The BOD is the same for each organization.
Selection to the US Parachute Team is fully explained in SCM Sec 11.
No where in that section is there mention of a Demo team.

Quote

Another question I have for the board. They say the $10,000 is a loan to the newly formed team. What happens if the team can't turn a profit and repay the loan? That's membership money that the board has a fiduciary obligation to protect. If the team is a financial bust, that will be yet another financial fiasco at the hands of the board.

Yes it will be, if it fails.


.

Quote

If the team is a financial bust, that will be yet another financial fiasco at the hands of the board.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes it will be, if it fails.

Which is why I asked upthread, how long does it take to make a $10k profit doing demos?

Is the idea that all these 'highly experienced demo jumpers' are going to work for free, making the venture more 'profitable'? Let's say you could get them to 'donate' their time to the casue, and work for free, that would certainly increase the profitability of the venture. Now if you balance that against the idea that this team isn't going to step on any of the already-established toes in the demo game, you end up with a zero-sum gain.

Extra profits from 'donated' labor vs. reduced earning ability from not going after jobs already established teams have 'dibs' on (and let's face it, established teams take the jobs they do because they're the ones that pay well, and pass on the ones they do because they don't pay well).

The truth is, when I first read this thread and thought the idea was to use the US Team Demo Team to promote jumping and the USPA, as much as it's a cheap shot to use member dues to compete with members who do demos, at least the concept made sense. The end goal would be promotion, and that generally has a cost associated with it. If the revenues from the 'Team' could offset some of the costs of the 'Team', it just lowers the cost of promotion. If you accept that there is a cost for promotion, the need to turn an actual profit disappears.

Now that I understand that this is an attempt to create a for-profit business in order to rainse money for the US Team, it makes even less sense. There still remains the conflict of interest in using member dues to compete with members who do paid demos, but now you have a business model that appears to make no sense of any kind and looks to have little chance for any real success.

I'll suggest it again, if they want to use our (the membership) money to fund this venture, why not let the membership vote on it? To me, it doesn't look like a good investment from a risk/reward perspective. We stand a good chance of losing all or most of the $10K, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see the 'Team' come back for a second round of 'funding' once they discover that the $10K doesn't get them as far as they think it will, in which case we'll just increase our loses.

Quote

Quote

Assuming your recollection of the conversation at the board meeting is accurate, this thing is stinking worse as the details come out. Here's the "official" version of the meeting as recorded in the minutes...

10) James Hayhurst made a presentation on a proposed sponsorship development plan that
centers on using members of the U.S. Parachute Team to perform demonstration jumps at
airshows and other events. His proposal resulted in the following motion:
Motion 19: Passed, 20/0/0 (Mr. Smith)

“Move to establish a pilot program to form a demonstration team comprised of current and
former U.S. Team members and other highly qualified skydivers to raise money for the United
States Parachute Team Inc. The team will prepare for and attend the ICAS (International
Council of Air Shows) Convention to market the Team’s shows. The U.S. Parachute Team Inc.
will reimburse USPA for seed money and expenses supporting the team from the profits earned.”

The above minutes seem to match up with what Ed Scott said in his October column, which directly contradicts your version of what was actually said in the meeting.

My account agrees with the minutes. The editorial makes no mention of using other highly qualified skydivers.
That is the big bone of contention that many demo jumpers have asked me about.
There are a lot of demo jumpers here in SoCal.
There are several team leaders that arrange demos using the same roster of demo jumpers.
These demo jumpers are part of the other highly qualified skydivers that are supposed to be used by the US Demo Team.

The concept, as it was explained at the BOD mtg, would work in a similar way, but would NOT encroach on the existing demos that the team leaders anywhere in the US have had for years and years.

The concept, as it was explained at the BOD mtg, would be very similar to how the GK demo team works. They have one group out providing publicity for the US Army and another group doing competition jumps.

If the plan is implement and only uses US Team members for demos, then it will fail. The Coors/Vision team used to do demos for Coors all over the US. It took time out of their training (back then most every team was a weekend team).
If you look at the training schedule of most competitors, doing demos across the nation would interfere with their training and other coaching duties.

FYI the US Team is a separate organization than USPA. The BOD is the same for each organization.

Quote

Another question I have for the board. They say the $10,000 is a loan to the newly formed team. What happens if the team can't turn a profit and repay the loan? That's membership money that the board has a fiduciary obligation to protect. If the team is a financial bust, that will be yet another financial fiasco at the hands of the board.

Yes it will be, if it fails.


.

"Other highly qualified jumpers"????

So in at least some cases - and possibly many - the "long-overdue recognition" Ed says the "champions" deserve won't be bestowed upon champions at all.

Is it even intellectually honest to promote the team to the airshow industry as being made up of the country's US Team (as in made up of US Team members) and "champions" when it's not?

That was after all the premise of this team to begin.

Of course there's still the problem with USPA endorsing and supporting a demo team that will compete head-to-head with existing USPA dues-paying members for gigs. And while it's just my opinion, I bet the promise not to encroach on other team's gigs will eventually go out the window as well.

"Gee Mr. Private Demo Team Captain, your client came to US, saying they were looking for a change. Apparently they want Champions for their demo."

Quote

Who's the Hell is drivin' this bus . . .

Or, as a friend of mine used to like to say when bureacracies go bananas: "Who's fucking this dog anyway?"

Like most everywhere- I bet USPA's responses are now going to be damage control, spin, assigning blame or ? The issue will be- Will they stop the madness now?

So who signed for the loan? Who is guaranteeing it to be paid back - on time? What is the repayment schedule?

Even if it is some psuedo-corporate entity, someone had to personally sign on it's behalf or as it's representative?

It is my understanding that it is not the USPA's place to be in the demonstration business. Or the competition business, for the matter of that. It's a pretty thin excuse to say, "We're going to promote the sport" when one supects the only ones who will benefit are the "USPA Demonstration Team" members.

As a regulatory body and a member services organization, USPA should be in the business of getting "teeth" (from the FAA) to have real authority as a regulatory body, and remain active in matters of airport access, government affairs, member services (which have dwindled over the years), and record keeping (including competition records, FAI record attempts, etc.)

In my opinion, this is where USPA funds should be directed, not to Cary Q.'s bank account, US teams or demonstration teams. Teams should seek US taxpayer dollars to fund team efforts or seek private sector funds just as teams in other sports do to get their competition dollars. USPA should be governing competitions, warehousing competition information and records, and issuing awards as established by the Association and/or the FAI.

And it is amazing to me that the official publication of the USPA, the one by which they disseminate information to the membership, cannot be relied upon to present clear and accurate plans and information regarding this matter - or any policy, action or decision made by the Association.

Is this kindergarten kops or a return to the G.O.B. methodology of days gone by?

Which is why I asked upthread, how long does it take to make a $10k profit doing demos?

Quote

Here's the can of worms~

The article says they want to go after high venue air shows, No shit?!...they are the only one's with a budget that makes doing them at all profitable.

How many show of that type are there...depending on where you want to cut it off, about 15.
Most near major cities.
The thing is, during ICAS, EVERY show tries to get the Knights, they all sign up with them then the Knights decide on the best path for them logistically, to reach to most people and contact those shows and accept.

The rest are contracted to the pro teams bidding on them, the major sponsored teams take about 1/2 of those because with the sponsorship they can low-ball the bid, at times even do the show free...it's covered by the sponsors ad budget revenue...In fact, I know instances of sponsored teams PAYING the show to perform!

So now you have a few large profitable shows being sought after by the better privately owned PRO teams. They are bidding for a profit, but it's very slim...it's a 'buyers' market these days.

Lots of teams not a lotta work.

The thing is, in order to get to the level of even having a possibility to get in the door at the big shows, you need a few things.

You need professional quality acts that are entertaining and interesting to the AUDIENCE...big flags, lots of smoke, some CReW...gimmicks & props.
You need to be able to show the contractor what you do, how long of a time slot you can cover...longer the better. Cost of air-time per minute puts us skydivers WAY behind the power-curve, airplanes just keep flying.
Why should the promoter pay you the same as 'Joe Pilot' for filling 1/3 the show time.

You also need a track record...
What have you done where and how many times...ever have any safety issues...
On time & on target is a demand these days...seconds count, who is your ground crew...
what aircraft do you need & will you provide it..they often want to also be listed on the insurance policy...on & on.

Maybe I'm wrong, but is the USPA saying it will go to ICAS and bid on large venue airshows...with a team that's so far never jumped a demo, using gear that hasn't been ordered yet, performing acts that haven't been conceived, or practiced or videoed, or...you get the idea.

10,000 is nothing to set up a PRO demo team, that's an advertising budget annually.
We have 6 figures worth of inventory...matching rigs, 60+flags, 20 smoke systems 10 pyro set ups, 25 banners...team vehicles.

Flashy hi profile air shows shows want flash they want to see a choreographed professional quality production, Ya don't throw together an air show demo like a back yard hog roast demo. It takes hard work, practice and money before you even TRY for contracts...consistent performance ability, there can be no 'surprises' no 'winging it', like any professional sports endeavor the 'public' knows what/who is bullshit and word gets around.


Takes $$ invested in inventory, smoke is 30.00 a unit these days you can burn 500.00 in smoke a single show, 5000.00 for a decent flag doesn't raise an eyebrow...a 50.00, 50 sqft flag would be a joke to a big show organizer.

You don't GET large venue shows with a thrown together team, actually, there is a rather small group of professional promoters/organizers that are hired by these events to set everything up, those guy are sharp, they know
'who' does what and how well.

Running a multi-million dollar event is Hollywood show business, you have a flow, you have a time-table, you are part of the over-all air show performer team. if you haven't put any time in the minors it's tough to walk on and play in the big show.

20 years ago there was more money in air show demos, weren't a lot of 'real' pro teams of the golden knights quality, and the few of us that were got lots of work with great contracts. The market is different now....there are 5 times as many teams. Most 'local' to airshow dz's can put of a good performance for 1/2 what a traveling team need to break even. The economy is tough, the shows are smaller and shorter...the promoters go with the best they can get for a very limited budget, some private PRO teams operate only to break even.

I fear if the USPA believes they will walk in and take the 'gravy' because they did one air show 30 years ago...that they'll "sign a 1/2 dozen or so profitable big shows" perhaps have no realistic idea what they are up against.

And either way it's a slap in the face to the PRO guys that have been working hard and playing the game to get a shot at the 'big-time'.

~~but again, there seems to be a lot of 'confusion' or 'mis-communiation' over where, why and how this 'demo team' loan is to be used. I communicated with several in the USPA ladder yesterday, seemed different things were communicated to different people at different times...LOT of confusion, but from the 'cheap-seats' how the heck did it pass a VOTE then?





So ANYWAY~ how long does it take to make ten grand (plus interest) doing airshows?

For a good 4-6 man team you can gross that in 2 or 3 shows...

But then again to NET 10 grand after expenses...a year or so.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

Quote

So~ how long does it take to make ten grand doing airshows?

For a good 4 man team you can gross that in 2 or 3 shows...But then again to NET 10 grand after expenses...a year or so.

So they're going to ride $10K on a venture who's sole purpose is to turn a profit and fund the US Team. If it's going to take 2 years to repay the $10K, you're looking at bringing in a solid $5k per year, with dime one hitting the US Team fund 24 months after the inception of the team.

How far does $5k get the US Team? For a 4-way team plus video, that's 40 jumps. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math, but an 8-way team gets 22 jumps out of $5k. All this is worth that type of return?

With 31,000 dues paying members, if the USPA upped the dues by 25 cents with the proceeds going to the US Team, it would raise $7750/year, which is more than the projected revenue of the 'Team' and without the risk of our $10k, and without the conflict of interest created my competing with members for demo gigs, and the money would be available far sooner than 24 months.

If money is the real goal here, none of this makes sense. There are far easier, faster and less risky ways to raise money. What about that deal that Arsenal pulled off? They got donations from every major manufacturer, sold raffle tickets and gave away something like $10k in gear to one guy. Manufacturers got to support the team and got some press out of the deal, jumpers got to fund the team and got a shot at a killer deal, and one guy made out like a bandit.

It's just dumb, and it sucks that I have to be a part of this just to keep jumping. Yes, I want to keep jumping, and no, there is no non-USPA DZ anywhere near me where I can jump without a membership, so yes, I have to be a part of this.

Hi pirana,

Quote

So who signed for the loan? Who is guaranteeing it to be paid back - on time?

How about we have the USPA BOD co-sign for the loan?



JerryBaumchen

Quote

How about they trim the budget a bit and cut out the team itself, and simply partner with the existing pro demo teams out there and have them talk up the USPA and pass out literature?

Ding ding ding...... This is what they should do.

Quote

How about they trim the budget a bit and cut out the team itself, and simply partner with the existing pro demo teams out there and have them talk up the USPA and pass out literature?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ding ding ding...... This is what they should do.

Hold on, I made a mistake when I posted that. I was assuming the USPA wanted to form the demo team to promote the USPA and jumping, and in that case, outsourcing to an established team would be the way to go.

The truth of the matter is that the demo team is being formed as a for-profit venture with the proceeds intended to fund the US Team. Of course, this is twice as dumb as forming the team for promotional use. If there was any real money in pro-level demo teams, or if it didn't take a huge investment in equipment, training, and years of work to get the good gigs, more people would be involved in that end of the industry. As it sits, the demo game is a tiny slice of life, and piss-poor idea for starting a new 'business'.

The US Team would be better off selling Mary Kay or Amway door to door if they want to make money. They could also hunt down sponsors to donate gear or services and raffle them off. They could do skills camps or big way camps. They could do T-shirts or any number of things that would make more and risk less than starting a demo team.

BOOM!

As I recently stated to a very successful full time pro-demo jumper in regards to this situation:

"You might have won a gold medal in 4-way, but your rig is on fire...guess you should have left demos to the demo jumpers."

I've spoken with my RD to express my extreme disdain for this venture. Although, if the USPA does what it normally does, it will simply ignore what the members say and do what it wants to do!

Yup.

I think I may start shopping for a non-USPA DZ.

I’m curious if any of the BOD Members reading this thread can comment on how long this project has been under BOD discussion and consideration.

Was there a sub-committee appointed at a previous BOD meeting that did an in-depth market study and built a business plan? Was any documentation provided to the BOD prior to the vote?

Or was this idea kicked around by a couple of BOD members and then sprung on the full BOD during voting on Sunday afternoon when everyone wants to get the hell out of there and catch their flight home? I used to be a National Director, I know how this works.

Quote

Yup.

I think I may start shopping for a non-USPA DZ.

This is the straw that broke my back. My membership is up at the end of the year. I think this will be my last year of paying dues and being treated like a step child. 36 years.

Sparky

Quote

I’m curious if any of the BOD Members reading this thread can comment on how long this project has been under BOD discussion and consideration.

Was there a sub-committee appointed at a previous BOD meeting that did an in-depth market study and built a business plan? Was any documentation provided to the BOD prior to the vote?

Or was this idea kicked around by a couple of BOD members and then sprung on the full BOD during voting on Sunday afternoon when everyone wants to get the hell out of there and catch their flight home? I used to be a National Director, I know how this works.

Hi Jack~

I heard that the board is aware of the thread and I understand that there will be an attempt made to clear up the confusion surrounding this issue.

There seems to be some miscommunication or lack of said, and hopefully the BOD will address the confusion which resulted in so much conjecture.

However until such information is forthcoming which completely opposes what I've read in Parachutist and the BOD minutes~

I will stand by my belief that what's happened is the USPA granted a high risk unsecured loan from membership funds in order to create a demonstration team that will be in direct competition with members OF the organization paying into that fund.

I believe that to be unethical and not in the best interest of the organization.

If the USPA demo team contracts to perform at ONE air show, that's one air show that an NON USPA FUNDED team won't be able to do.

The Parachutist article states I believe, that the USPA team wants to do between 6 & 12...remember that's not 6 or 12 out of 300, that's 6 or 12 of the 'large venue' shows, that contract parachute teams ...that the Golden Knights aren't doing.

Jack I too am curious as to the existence of a business plan and whether any solid research went into the formation of the plan.

The Parachutist article mentions ICAS's boast of 300 air shows annually, I certainly hope before our governing organization saw fit to invest venture capital in the way of a business loan, they would ask the simple questions any reputable investing organization would. . .what market research went into the loan application?

Questions like what exactly does ICAS consider an air show?
(I know & you'd be surprised how they arrive at that number)

How many of those events 'actually' contracted parachute teams last year?

What was the average payment to the skydiving teams performing those shows and what did they net after expense?

How many other established teams are competing for those available venues?

What is the projected schedule for repayment.

~And of course, HOW did you arrive at all those facts and figures?

The simple logical questions anyone attempting to receive a business loan for a company with a mission statement that includes anything about 'performing parachute demonstrations at air shows for profit' would obviously, ordinarily under normal circumstances, have to answer.

This IS a normal investment / business loan ...right?

So yes Jack, I anxiously await some kind of BOD communication that will clear up the confusion surrounding the implementation of this highly questionable program.

The goal is worthy and a good one, alternate funding for the US competition team is necessary.

I question, and urge others do likewise, if the USPA making a high risk unsecured loan with membership funds as an investment, to start up a parachute demo team to compete with members OF the USPA organization who pay into that fund... is truly in the best interest of the membership and the welfare of the ENTIRE sport.

I am a long time and dedicated professional parachute demonstration performer, but above and before that I'm a member of the USPA.


I raise these arguments because I sincerely feel if my conjecture and speculation is correct regarding the implementation of this program, that it will fail and in doing so will cost the organization more than just money.



I've been doing demos professionally for a long time in the air show 'business', I have a pretty good grasp on the answers to the questions I asked above...

I know from experience how successful Pro teams work, you select a group of competent performers, you procure the required and necessary equipment, you formulate and perfect an entertaining act, you develop a marketing strategy and THEN advertise the act in publications and at ICAS.

I have trouble understanding the rational of a business theory suggesting marketing a demo team that exists only on paper will be successful.

Personally~ I don't think enough thought, research or practical planning went into this whole thing...but then again, I guess I could just be confused.

Stay tuned!

Quote

Personally~ I don't think enough thought, research or practical planning went into this whole thing...but then again, I guess I could just be confused.

It doesn't seem like you're confused. It seems like the BOD got caught red handed trying to play the good-ol-boy network. The response "well you just don't under stand" is a condescending brush off, since the BOD still hasn't explained it better than the published information.

I need some new gear, maybe I can get $10k in an unsecured "loan" from them.

After hearing from some of you and speaking with others, it was clear that we needed to give more information about the plan to use members of the U.S. Parachute Team and others to create public awareness of the team and publicize the opportunity for major sponsorship. Attached is a more detailed explanation.

-Ed Scott
USPA Executive Director

After hearing from some of you and speaking with others, it was clear that we needed to give more information about the plan to use members of the U.S. Parachute Team and others to create public awareness of the team and publicize the opportunity for major sponsorship. Attached is a more detailed explanation.

-Ed Scott
USPA Executive Director

Quote

Thank you for your input Mr. Scott, as I said above I understand and applaud the the goal, but question procedure and likelihood of success this program carries.

We'll have to with all due respect, agree to disagree regarding the actual cost/benefit involved.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

• Quote

Would there be outrage at adding $2 per membership for a team fund? That would give the team $160,000+ each meet. We wouldn't have to try to get sponsors by doing demos, and we could make a cool video to present to the corporate sponsors.

Quote

After hearing from some of you and speaking with others, it was clear that we needed to give more information about the plan to use members of the U.S. Parachute Team and others to create public awareness of the team and publicize the opportunity for major sponsorship. Attached is a more detailed explanation.

-Ed Scott
USPA Executive Director

Now I'm even angrier that this is happening! This is a HUGE waste of money and is costing professional jumpers their business. This is not what the USPA should be doing. Yes I will be contacting my RD about this AGAIN, but now that I have a better understanding of it, I like it even LESS!

***

Quote

Would there be outrage at adding $2 per membership for a team fund? That would give the team $160,000+ each meet. We wouldn't have to try to get sponsors by doing demos, and we could make a cool video to present to the corporate sponsors.

That's an interesting question, the problem is the USPA and the US Team are I believe, two completely separate organizations.

Raising the membership fees to the USPA so that it could in turn 'donate' a percentage of that money to a separate tax exempt corporation would open an even greater can of worms than the USPA 'loaning' venture capital to the US Team as an 'investment'.

I do think however that with an intense and ongoing awareness campaign targeting the membership, along with the simple procedure for voluntarily adding a few dollars at renewal time...funding could be significantly increased without concerning anyone regarding tax laws, or having to address the ethical question that I've raised etc.

Of course another way of doing what you suggested is for the USPA to loan the US TEAM money and then in turn write off the loan as a bad investment if & when the US TEAM should default on the loan.

Then they could increase membership fees as a way to recoup those loses...I'm not suggesting that's the intent, but it would probably be a way to avoid any legal entanglements and be a way one organization could financially support the other using membership fees indirectly.