M~ wrote:
Lurker4 wrote:
I don't know anything about Gary Robins, but reading his post sounds like he took for granted he could just roll up and run his race and someone out maneuvered him and secured a location that he thought he had, without ever having a contract or investing in the relationships to make it happen. Ultra runners want to run a well organized race in a great location. Will UTMB offer that?
The guy that couldn't maintain the relationships or the contracts to continue holding an event is the one that should be trusted to carry on the sport? I'm suuuurrre the real hold up in his negotiations with a potential sale to Ironman was his volunteer support programs.
100% believe it was among other things.
Ironman has proved they are pretty slimy when it comes to buying up races or just moving in and forcing the little guy out. So for me, this isn't too much of a stretch to believe him 100%
Oh, I have no doubt Ironman outmanuvered him. I don't think it's slimey. If he doesn't have a long term contract with rights of refusal etc in it to protect against competition he doesn't own anything unless he owns the mountain.
So Ironman offered to buy him out, his price was too high, and Ironman smiled and said we tried the front door, now we'll go to your boss and get you locked out.
And yes the problem was his price was too high. If he approached the negotiation as he should have; with an understanding that if he didn't make this deal it meant he had no deal and possibly no race, he wouldn't have insisted on whatever volunteer bonuses etc in addition to his paycheck.
When someone with the power to shut you down legally and ethically asks you to be involved in working with them, you have the choice to work with them or lose to them. He chose to lose to them.
We all need to recognize that race directors are making money on someone else's asset. Ironman UTMB was able to offer a more attractive offer to the owner/manager of that underlying asset.
It's a breach of their land use authorities responsibility to reject UTMB out of loyalty to the previous partner. Whoever managed the mountain made the better decision to work with the company with more legal protection, more marketing reach, more organization, etc. Gary made the worse decision to enter negotiation assuming he had anything to sell at all. UTMB did him a courtesy by talking to him. He fronted that he wasn't going to come cheap. So he went for nothing at all.
Sounds terribly harsh, and I'm not meaning it to be that way. But if the guy didn't own the mountain and didn't have a multi year agreement what the heck did he think he had worth buying?!