LaserPerformance would like to take this opportunity to add to Mitch Brindley’s response to Franny’s unfortunate and misleading letter. LaserPerformance has been a supporter and partner of Collegiate racing since 1976. The new contract extends and expands the sponsorship of the ICSA programs. LaserPerformance has nothing to hide and should the ICSA decide that the contract is not in the best interest of its members, we would be happy to still continue our support for Collegiate sailing by providing the 36 Laser or Laser Radials to the ICSA at our own expense. LaserPerformance support of college sailing goes well beyond our contractual obligations. We have and we will continue to support college sailing directly and indirectly by, for instance dedicating exclusive and full time staff to college sailing, outstanding operations support as well as focusing our marketing resources on the growth of college sailing. This has a significant cost attached for LaserPerformance, one that is equal to millions of dollars over the 7 years of the contract. LaserPerformance has also committed itself to college sailing by investing heavily in the next generation of the 420 as reported on Sail 1 Design’s Airwaves. This new boat has been designed after consultation with collegiate sailors, coaches (including Zack Leonard, Bill Healey, Bill Ward, Adam Werblow, Greg Wilkinson, David Thompson, Mitch Brindley and many more), boat designers led by Naval Architect Peter Levesque and the latest sailing trends in both design and equipment. As a result our new 420 addresses issues such as the ability to adjust and tune the rig and sails, maneuverability, crew weight, performance, durability and safety. Early results from our plant in Portsmouth, RI indicate we will be able to reduce the overall weight of the boat significantly more than previously reported by Adam Werblow on Airwaves. Other impressive results indicate that we should be able to maintain our current base price while offering a product that is far superior to anything on the market today. Stay tuned for announcements in regard to our demonstration program and schedule that begins before the end of the 2012 Fall Sailing Season. -LaserPerformance North America
Blog
I am disappointed
I cannot imagine what went into making this decision, and would never try. I’m sure that the leadership of ICSA had good intentions, but it is still a problem. This decision effectively means that no championship will be held on the west coast. Here we all sail FJ’s. Every single school sails the same boat so that we can move boats from site to site. In order for a school to get the opportunity to host a championship they must do one of three things: A) be rich enough to own two fleets of boats, so that leaves Stanford and USC, everyone else, sorry about your luck. No more races in Irvine, no racing in the Columbia River Gorge, no racing in Seattle. B) simply decide to only race on the East Coast because they cannot compete in FJ’s. or C) Convince every school in PCIYRA and NWICSA to spend money that almost none of them have and dump hundreds of FJ’s onto a non-existant market and buy 420’s. As for MCSA? Forget it. I know that the East Coast doesn’t go to sail in Chicago, Madison, Ann Arbor much, but those teams are going to be terribly hard pressed to go out and spend tens of thousands to buy boats in the hopes of getting a fleet. I have no idea how it will happen. Part of Collegiate Sailing has ALWAYS been the challenge of sailing new boats and accommodating quickly. MIT sailed Larks, Tufts modified them for their Mystic Lake, Michigan sailed 470’s and Navy had everyboatevermadebyanyone. Just as much as having to sail in Charleston’s current today, handle the insane windshifts at Harvard next week, and avoid powerboats at UCI the following week is part of the game, so is dealing with the fact that boats aren’t all the same (and neither btw are NHL rinks). Finally, from this perspective, how would feel if you did play Basketball, in say Los Angeles, and suddenly the NBA commissioner said “Hey Lakers, we are going to change the ball, but there is no way on earth you can use it except when you come and play the Celtics”? I don’t ascribe bad intent to the ICSA executive committee, but it feels from the West Coast that the powers that be just tightened their grip on the game again.
Agree to Disagree
In regards to the equipment used at the college level of sailing I agree with your statement, “the equipment should not be up for interpretation. Top-flight athletic competition should be about the athletes involved.” However, I strongly disagree with your basketball analogy about the height of the rim. A better analogy would be the size, weight and composition of the ball itself. In basketball there are several manufacturers of basketballs. The balls are manufactured to a standard similar to the way one design boats are made. Many professional and collegiate sports sign contracts to use one brand of ball however, that is not a like comparison for two reasons. First, the manufactures of basketballs i.e. Spalding, Wilson and Nike are diverse enough that an exclusive contract is not going to be make or break. Second, Exclusive contracts are all about money and branding. What we need right now in the sailing community is healthy competition. What we don’t need is a bully like LP getting exclusive contracts, it won’t be good for the sport in the long run. I don’t see the problem with using strictly one design boats. Competition is a healthy thing. It keeps prices down and quality up. Given all the controversy surrounding LP and other companies owned by Farzad Rastegar I can’t see how this agreement can have a positive outcome.
Jacksonville University Sailing Team – A Model for a Building Team
By Airwaves Writer Martha Pitt
Across the country, high school and youth sailing is continuing to grow, and subsequently the number of junior sailors looking to sail at the college level – many have their eyes on teams at the top of the college rankings. As it stands now, with few exceptions, the same collegiate teams have held those top spots for years, teams on which talented and dedicated sailors often find themselves “riding the bench” for years. Smaller teams are now trying to tap into that up-and-coming talent by creating programs that will draw in some of those top junior sailors who will be able to compete at that high level their whole college career and help the team grow.
The Jacksonville University Sailing Team is one such team that is looking for talented young sailors to help it grow! Now recognized as a varsity sport at its institution, the JU team is in a great position to become a strong contender in its conference and beyond. With new support from the athletic department, the team has been able to revamp its program and hire a full time coach. One of the greatest challenges for small collegiate sailing teams looking to grow and break into that top competitive group of collegiate powerhouses is funding and support. While historically, many club teams have been able to compete at the same level as varsity teams, the discrepancy between the two is certainly growing, and teams that are looking to reach that next level are finding that having varsity status within their institutions can make all the difference.
The Jacksonville University Sailing Team has spent the last ten years as a club team; prior to this fall the team was a small club sport that basically trained people how to sail in house. There was little coaching available, the team had a limited practice schedule, and it was funded solely by member dues. But after many years of hard work by the sailing team’s academic advisor Dr. Steven Davis – including rallying support from the local sailing community, creating a fundraising organization, writing feasibility reports, strategic plans, and budgets, and putting some serious pressure on the administration – the sailing team is ready to take the next step as a varsity program.
The team is in the Southeastern Atlantic Intercollegiate Sailing Association (SAISA), along with strong teams like College of Charleston, University of South Florida, and Eckerd College. The team is hoping that this move will help them get the coaching and support to compete with these conference powerhouses and become a contender on the national circuit.
 |
One of the big initiatives in turning this team from just a club team to a varsity team was the hiring of a year-round, full time coach. After a solid search, they found Jon Faudree to take on the challenge and get the team on its feet! Jon has spent years working in the sailing industry, most recently running the sailing program at Rochester Yacht Club in up-state New York. Jon is thrilled to take on such a great role, and hope that he can find some sailors that share his enthusiasm for the growth of what will soon become a very strong collegiate team! Read some comments from Head Coach Jon Faudree below: “During my 20 year career I have been involved in coaching at nearly every level of sailing from Youth, High School, College to One-Design Keelboats and Offshore Fleets, I have never come across a program like this that was just starting out. This school and the local sailing community want a successful sailing team and they have invested a lot of time and money into making this happen. JU’s passion for building a team is infectious and I am thrilled to be involved. “At JU, sailors will have the ability to become immediate impact players and have the opportunity to make a name for themselves by helping to grow a team from the beginning. Right now the team is small and the school’s eight (8) 420’s are dolly launched off the beach. By next fall we will have a new fleet of 420’s and floating docks, and the school, along with the team’s supporters are very serious about building a world class sailing center in the very near future. My five year goal is to create a ‘St. Mary’s of the south’ by completing a ‘green’ sailing center with a large fleet of boats that would provide access to the water for all students and the community in the summer. “JU is a small private university with a fascinating mix of majors, and class sizes that reflect individual attention. Its 14-to-1 average student-to-professor ratio ensures that students are known by name and not just a number. JU’s beautiful 190 acre campus borders a half mile of St. Johns River front property, directly across from downtown Jacksonville.” |
Jenna Spangler has been a member of the JU Sailing Team for the past two years, and the switch to varsity status means a tremendous amount for her and her fellow teammates. “As a club sport we didn’t have the funds nor the student involvement to excel. Our new varsity status has given us both of these things. Jon has helped us to retain a good group of new sailors in which to build and grow our sailing program on.” Having a coach has made the greatest difference to Jenna, who has seen huge changes in just the past six weeks – “Having Jon available to discuss and dissect every little move out on the water is really amazing. He is full of 420 experience and his knowledge and love of sailing is quite something. Jon is extremely patient when showing us new techniques and really helps you to feel comfortable in a boat.”
With college sailing growing across the country, there are many teams out there probably looking to do the same that could learn some things from JU efforts. For more information on the steps that the JU Sailing Team took to become a varsity program, feel free to contact Head Coach Jon Faudree at jfaudre@ju.edu. You may also check out the Sailing Team website – www.ju.edu/sailing.
For more information on Jacksonville University, please see: http://www.ju.edu/aboutju/Pages/default.aspx
Controversy in the ICSA: The Future of The “College Sailing Dinghy”
……under scrutiny
Last month, Airwaves writer Zach Brown published an article on “Meet The New Collegiate 420.” This article presented information on LaserPerformance’s new 420 design made specifically for college sailing, with the overall design focus of making the boat perform better, adding excitement and fun, and to be even more durable.
At the time of publication we did not intend to say that this boat was the official college sailing dinghy by any means, but just another option in a growing array of choices for college sailing programs. After receiving some constructive criticism for how our article might have been misleading, the latest news regarding college sailing dinghies makes us understand this criticism much better. And since then, we have posted articles on the Firefly, and other collegiate dinghies.
Last week, the ICSA posted a note on their Facebook page, announcing a new sponsorship agreement with LaserPerformance. This note was not very detailed, but soon after the posting, several “open letter” emails appeared on the ICSA mailing list, decrying this new sponsorship agreement. The text of these “open letters” can be found here, one from Mr. Fran Charles, MIT Sailing Director, and Tufts Head Coach Ken Legler. It is best for our readers to judge these arguments on their own, rather than us comment on them. The bottom line is that these letters quite clearly expressed significant disappointment at the decision of the ICSA to enter into an agreement with a vendor (LaserPerformance) that requires the hosts of national championship events, the semi-finals and finals included, to be sailed in LaserPerformance boats (they make 420s & FJ’s).
In full disclosure, it is important to note that LaserPerformance (and Zim Sailing for that matter), are loyal and outstanding sponsors of Sail1Design.
While our readers can draw their own conclusions on the arguments presented in the open letters, we also show excerpts from the response of the ICSA, from President Mitch Brindley, and the ICSA executive committee. These responses clearly show the opinion that this agreement is one that they had the authority to make. It also refutes allegations that this agreement goes against ICSA by-laws.
As a former college sailing coach who ordered the very first “super Larks” directly from England, a type of boat that had never before been in North America, let alone college sailing, and as someone who built and used totally clear mainsails with colored jibs ten years ago, I am all for fleet individuality and encouraging diversity in college sailing. The MIT program, led by Fran Charles, and The Tufts program, led by Ken Legler, are leaders in college sailing innovation and success. I modeled my program partially around their example, and I consider them two of the very top ICYRA/ICSA coaches in the (ICSA) organizations history. Their opinion matters, and should be taken seriously.
On the other side of the coin, college sailing is changing, constantly, and evolving, and becoming more structured and professional. To that end, one can make an argument that at the top level, the equipment should not be up for interpretation. Top-flight athletic competition should be about the athletes involved.
So in the Olympics, sailors don’t travel to China and sail the boats used most commonly at that local Chinese venue. The discipline’s equipment is pre-determined. What if in basketball, smaller teams used slightly lower heights for the basket at their home court? 10’ is standard, effectively removing it as a variable in the game. Is the ICSA simply responding to the growing professionalism in our sport, and cementing the equipment choice? With this agreement, we now know exactly what will be used at the sem-finals and the finals, regardless of venue. And, from a financial standpoint, sponsors are a welcome and necessary part of an organization such as the ICSA. Vanguard/LaserPerformance has been with college sailing for many years.
Or, as others may contend, is this agreement an unfair one, placing too much emphasis on sponsor relations at the cost of equity toward all of the college sailing programs that are the lifeblood of the ICSA? Will this further divide the ICSA? Does this place schools that do not have LP boats at a disadvantage? The difference between both the Olympic boat and basketball analogy when compared to ICSA boat standardization, is that unlike Olympic boats & basketball net height, sponsorhip investment is a guiding, relevant factor in the ICSA equipment choice.
I am confident that both sides of the argument have the best interests of the sailors in mind. We encourage your comments in our comment submission forum at the bottom of this article.
Tom Sitzmann, Sail1Design
Voice your opinion below and take our POLL
I feel absolutely sick about this. All of our college nationals and semi-finals except sloops have been sold out to a sponsor. What am I supposed to tell recruits? “We don’t have official college dinghies but they’re kind of like college dinghies.”What happens with our past and future hosts such as MIT, NY Maritime, Tufts and Fordham? Are they supposed to dump their fleet of unofficial college dinghies on unsuspecting buyers if they ever hope to host? If only one builder is “official,” what will prevent the price from skyrocketing?
I used to have tremendous respect and appreciation for Vanguard. Laser Performance not so much. But now that college sailing has decided that our Rondar boats are all of a sudden no longer legal boats for college nationals….with the investment we have made…..are we supposed to sell them now, buy “official” boats so we can someday be as good as the other teams? Next summer when I see LP boats while coaching 420 clinics or running 420 regattas, I’m not sure if I should be rooting for our exclusive builder or rooting with all my heart for them to fail.
For all the teams that do not own Laser Performance Boats, you have my full support in fighting against this horrible and divisive arrangement.
back to top
Letter from Fran Charles:
It is with chagrin I have learned the news that you, as the President
of ICSA, have signed an eight year contract with Laser Performance
exclusively naming them as the only official boat builder at all
national and semi-final college championship regattas excluding
sloops. According to Article VII of the ICSA bylaws, The Board of
Directors is the only authority which can make changes to the
conditions of the National Championships and this agreement is
categorically a change to the conditions. It is also a change to the
Class Rules of the Collegiate Dinghy Class, which also requires
approval of the Board. Therefore, as President you have entered into a
contract purportedly on behalf of ICSA which you are not authorized to
sign. It is wrong to assume, with no public debate or even public
notice beforehand that this contract is in the best interests of
college sailing. ICSA should immediately renegotiate the contract
before LP ‘performs’ any of their services.
Furthermore, and more importantly, this contract is definitely not in
the best interests of college sailing. Laser Performance’s inattention
to the long term and immediate needs of some customers has created
healthy competition for the collegiate boat building market over the
past several years. This sponsorship agreement is a strategic move by
Laser Performance to keep their competitors out of the college sailing
market. If left in place, it will cripple the ongoing efforts to
develop faster, more tunable, more durable, and more fun-to-sail boats
for the future of college sailing as well as severely effect member
institutions that have already chosen to buy from other boat builders
who are responsible and responsive to the customer.
I am sure that your intentions were good but the process, legality,
and substantive consequences of this agreement are all wrong for the
ICSA and its member institutions. Because some of our members’ boats
are not manufactured by LP, they are now required to purchase fleets
of boats from a sole vendor if they wish to be considered a host for
the nationals or semi finals. The LP agreement only requires the
builder to provide boats for singles and the host schools must
purchase their boats at whatever price LP decides to charge for
dinghies, women’s, semis, and team racing.
There are many other schools who will make fleet purchases over the
life of this eight year contract who will be forced to buy from Laser
Performance, whether or not that equipment is the best value for their
program’s needs. That is not fair, nor healthy for our organization.
Fordham University, New York Maritime Academy, Columbia University,
University of New Hampshire, MIT, Tufts University and all the schools
using Performance Catamaran-built west coast FJs have invested
hundreds of thousands of dollars in collegiate boats which are now
excluded from hosting a championship. The Administration and Alumni of
these institutions will understandably be very concerned about the
exclusion of their school. Retroactively banning an institution from
hosting an event based on their choice of equipment supplier is a
blatant disregard for these schools. I am quite sure that you would
not have inked this deal if your fleet at Old Dominion University
would be subject to this ban.
As a Commonwealth of Massachusetts corporation, the ICSA is subject to
some of the broadest consumer protection laws in the country. Laser
Performance’s strategy to exclude competitors’ boats might constitute
illegal anti-competitive conduct, and through your actions ICSA is now
a party to Laser Performance’s plan. The ‘confidentiality agreement’
that you agreed to as a part of this contract precludes the member
institutions from knowing even an estimated value of this contract
that delivers the entire college sailing market to Laser Performance
until 2020. What exactly is it costing Laser Performance to get
exclusive rights to our market? There is no representation in any
ICSA meeting minutes that are available about the negotiation or
considerations of this agreement. Never was notice given to the
membership that this was an item to be considered by the Board of
Directors. This is egregious behavior which smacks of favoritism,
Mitch. The lack of transparency by you and the ICSA BoD makes the
membership feel suspicious of your motivations.
The need to have singlehanded boats for our championships is certainly
a concern for ICSA. Though the singlehanded discipline is a tiny part
of the collegiate schedule, it is a national championship that the
members support. However, with US Sailing having now chosen to work
with Zim Sailboats for their youth championship sponsorship with 420s
and Bytes for singles champs, Laser Performance is in an extremely
precarious position. They obviously view it as essential to have
college AND high school sailing singles hosted in their Laser design.
This agreement with ICSA does them a big favor. Granting LP the level
of concessions that you did in this agreement does far more for LP
than they are doing for college sailing. It is a very strange balance
of our priorities. There are other options for ICSA’s singlehanded
championship if LP is unwilling to work with us. Video production at
our championships is an ICSA need but this is a tiny cost to a company
which guarantees itself millions of dollars in boat sales over the
life of this agreement.
By granting an exclusive right to host all of our national
championships in LP-made boats, ICSA is making a long range commitment
to stifle competition in the institutional market. Recently, the
college sailing market has developed healthy competition from builders
who could offer alternative manufacturing processes, improved spare
parts inventories and service, and exciting changes in modern
equipment like cored hulls with resin infusion, gnav vangs, reef
points, and cassette style rudder stocks. In addition, improvements
like 420 bow bulkheads, angled thwarts, integrated bow bumpers, and
lighter rigs make our boats much safer, as well as more fun to sail.
These changes have ONLY come from schools that have been willing to
break away from the Laser Performance stranglehold. Now, ICSA is
poised to make a long range commitment to the company who has
repeatedly been unwilling to change anything until their market share
is threatened by other builders who innovate.
There needs to be public debate, full transparency, and the ICSA
should take very seriously its responsibility to hear every member
school’s concerns with respect. As a college sailing director I am
very concerned about this contract, the secrecy behind it, and the
detrimental consequences it has on many of the ICSA members. It is
wrong, unfair, and probably illegal.
back to top
Below are some facts as it relates to the sponsorship agreement
I used to have tremendous respect and appreciation for Vanguard. Laser Performance not so much. But now that college sailing has decided that our Rondar boats are all of a sudden no longer legal boats for college nationals….with the investment we have made…..are we supposed to sell them now, buy “official” boats so we can someday be as good as the other teams? Next summer when I see LP boats while coaching 420 clinics or running 420 regattas, I’m not sure if I should be rooting for our exclusive builder or rooting with all my heart for them to fail.
For all the teams that do not own Laser Performance Boats, you have my full support in fighting against this horrible and divisive arrangement.
back to top
Letter from Fran Charles:
It is with chagrin I have learned the news that you, as the President
of ICSA, have signed an eight year contract with Laser Performance
exclusively naming them as the only official boat builder at all
national and semi-final college championship regattas excluding
sloops. According to Article VII of the ICSA bylaws, The Board of
Directors is the only authority which can make changes to the
conditions of the National Championships and this agreement is
categorically a change to the conditions. It is also a change to the
Class Rules of the Collegiate Dinghy Class, which also requires
approval of the Board. Therefore, as President you have entered into a
contract purportedly on behalf of ICSA which you are not authorized to
sign. It is wrong to assume, with no public debate or even public
notice beforehand that this contract is in the best interests of
college sailing. ICSA should immediately renegotiate the contract
before LP ‘performs’ any of their services.
Furthermore, and more importantly, this contract is definitely not in
the best interests of college sailing. Laser Performance’s inattention
to the long term and immediate needs of some customers has created
healthy competition for the collegiate boat building market over the
past several years. This sponsorship agreement is a strategic move by
Laser Performance to keep their competitors out of the college sailing
market. If left in place, it will cripple the ongoing efforts to
develop faster, more tunable, more durable, and more fun-to-sail boats
for the future of college sailing as well as severely effect member
institutions that have already chosen to buy from other boat builders
who are responsible and responsive to the customer.
I am sure that your intentions were good but the process, legality,
and substantive consequences of this agreement are all wrong for the
ICSA and its member institutions. Because some of our members’ boats
are not manufactured by LP, they are now required to purchase fleets
of boats from a sole vendor if they wish to be considered a host for
the nationals or semi finals. The LP agreement only requires the
builder to provide boats for singles and the host schools must
purchase their boats at whatever price LP decides to charge for
dinghies, women’s, semis, and team racing.
There are many other schools who will make fleet purchases over the
life of this eight year contract who will be forced to buy from Laser
Performance, whether or not that equipment is the best value for their
program’s needs. That is not fair, nor healthy for our organization.
Fordham University, New York Maritime Academy, Columbia University,
University of New Hampshire, MIT, Tufts University and all the schools
using Performance Catamaran-built west coast FJs have invested
hundreds of thousands of dollars in collegiate boats which are now
excluded from hosting a championship. The Administration and Alumni of
these institutions will understandably be very concerned about the
exclusion of their school. Retroactively banning an institution from
hosting an event based on their choice of equipment supplier is a
blatant disregard for these schools. I am quite sure that you would
not have inked this deal if your fleet at Old Dominion University
would be subject to this ban.
As a Commonwealth of Massachusetts corporation, the ICSA is subject to
some of the broadest consumer protection laws in the country. Laser
Performance’s strategy to exclude competitors’ boats might constitute
illegal anti-competitive conduct, and through your actions ICSA is now
a party to Laser Performance’s plan. The ‘confidentiality agreement’
that you agreed to as a part of this contract precludes the member
institutions from knowing even an estimated value of this contract
that delivers the entire college sailing market to Laser Performance
until 2020. What exactly is it costing Laser Performance to get
exclusive rights to our market? There is no representation in any
ICSA meeting minutes that are available about the negotiation or
considerations of this agreement. Never was notice given to the
membership that this was an item to be considered by the Board of
Directors. This is egregious behavior which smacks of favoritism,
Mitch. The lack of transparency by you and the ICSA BoD makes the
membership feel suspicious of your motivations.
The need to have singlehanded boats for our championships is certainly
a concern for ICSA. Though the singlehanded discipline is a tiny part
of the collegiate schedule, it is a national championship that the
members support. However, with US Sailing having now chosen to work
with Zim Sailboats for their youth championship sponsorship with 420s
and Bytes for singles champs, Laser Performance is in an extremely
precarious position. They obviously view it as essential to have
college AND high school sailing singles hosted in their Laser design.
This agreement with ICSA does them a big favor. Granting LP the level
of concessions that you did in this agreement does far more for LP
than they are doing for college sailing. It is a very strange balance
of our priorities. There are other options for ICSA’s singlehanded
championship if LP is unwilling to work with us. Video production at
our championships is an ICSA need but this is a tiny cost to a company
which guarantees itself millions of dollars in boat sales over the
life of this agreement.
By granting an exclusive right to host all of our national
championships in LP-made boats, ICSA is making a long range commitment
to stifle competition in the institutional market. Recently, the
college sailing market has developed healthy competition from builders
who could offer alternative manufacturing processes, improved spare
parts inventories and service, and exciting changes in modern
equipment like cored hulls with resin infusion, gnav vangs, reef
points, and cassette style rudder stocks. In addition, improvements
like 420 bow bulkheads, angled thwarts, integrated bow bumpers, and
lighter rigs make our boats much safer, as well as more fun to sail.
These changes have ONLY come from schools that have been willing to
break away from the Laser Performance stranglehold. Now, ICSA is
poised to make a long range commitment to the company who has
repeatedly been unwilling to change anything until their market share
is threatened by other builders who innovate.
There needs to be public debate, full transparency, and the ICSA
should take very seriously its responsibility to hear every member
school’s concerns with respect. As a college sailing director I am
very concerned about this contract, the secrecy behind it, and the
detrimental consequences it has on many of the ICSA members. It is
wrong, unfair, and probably illegal.
back to top
Below are some facts as it relates to the sponsorship agreement
I. Authority to negotiate sponsorship agreements and claim of improper action of the ICSA President:
ICSA By-laws empower the President and the Executive committee to administer and develop the operational policies of the association, and conduct the daily business of the association. Furthermore the ICSA Sponsorship Guidelines (adopted by the ICSA BOD in 1989) give the President the specific authority to negotiate the sponsorship contracts, quoted below. This is in addition to the authorities and duties expressed in the ICSA By-Laws:
“ICSA Sponsorship Guidelines– Adopted June 1989; as amended through June 1997
The LaserPerformance sponsorship agreement is compliant with the current ICSA Conditions for National Championships. The conditions serve to broadly define the type of boat not the builder: “BOATS: SEMI FINALS & FINALS- The events shall be sailed in two-person dinghies of not less than 11 feet, or more than 15 feet, in length. The boats may be either sloop or cat-rigged. The use of two fleets of boats (one for each division) is permitted.”
Historically sponsorship agreements define the requirements of a championship host. These requirements are related to the championship host directly during the planning process. For example ICSA requires the use of the ICSA owned sails branded with sponsor logos for the Women’s, Dinghy, and Team Race Championships. This too is not specifically defined in the conditions. Such information is contained in documentation supplied to the hosts.
When examined, the Championship Conditions match the new agreement; meaning that nothing is in conflict with the agreement.
- I.Transparency:
It has been charged that the agreement was confidential and lacked transparency. In actuality, the contract was shared and reviewed multiple times by ICSA Executive Committee, and only after extensive input and negotiation from all of the members of the ICSA Executive Committee and the LaserPerformance Board of Directors was the agreement accepted. The Executive Committee did not take lightly the rights and obligations committed in this sponsorship agreement.To be perfectly clear, there is no intended secrecy, but all of the parties must adhere to the confidentiality of the terms as required and expected with many business agreements. Most of the negotiations took place over the summer; with the final approval coming on September 13, 2012. A report on the status of all sponsorships will take place at the Mid-Year ICSA Board Meeting. And the implementation of the terms of the sponsorship will be public.
- II.Misinformation about LaserPerformance
Statements made earlier were false and misleading. In regard to LaserPerformance being dropped by US Sailing, I have been assured that LaserPerformance terminated the contract with US Sailing effective July 2012, but continued to support the US Olympic Sailing Team, and many of its members on an individual basis, regardless of the contract termination. We are also very aware of LaserPerformance faithfulness to Collegiate sailing as can be illustrated by their commitment of considerable resources in regard to this contract. In fact, we are aware that LaserPerformance has committed 2 full time employees to insure that it is able to properly serve colleges and universities with their equipment and service needs. I am also aware of LaserPerformance’s initiative to develop and produce a new higher performance dinghy based on the current 420 platform with significant guidance from both college coaches and sailors alike. Certainly the actions of LaserPerformance are consistent with the needs of the ICSA.
- III.Exclusivity
Exclusivity is part of the reciprocal function of sports sponsorship agreements. All of our title sponsorship include category exclusivity rights and have as long as I have been involved in the management of the association. The charge that ICSA has acted in a way that embraces anti-competitiveness and compromises the investment of colleges who have bought boats from other sources is unfounded. The ICSA has never prevented any institution from buying boats or other equipment from any particular manufacturer. Similarly the NCAA doesn’t prevent a school from buying footballs from any manufacturer, utilizing them in practices and competitions; however the NCAA does require that the Official Football of the NCAA Championships, Wilson, is used for the NCAA Championships. It would be wrong for an institution to assume that by owning a fleet of boats that they are entitled to host a national championship in that fleet. The ICSA Championship & Competition Committee makes a point to have the competitive characteristics of its championships reflect the nature, and type of competition sailed every weekend throughout the year. With or without this agreement or the previous agreements that we have been operating under with LaserPerformance since 2000, the limiting factor in terms of fleet would be the ease, frequency, normalcy of access to that type of boat by all schools who compete in the event.
My dream
I’m sixteen and sailing every week. Just wanted to say you’re living my life dream. Thanks for the encouragement. It’s nice to know it’s actually possible.
