Wow - just wow!
Which was pretty much the previous incarnation of the Real Insurance series a few years back now. I'm starting to hope that the Maverick series starts to build momentum and adds one or two more races if possible
2014 XCM Series
- Thread starter Cúl-Báire
- Start date
Here's an idea - Given the popularity of these type of events (mass partisipation generally), how about we the people (MTBA / CA members) start taking OUR governing body to task and making them accountable. There has been a complete lack of transparency in relation to these events, the running of MTBA, and what the fark our membership fees get spent on!!!... They can't even seem to answer phone calls, emails, or questions on their facebook / twitter pages in relation to "their" events :yuck:
Why is it private promoters / organisers can organise great events like Oddesey, Wombat, Cap Punishment, and the list goes on but the MTBA can't seem to organise a "root in a brothel"??? :behindsofa:
Last edited:
akashra
Eats Squid
Oh come on, this is just fiction.
How are MTBA responsible for an event that CA are the promoters of? Should MTBA therefore also be responsible if, say... a club fails to advertise their event and gets poor numbers? Should we also be responsible if something goes bad at a Rapid Ascent or MaxAdventure - non-MTBA promoters - events? You seem to be implying that MTBA should be held to account for an series/event that isn't ours.
As for a complete lack of transparency, I can only take from this that you've made no attempt to either read through the AGM reports or ask questions. Every year it's quite visible where money goes. If you've been unable to find the information you want, you should try asking.
Finally, saying our staff who have worked their asses off to pull together the National Series don't answer calls or emails, which I know to be rubbish given the sheer volume I have forwarded to me when they're unable to answer a question and require clarification, or that I'm CC'd on - that's just insulting to those who are flat out. In fact I'm aware of only two queries in the last few months I've not yet been able to get an answer from - which Dave also asked here on Rotorburn - and the only reason I've been unable to get him an answer is because I can't get an answer from the UCI!
Even with the National Champs running this weekend we had Stephanie in the office still flat out doing exactly that, and Una and Stu working to ridiculous hours every night to handle event issues, rider queries, media and communications - and I know this because I was sitting in rooms with them much of the time, even at dinner *every night* Stu still had work in front of him - I think you need to have a long hard look at the claims you're making because I can very clearly see they have little to no factual basis.
Since I don't remember seeing your name on the results at Bright I'm not sure whether you actually went to Bright - but we certainly got good feedback from a lot of people. If you think you can pull off a National Series with only six weeks notice, please let me know and we'll be sure to use your services if it's run directly by MTBA in 2015.
Tim,
You are correct my dig should have been directed at bothMTBA and CA; the manner in which CA handles anything to do with bikes that don’tbelong on tarmac or a wooden track is ridicules. Are MTBA not part of CA? Theyseem to report to CA so if my understanding of the relationship is wrong pleasecorrect me with an org chart or something of the sort (I am sure you will). My point was more aimed at the fact that the NationalXCM series (whomever it “belongs” to) has been bouncing around for over a yearnow since the demise of the original Real Insurance XCM series and to what end?It seems the responsible body missed what should have been their target audience,they’ve made a right mess of it scheduling 5 events in the space of two monthswhich if I recall correctly even you have barked about (correct me if I amwrong again). One event has already been shit canned due to lack of interest;hopefully this is the only case of that! To top it off some of the series isMTBA’s and other rounds are CA’s what tripe!
I am not doubting the staff work their arses off to organise things mate, quite likely onlimited budget and limited time. However when I emailed a query relating to thelicensing requirements for the XCM series my email went un-answered, when followed up with a phone call even then Iwasn’t given an answer… Now it wasn’t something of great importance but it wasn’tsomething that was answered on the website. The National Series events I havebeen to in the past have been well organised, and I am not doubting this wasany different, certainly the twitter feed was impressive!
Good to hear great feedback was received from Bright,hopefully this can be built upon for future rounds / series. You are correct, I wasn’t thereinBright unfortunately, I couldn’t make itas the heavily pregnant wife was ill over the last few weeks and concerned she’dspit out a baby while I was off racing 5 hours from home (poor planning on mybehalf).
Finally I find your comment regarding the National Seriesmildly amusing, 6 weeks’ notice?... National’s / National Series is like abirthday in that it comes once year; to suggest that there was only 6 weeks’notice is a little far-fetched!
akashra
Eats Squid
Absolutely not! MTBA are an independant association who are affiliated with CA, but we most certainly do not report to CA. You are probably thinking of the federated structure both CA and BMX run under, where it's closer to say that the state federations - eg, CQ, CV, CNSW - report to CA. BMXA have similar, BMXQ, BMXV etc reporting to BMXA - they too are independant, but simply affiliated with CA.
In terms of "some rounds are ... MTBAs", think of it in the same way that round 3 (the Wombat 100) belongs to MaxAdventure, maybe to a lesser extent - we simply ran the first one because to have MTBA staff completely swap out and then hand over to would have operationally been difficult, so all the commissaires, media, registration etc people were retained and it kept uniform.
Get me some details of the queries you asked, and where you sent it, and I'll either get you some answers, or fine someone who can.
Regarding the six weeks - there's no exaggerating there. Up until that point, start of December, CA were responsible for delivery - eg, hiring contracters, infrastructure etc. They handed over everything they had done to that point: Arranging a club and venue to help out. That's it. That's all had been done. Permits, equipment hire, transport, medals, staff and commissaires, medical, you name it, Una and Shane frantically did everything in that time bracket to run the event to the standard, which frankly I think wasn't bad at all. Yet you're saying MTBA "[couldn't] organize a root in a brothel". After Adelaide it was all hands on Buller. There really is no exaggeration with the six weeks notice, because MTBA had contracted CA to deliver the event, and that understanding was still in place until that time, where you will see press releases stating as such.
Unfortunately myself and i'm assuming most of the MTB racing community won't find the low numbers surprising. It is however a shame.
The expectations of riders for this series were clear after the success of the original format. It has been strange to see this series evolve to the point where riders are expecting it to fail - why has it all gone so wrong?
I draw a parallel to the old 24hrs of Adrenalin World Solo Championships. Initially based on a model that had proven popular and successful in the past, the series expanded and went global with the first event outside North America in 2010. The 24hr solo community was then expecting this to be built upon for the next year. Unfortunately that was cancelled and the year after, the proposed return to North America went down predictably - like a lead balloon. The series died, a new one was born and 24hr world championships haven't been the same since.
The formula for a national XCM series is fairly simple but one that we seem to be struggling to get right to the frustration of the bike riders. Ask us and we'll tell you exactly what we want. If you deliver this, I promise the series will be a success. Some suggestions? Existing popular events, location within easy reach of capital cities, spaced throughout the year, as many states represented as possible, run it every year, good prize money, early announcements, keep riders informed.
This is why Bright didn't attract the numbers - new event, difficult to get to, poor communication.
Simple.
The expectations of riders for this series were clear after the success of the original format. It has been strange to see this series evolve to the point where riders are expecting it to fail - why has it all gone so wrong?
I draw a parallel to the old 24hrs of Adrenalin World Solo Championships. Initially based on a model that had proven popular and successful in the past, the series expanded and went global with the first event outside North America in 2010. The 24hr solo community was then expecting this to be built upon for the next year. Unfortunately that was cancelled and the year after, the proposed return to North America went down predictably - like a lead balloon. The series died, a new one was born and 24hr world championships haven't been the same since.
The formula for a national XCM series is fairly simple but one that we seem to be struggling to get right to the frustration of the bike riders. Ask us and we'll tell you exactly what we want. If you deliver this, I promise the series will be a success. Some suggestions? Existing popular events, location within easy reach of capital cities, spaced throughout the year, as many states represented as possible, run it every year, good prize money, early announcements, keep riders informed.
This is why Bright didn't attract the numbers - new event, difficult to get to, poor communication.
Simple.
Tim,
Thanks for the response and insight as to how the series handed to MTBA to manage (and also the CA / MTBA relationship) - I would like to think the 5 year deal with CA to run the Nationals / National Series events has some kind of non performance clause, and measures in which MTBA can use to terminiate the deal as (without knowing more details) it sounds like some-one at CA has done a real shit job and handballed it back to MTBA without too much of a care. Fortuantly judging by what I have seen the Nationals / XC Series was a big success although the bean counters may disagree.
I am sure with the correct planning, management and delivering what the riders want the MTBA can make the National XC / XCM / DH / GE / OT Series / Nationals a financially viable excersise; I believe in previous years this has not been the case hence the deal with CA in the first place (again correct me if I am wrong).
AH
Hades,
I think the Maverick series has hit the nail on the head by using exissiting and hugely popular events as the basis for their series; however I believe MTBA / CA might be constrained by the timelines around the UCI World Champs / World Cup Series and the like; alot of the existing events run from March - Nov which is "in season" in Europe so our series would be running concurrently and also limit the opertunity for Aussises competing overseas to defend titles, and new champs to represent Aus in the current series...
We are lucky enough to have this HUGE glut of endurance events, anyone creating something different or new is going to need a real point of difference to make it viable and competative amongst the other events. Subsiquently it seems the chips are down for any organiser of the XCM series if it were to be stand alone regardless of when it's held, hence the expectation for it to fail.
cleeshoy
Eats Squid
I think it's simple in theory but given the current and old XCM series involves races organised by private promoters, their demands may differ making it more complex. They are run to make it a profit - now if being part of the XCM series meant a cut to their profits (I have no idea if this is the case - I am only theorising here) then they may not wish to be part of it.
So while the riders may want a series, putting a series together may be a bit more complicated.
pharmaboy
Eats Squid
I get the feeling that "profit" was indeed one of the problems. People working for not for profit organisations hate gifting entrepreneurs a windfall - I can easily see CA as seeing all that potential profit going into private hands instead of to them where it could be spent on the sport, so they figure they should run their own game.
From the outside it sure looked like an effort aimed at displacing the privates.
JD26
Likes Dirt
Good discussion going on here from both points of view. Personally I though that the XCM yesterday was really well run. I have done pretty much most of the XCMs around the country now, and it was smooth.
For me, the benchmarks are the Convict and the Flight Centre for event management.
The track itself was absolutely superb, and had so much variation, flow and actually challenged all aspects of a rider's ability. So, obviously a rider put this one together.
What was going against it
....On the same weekend as the XCO championships. You will lose numbers. That's a no-brainer.
....There are a lot of established races on that have a track record. If a punter only has 3 leave passes for the year, then they are always better off doing something that is a known quantity and potentially closer to home.
No matter what anyone says, an 'organiser' as opposed to a 'racer', does not always know what a racer actually wants or requires. This is pretty apparent in the XCE format. The XCM format, was done really well though. I could not fault it.
My recollection of the actual race itself here if anyone is interested.
http://pin-it-you-muppet.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/real-insurance-xcm-round-1-bright.html
For me, the benchmarks are the Convict and the Flight Centre for event management.
The track itself was absolutely superb, and had so much variation, flow and actually challenged all aspects of a rider's ability. So, obviously a rider put this one together.
What was going against it
....On the same weekend as the XCO championships. You will lose numbers. That's a no-brainer.
....There are a lot of established races on that have a track record. If a punter only has 3 leave passes for the year, then they are always better off doing something that is a known quantity and potentially closer to home.
No matter what anyone says, an 'organiser' as opposed to a 'racer', does not always know what a racer actually wants or requires. This is pretty apparent in the XCE format. The XCM format, was done really well though. I could not fault it.
My recollection of the actual race itself here if anyone is interested.
http://pin-it-you-muppet.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/real-insurance-xcm-round-1-bright.html
Totally agree, although it's worth pointing out that the real insurance series didn't seem to find that as an issue? I would have thought that private race promoters would be clamouring to be a part of a series as from what i've read, it helps boost numbers
Having said that though, I don't know how much change/restrictions would be expected of those private promoters which might scare them off, if it were to be run by CA/MTBA
cleeshoy
Eats Squid
I would have thought so too, but given the XCM series didn't run last year, the private promoters were not happy about something. Who knows, maybe the Real Insurance people wanted some percentage cut of the entrance fees? I have no idea but its fun to speculate
haha it is indeed.. I can imagine Real being tempted by the greater national coverage of a CA/MTBA series. The original series was very NSW/ACT dominant with one race in VIC I think?I would have thought so too, but given the XCM series didn't run last year, the private promoters were not happy about something. Who knows, maybe the Real Insurance people wanted some percentage cut of the entrance fees? I have no idea but its fun to speculate
CA/MTBA: Real, don't sponsor the series again.. we're going to do a better one that has more national races
Real: ooo, that sounds like better exposure to more target markets!
CA/MTBA: Indeed! We guarantee a better series with UCI points and everything! What could possibly go wrong?
Riders: Siiiiiigh
Fiction
Speaking of fiction half truths are the trade of many. (seems to be endemic at MTBA)
Fact:
CA did follow the cancellation of the contract as per the contract, in their interpretation of the contract. CA wanted to retain the running of the National Championships HOWEVER the truth of the matter is that the BCF leader of MTBA along with the band of merry men declined this offer.
MTBA do not report to CA - again a half truth by omission or is it just plain ignorance?: MTBA have a member of their board on the CA board.
MTBA are accountable to CA for the funding from the ASC/HP.
MTBA have an affiliation agreement with many accountable factors.
MTBA have a services agreement again with many obligations from both parties.
MTBA have obligations to CA through the ASC for many matters - good governance ie having a selection policy/process for World Championships.
MTBA are linked to CA through the UCI - think World Champs/Cups.
MTBA are dependent upon CA for cyclist of the year awards.
MTBA - BCF espouses the formation of one cycling body to CA BUT makes demands that are unacceptable to be met, and not in the ASC's directions plans, (self interest demands) and
to the MTBA membership we are left to think that MTBA is independent and the leaderships position is exactly what? Oh yes that is right tell CA and BMXA and the ASC that one cycling body is the aim and thwart the aim by a lack of action and support. Sound familiar - yes as familiar as 60,000 members is a ........... political lie.
I await denials by those who continue to have no transparency.
Speaking of fiction half truths are the trade of many. (seems to be endemic at MTBA)
Fact:
CA did follow the cancellation of the contract as per the contract, in their interpretation of the contract. CA wanted to retain the running of the National Championships HOWEVER the truth of the matter is that the BCF leader of MTBA along with the band of merry men declined this offer.
MTBA do not report to CA - again a half truth by omission or is it just plain ignorance?: MTBA have a member of their board on the CA board.
MTBA are accountable to CA for the funding from the ASC/HP.
MTBA have an affiliation agreement with many accountable factors.
MTBA have a services agreement again with many obligations from both parties.
MTBA have obligations to CA through the ASC for many matters - good governance ie having a selection policy/process for World Championships.
MTBA are linked to CA through the UCI - think World Champs/Cups.
MTBA are dependent upon CA for cyclist of the year awards.
MTBA - BCF espouses the formation of one cycling body to CA BUT makes demands that are unacceptable to be met, and not in the ASC's directions plans, (self interest demands) and
to the MTBA membership we are left to think that MTBA is independent and the leaderships position is exactly what? Oh yes that is right tell CA and BMXA and the ASC that one cycling body is the aim and thwart the aim by a lack of action and support. Sound familiar - yes as familiar as 60,000 members is a ........... political lie.
I await denials by those who continue to have no transparency.
Last edited:
Fiction
Speaking of fiction half truths are the trade of many. (seems to be endemic at MTBA)
Fact:
CA did follow the cancellation of the contract as per the contract, in their interpretation of the contract. CA wanted to retain the running of the National Championships HOWEVER the truth of the matter is that the BCF leader of MTBA along with the band of merry men declined this offer.
I await denials by those who continue to have no transparency.
Speaking of fiction half truths are the trade of many. (seems to be endemic at MTBA)
Fact:
CA did follow the cancellation of the contract as per the contract, in their interpretation of the contract. CA wanted to retain the running of the National Championships HOWEVER the truth of the matter is that the BCF leader of MTBA along with the band of merry men declined this offer.
I await denials by those who continue to have no transparency.
akashra
Eats Squid
Always amusing to see anonymous* accounts with one post to their name come up with this kind of stuff
Given both the series and champs were part of the same agreement and the progress towards the series races they were contracted to run, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind also want the same promoter to attempt to run the arguably most important event of the bunch? Whether or not they still wanted to do it has nothing to do with whether they'd actually made sufficient progress.
Of course, in a thread about the XCM champs you're talking about the XCO champs - I know this, but others might not - when talking of half-truths, some context would definitely be appropriate as to imply this was the case for the XCM champs when it is not.
Given both the series and champs were part of the same agreement and the progress towards the series races they were contracted to run, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind also want the same promoter to attempt to run the arguably most important event of the bunch? Whether or not they still wanted to do it has nothing to do with whether they'd actually made sufficient progress.
Of course, in a thread about the XCM champs you're talking about the XCO champs - I know this, but others might not - when talking of half-truths, some context would definitely be appropriate as to imply this was the case for the XCM champs when it is not.
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying
Reasonable response - answers are rare, truth avoided.
Glad to amuse you.
Anonomous is just such a pain in the world of the internet - I suggest that you work on a way to ban it!
Oh so it is about progress, not the statement of BCF - run all or nothing? The same promoter? That promoter was certainly welcomed the previous year? Oh of course MTBA took back the series and Championships to improve them -another exercise in PR / deceit. How about the financial transparency as to the performance last year of the series and championships? Surely MTBA would get a share of profit from last season? If not then what about losses?
Context about the thread must surely be appropriate as YOU stated that MTBA is not answerable to CA - or is you memory fading? I suggest you re read you own posts.
Instead of irrelevant RED Herrings (standard political avoidance tactics lesson 101 for guilty /evasive) -
how about a truthful response to the accountability issues posted appropriately.
Appropriateness will be judged by those within this forum on their assessment and the public in general NOT the omnipotent person you purport to be.
Glad to amuse you.
Anonomous is just such a pain in the world of the internet - I suggest that you work on a way to ban it!
Oh so it is about progress, not the statement of BCF - run all or nothing? The same promoter? That promoter was certainly welcomed the previous year? Oh of course MTBA took back the series and Championships to improve them -another exercise in PR / deceit. How about the financial transparency as to the performance last year of the series and championships? Surely MTBA would get a share of profit from last season? If not then what about losses?
Context about the thread must surely be appropriate as YOU stated that MTBA is not answerable to CA - or is you memory fading? I suggest you re read you own posts.
Instead of irrelevant RED Herrings (standard political avoidance tactics lesson 101 for guilty /evasive) -
how about a truthful response to the accountability issues posted appropriately.
Appropriateness will be judged by those within this forum on their assessment and the public in general NOT the omnipotent person you purport to be.
Always amusing to see anonymous* accounts with one post to their name come up with this kind of stuff
Given both the series and champs were part of the same agreement and the progress towards the series races they were contracted to run, why on Earth would anyone in their right mind also want the same promoter to attempt to run the arguably most important event of the bunch? Whether or not they still wanted to do it has nothing to do with whether they'd actually made sufficient progress.
Of course, in a thread about the XCM champs you're talking about the XCO champs - I know this, but others might not - when talking of half-truths, some context would definitely be appropriate as to imply this was the case for the XCM champs when it is not.
splinter1959
Likes Dirt
What the ????????????????????????????