I voted for Shawn Sinclair and Kevin McCoy. Out of curiosity why do you fell that the other candidates are not remotely close to what the PDGA needs?
That's probably a conversation best conducted by PM.
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
I voted for Shawn Sinclair and Kevin McCoy. Out of curiosity why do you fell that the other candidates are not remotely close to what the PDGA needs?
That's probably a conversation best conducted by PM.
Probably more accurate to say the Pros expect money to be added, and don't give much thought as to where it comes from.
TD's who are delinquent in payments to the PDGA are placed on the disciplinary list and prevented from running future tournaments, right? Not always. Some, who may be thousands of dollars delinquent, are not placed on the list and may still run events. These are judged by the Office as making a "good faith" effort to repay, and the idea is that they can make up the money they owe by running more events. Their names are concealed, and all this is regarded as good for the membership. I disagree.
The members most affected by this practice are those who enter a delinquent TD's next event. As far as they know, the TD is all square with the PDGA. They are prevented from knowing that the TD is running this event to repay fees owing from previous events. But that knowledge might be an important factor in their decision whether to enter the event or not.
I can understand why the PDGA might want to work with certain delinquent TD's, and give them a break. At the same time I have the same edgy feeling I have about government bailout programs extended to those who are considered "too big" or "too important" to fail. I wonder about the justification for extending special favors to some, while others end up being suspended. Although I wonder about those things, I do not protest them. I am content to leave them as an "Office decision", rather than a matter for the Board.
I only protest the secrecy. Partly this is because I very strongly favor maximum transparency on principle. But there is even more here. The secrecy in this case is deliberate. Its intent is to prevent PDGA members from making informed decisions, and for that reason I consider it to be particularly objectionable.
This clearly demonstrates what a toothless tiger you are Shive.
Where is the archived footage og Jonathan Gomez' 4 days of live coverage, that DGP.tv also provided for that amount? I need that information to make the comparison.John tells us that it cost over $30,000 to produce the recent Memorial video, and invites us to watch it (http://youtu.be/Q0B8eVcYgfw). Please do so, and then ask yourself what its intrinsic value should be. Ask yourself, for example, how much more it is worth than Jonathan Gomez's clip from the 2012 Pro Worlds (www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU), which cost us nothing.
Holy guacamole! Mikey Kernan has arrived. DGCR Forums are slowly morphing into the PDGA DISCussion boards of yore. Well......these boards are more tightly moderated.
Where is the archived footage og Jonathan Gomez' 4 days of live coverage, that DGP.tv also provided for that amount? I need that information to make the comparison.
The PDGA does post a list of suspended members, and the reason why. A few of them are on there for not paying fees, and the list is posted for the public to see.