Mitch: >From a personal standpoint, I endorse Fran's concerns. As I mentioned in an earlier message, there will be a meeting next Wednesday night of our program's principal advisers and we shall be discussing this issue in depth. I anticipate an official position to follow.
Joe Sullivan Director, Sailing Operations Fordham University Sailing Team On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Fran Charles <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Mitch- > > 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. > > -- > Franny Charles > MIT Sailing Master > > Jack Wood Sailing Pavilion > 3 Ames St. > Cambridge, MA 02142 > > Pavilion 617-253-4884 > Office 617-253-2875 > Mobile 857-221-0828 > > http://sailing.mit.edu/ > > > ________________________________________________ > icsa mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.collegesailing.org/mailman/?listname=icsa > Unsubscribe: Send a blank email to [email protected] > ________________________________________________ icsa mailing list [email protected] http://www.collegesailing.org/mailman/?listname=icsa Unsubscribe: Send a blank email to [email protected]
