US Ironmans sold to WTC
3890
Member
1723 days
Anton posted 45 weeks ago.
I'm thinking Monopoly. Will they have control over all the corporate IMs in North America then?
"If e wishes to sweem in dangerous waters, oo are we to deny im?
-Chef Skinner
http://antonspath.blogspot.com
769
Member
1678 days
Tamara posted 45 weeks ago.
More importantly, it means they'll all have crappy websites.
Anton - I think it does mean all the IMs, but not all the 70.3s.
2255
Member
702 days
TriSooner posted 45 weeks ago.
TAMPA, FL - The World Triathlon Corporation (WTC) has officially purchased the assets of all US-based Ironman and Ironman 70.3 events previously owned by North America Sports (NAS). Events purchased include Ironmans Arizona, Coeur D'Alene, Florida, Lake Placid, and Wisconsin as well as Oceanside Ironman 70.3 and Ironman 70.3 Florida. Ironman Canada was not included in the purchase and will remain an NAS event.
WTC's purchase of NAS should not affect current NAS employees. WTC is adding an office in Boulder, where NAS has been based, and NAS employees will now become WTC employees. The Boulder staff will continue their roles with logistics and on-site management of US-based events. WTC headquarters will remain in the Tampa, FL area.
WTC probably wanted their race/brand back. Meh. I am only interested in what the price tag was.
1288
Member
1558 days
PJT posted 45 weeks ago.
It's not like the 2 m-dot outfits in North America really competed on price or anything. Plus WTC already enjoyed a (legal) monopolistic advantage as the sole owner of the m-dot trademark, ironman name, kona slots, etc., which they chose to license to NA Sports. So the monopoly has always been there. (Especially if, as I assume, the NAS license for ironman trademarks was for a term. WTC could always take away NAS' bread-and-butter by refusing to renew its license).
I think the purchase makes sense from the business side. You can gain some efficiency by combining management of the two operations and, when it comes time to sell the company (isn't WTC owned by venture capitalists now?), it is a much more attractive package.
Whether or not it's good for the athletes is another question, though. Race fees have increased steadily for years now, and I would expect that to continue. The only question is whether the price increases get even bigger.
5783
Member
2081 days
beads1985 posted 45 weeks ago.
There are always indie Iron Distance races ;-)
'Nothing to it, but to do it!'
492
Member
1620 days
triNick posted 45 weeks ago.
I wonder if we will get dinged with higher fees now that the WTC looses all of the licensing fees received from NA Sports for those races.
Quote:
Yes!
isn't WTC owned by venture capitalists now?), it is a much more attractive package.
TRImapper.com - visual triathlon finder
TRIJUICE.com - triathlon news and resource site
2323
Member
1895 days
PrinceofClydes posted 45 weeks ago.
I feel reassured that IMC is excluded from this Corporate grab.
PoC
""Your ass looks fantastic. Are the kids in bed yet???"
- TonisTri. 10/2009
3890
Member
1723 days
Anton posted 45 weeks ago.
Aren't venture capitalists of the same ilk as investment bankers? Taking someone else's money and using it to increase THEIR profits? It is a business after all and they aren't doing it just for the "greater good." While I think it bodes ill, I'll be a good boy and hold further opinions until I see which way the wind is blowing...
"If e wishes to sweem in dangerous waters, oo are we to deny im?
-Chef Skinner
http://antonspath.blogspot.com
67
Member
324 days
SerialKiller posted 45 weeks ago.
Anton wrote:
Aren't venture capitalists of the same ilk as investment bankers? Taking someone else's money and using it to increase THEIR profits?
venture capitalists are the same as stock broker, you give them money they charge you a fee and try to make you the most money.
and if you believe in capitalism then you would see that business going for profits would be the greater good,"invisible hand theory".
but here's the question if you could compete in an IM for $100 or a no name compitions for $80. which would you pick?
1091
Member
674 days
jsk85 posted 45 weeks ago.
SerialKiller wrote:
but here's the question if you could compete in an IM for $100 or a no name compitions for $80. which would you pick?
Unfortunately, it's more like...if you can compete in an IM for $550+, or a no name competition for $250, which would you pick.
The price discrepency you chose made it not as big a deal as the actual difference. And the gap is likely to grow larger with this new developing situation
709
Member
523 days
jonovision_man posted 45 weeks ago.
Anton wrote:
It is a business after all and they aren't doing it just for the "greater good."
True, but at the same time this kind of business will live or die by the kind of relationship it has with its competitors. We're the ones who tell people about the sport, we're the ones who stump up the $500+ to compete, without us they have nothing.
jono
3890
Member
1723 days
Anton posted 45 weeks ago.
jsk85 wrote:
SerialKiller wrote:
but here's the question if you could compete in an IM for $100 or a no name compitions for $80. which would you pick?Unfortunately, it's more like...if you can compete in an IM for $550+, or a no name competition for $250, which would you pick.
The price discrepency you chose made it not as big a deal as the actual difference. And the gap is likely to grow larger with this new developing situation
+1 and the truth is, there are indie IM's that put on a better race, have a smaller field and are a great place to prove your mettle without all the hype.
"If e wishes to sweem in dangerous waters, oo are we to deny im?
-Chef Skinner
http://antonspath.blogspot.com
1815
Member
1393 days
gfd posted 45 weeks ago.
jsk85 wrote:
SerialKiller wrote:
but here's the question if you could compete in an IM for $100 or a no name compitions for $80. which would you pick?Unfortunately, it's more like...if you can compete in an IM for $550+, or a no name competition for $250, which would you pick.
The price discrepency you chose made it not as big a deal as the actual difference. And the gap is likely to grow larger with this new developing situation
That is the question any triathlete attempting to go 140.6 miles is faced with. I choose to go indy for price, location, convenience, and the fact that it makes no difference to me what logo is on the finish line chute. I thought it might when I chose to do Chesapeakeman, but not in the least. The m-dot is a powerful marketing tool as well as hearing the words "You are an Ironman!".
One day I would love to take on IM UK. It seems to go under the radar and the course description sounds incredible. The swim and run take pace on the grounds of a castle. The sacrifice my family would have to make for me to do that would far outweigh the pleasure I would get from competing in it.
"If we help someone else up a steep hill, we get nearer to the top ourselves." ~Unknown~
~Garen~
http://baldhungariantriproject.blogspot.com/
Looks like WTC bought the Ironmans from NA Sports.
http://www.xtri.com/features_display.aspx?riIDReport=5246&CAT=25