Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can Kingston stage a Diamond League [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Can Kingston stage a Diamond League [split]

    Originally posted by toyracer
    Originally posted by gh
    Hosting a DL meet requires deep-pocket sponsoring that has yet to present itself in Africa.
    gh, would a DL meet be any more expensive than our Jamaica International Invitational? We have quite a few "big names (international)" here each year, and the meet is already decently recognized. A few voices here are wondering if we were even considered for hosting a DL event. We did the WJC a few years ago, and given the recent rise in status of our athletes on the world stage it may have made sense to host a leg of the DL.

    Your thoughts?
    First thing to note is your "even considered" statement. This is an aspect of hosting meets that people just don't seem to understand. The IAAF doesn't sit down and say, "let's have a meet in Site A or Site B," whether it's part of the Circuit or a Championships.

    It sets up the sequence of meets that will be held, issues the parameters required to bid and then opens the bidding. Anybody who wants to stage a meet is free to make a bid. Not all are accepted, of course.

    So if Kingston wasn't "considered" for a DL meet, given how eager the IAAF is to spread the sport and find viable new venues, I think you can safely assume that it didn't make a bid.

    More expensive than the May meet in Kingston? Omigoodness yes.

    I don't have access to what the DL requirements would be, but note that prize money for the GL/SGP meets last year was a mandated $500,000. On top of hundreds of thousands in negotiated appearance fees.

    The Kingston meet, good as it was, probably had only 1-2 people in each event who were good enough to crack the starting lineup at the GLs this year. Think about paying appearance money for 8 of those per event.

    Then you need to start factoring in 4-star hotel and air costs, feeding everyone, etc., etc. and pretty soon you're talking real money.

    Note that in the past the Prefontaine meet, even with Nike's huge pockets as a backer, has declined to step up to that category.

    It's a very tough nut to crack.

  • #2
    Remember, too, that each DL meet will be required have 16 events, including 2 distance events, a discus, a javelin, a high jump, a triple jump, and a pole vault. None of those events were held at this year's meet in Kingston.

    Comment


    • #3
      Kingston did have 16 events last year, but only 3 of them were field events. So they would have to add 4 "unpopular" events and cut 4 "popular" ones, which is not the kind of equation a meet promoter likes to hear.

      Comment


      • #4
        Why would Kingston want to be DL? Do Jamaican fans really want to see a 5000, steeple, hammer, javelin, etc?

        DL meets will also not have every sprint, men and women, so unless they were put on as exhibition events, you'd have a meet lighter on the sprints than normal.

        Meets such as Kingston, which heavily feature local stars, are much better off staying with their own format.

        Comment


        • #5
          I would contribute that Jamaica might not be suited to host an appended DL event.

          Thus far the Jamaica Invitational is the only IAAF calender event that JA has.

          Since its inception, I've never seen it fill the stadium (about 15k out of its 40k max). I always thought a little tweaking here and there could have done the job.

          I would suggest that Jamaica could host a DL if the JA invitational were to be morphed into a DL meet, it would then qualify for more intense marketing and sponsorship. Then there would be more interest from the regional and local athletic fandom. PLUS, MVP would see it fit to put down the difference with the JAAA and get some money.

          I don't know about the current intentions regarding the JAAA, NACAC or IAAF with regards to Jamaica's bid if any to host. But I'm sure with right backing (which no DL host can do without), prize money and airfare I see Sir Richard queueing up for that sponsorship) would be seen to (minor).

          Logistics to host everyone in 4 star hotels is a no brainer. Kingston is after all, THE major international hub for Jamaican international business, which if has done nothing correct, knows how to host a couple thousand people. I would also imagine that many international fans would just make it a date a opt to stay on the north coast and then venture in to Kingston for the show

          Comment


          • #6
            Might not get the stadium to the Max+5000 at champs in weeks prior to its staging but 25k-30k should yield good returns. :lol:

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pelpa
              I would contribute that Jamaica might not be suited to host an appended DL event. ...

              what's an "appended" meet?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by gh
                Originally posted by Pelpa
                I would contribute that Jamaica might not be suited to host an appended DL event. ...

                what's an "appended" meet?
                Usain Bolt + others....

                Comment


                • #9
                  Appended as in fitting a new meet at a new date in addition to the Ja Invitational, on the Jamaican calender (calender so to speak).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh
                    I don't have access to what the DL requirements would be, but note that prize money for the GL/SGP meets last year was a mandated $500,000. On top of hundreds of thousands in negotiated appearance fees.

                    The Kingston meet, good as it was, probably had only 1-2 people in each event who were good enough to crack the starting lineup at the GLs this year. Think about paying appearance money for 8 of those per event.
                    Okay, prize money issue understood. I don't have figures for prize money offered for the JII so cannot compare at this time. One of the IAAF press releases contained the info that each DL event will have a prize fund of US$416,000.00

                    In regard to appearance fees however; I thought that part of the concept of the DL was that athletes signed contracts with the IAAF itself to compete in the meets. The term used in the IAAF press release was "The biggest stars of the sport will be engaged with centralised contracts to ensure that the best athletes take part." Another IAAF document says "most important athletes". Wouldn't those "centralised contracts" mean that individual meets would no longer have to pay money for appearance fees to the big names, and would only be concerned with other "lesser" athletes? e.g. Not having to pay Bolt US$500,000 frees up a lot of money to pay other athletes. It also appears that the DL itself will also add a "minimum promotional fee" for athletes with merits (WR, WCH, OG, ECH).

                    Then you need to start factoring in 4-star hotel and air costs, feeding everyone, etc., etc. and pretty soon you're talking real money.
                    4-star hotels, we have. Even if Kingston overflows Ocho Rios is an hour away. By mentioning "air costs" do you mean that the JII organizers would be responsible for the air travel of all athletes? Or, do the new "centralised contracts" make this redundant?

                    Note that in the past the Prefontaine meet, even with Nike's huge pockets as a backer, has declined to step up to that category.
                    Are we not now dealing with a different, new category, that does not appear to have the same "rules"? I understand that with the system in place now meets pay appearance fees to draw in the big name athletes, but the IAAF seem to have taken a giant step toward ending that practice, with the introduction of the previously mentioned "centralised contracts" It would be great to know what those contracts actually read.

                    Nothing worth doing usually comes easy. It can be done. Evidence of this is that the Prefontaine Classic is a DL event.

                    Originally posted by tandfman
                    Remember, too, that each DL meet will be required have 16 events, including 2 distance events, a discus, a javelin, a high jump, a triple jump, and a pole vault. None of those events were held at this year's meet in Kingston.
                    You are correct: There was no DT, PV, HJ, TJ, JT, 3000sc or 5000 at the JII. That's seven of the sixteen events which would have to be added. The JII held seven events which would not be on the list of sixteen, four of them being relays, two Olympic Development and one Masters event. These could actually still be on the program, just not televised, as there is provision for this in an IAAF document. Additionally at the JII, there was a doubling of some of the other disciplines, which the IAAF example of Discipline Splits seems to negate happening, unless a two day meeting is held. There is a caveat which reads "rotating principle, privileging national stars" but I doubt that allows for doubling but perhaps it is open to negotiation. After all, Jamaica has the men and women OG and WC 100m champions. The Discipline Splits may be the killer as far as a single-day Jamaican audience is concerned. Perhaps the JII would have to become a two day meeting for it to become a DL event.

                    Interesting. Thanks for the info.
                    Regards,
                    toyracer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by toyracer
                      .....
                      In regard to appearance fees however; I thought that part of the concept of the DL was that athletes signed contracts with the IAAF itself to compete in the meets. The term used in the IAAF press release was "The biggest stars of the sport will be engaged with centralised contracts to ensure that the best athletes take part." Another IAAF document says "most important athletes". Wouldn't those "centralised contracts" mean that individual meets would no longer have to pay money for appearance fees to the big names, and would only be concerned with other "lesser" athletes? e.g. Not having to pay Bolt US$500,000 frees up a lot of money to pay other athletes. It also appears that the DL itself will also add a "minimum promotional fee" for athletes with merits (WR, WCH, OG, ECH).......
                      Sorry, doesn't work that way. The "centralized contracts" aren't paid by the IAAF. The 7 meets which will have the event in question divide the cost of the contract 7 ways. So anybody who wants Bolt pays full price.

                      [let me edit this to note that if your meet has an event, and any athlete/athletes in that event have "centralized contracts" you are obliged to take them; you can't decide they're too expensive]

                      Note also that only a relative handful of athletes have these contracts. There are still dozens and dozens of (not cheap) individual deals the meets have to negotiate on their own as they build their fields. This is big business.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by gh
                        Note also that only a relative handful of athletes have these contracts. There are still dozens and dozens of (not cheap) individual deals the meets have to negotiate on their own as they build their fields. This is big business.
                        By handful, do you mean you can count them on one hand? Are we only talking Bolt, Bekele and maybe a couple of others?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Hopefully I'm a decent enough journalist that if meant counting on one hand I woulda said so! :-)

                          In the gh dictionary, "a handful" is an indeterminate number that different people would obviously determine different ways. For a meet with 150 athletes, I'd consider a dozen to be about the upper end of the range.

                          Having said that, since the whole DL concept is still being developed, I have no idea what the real number will end up being. Indeed, for all I know it could turn out to be a closely held secret.

                          It won't be an easy job, as the IAAF has to tread the fine line between providing enough megastars to "guarantee" a meet's success while at the same time not breaking their bank before they even get started.

                          I suspect the shaking-out process in the early going will be interesting. I mean, note that Berlin, one of the original Golden 4 teams, isn't even part of the new DL.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jazzcyclist
                            Originally posted by gh
                            Note also that only a relative handful of athletes have these contracts. There are still dozens and dozens of (not cheap) individual deals the meets have to negotiate on their own as they build their fields. This is big business.
                            By handful, do you mean you can count them on one hand? Are we only talking Bolt, Bekele and maybe a couple of others?
                            Not more than a dozen. That leaves a good number of big names that command many tens of thousands of dollars who aren't apart of this. And as it's been said, the money is coming from the meets anyways.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gh
                              I mean, note that Berlin, one of the original Golden 4 teams, isn't even part of the new DL.
                              But, doesn't that have more to do with the fact that Berlin won't have a track next year?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X