thu210pm08, Nove02beSun, 10 Feb 2008 18:58:07 +0000 11, 2007...08:46p02
USPA Polo Properties-what’s going on?
When is the U. S. polo community going to ask questions about the USPA Polo Properties and the monies that are supposed to be generated from it?
It is depicted as a “wholly-owned” subsidiary of the USPA with a mission to secure a long term source of income for the Association by licensing its trademarks in commerce throughout the world.
Now I don’t know about the rest of you, but the most exposure I see the clothing line getting is on the “Cops” TV show in the evenings.
That aside, how much money is being generated and where is it going? (The properties website indicates that since its incorporation in 1981, “the U. S. Polo Association has realized total global retail sales of nearly $1 billion”). Does the Association have any plan for the ongoing distribution of the income? What are the goals or objectives which the Association hopes to accomplish with the monies and what are the salaries of the staff of the USPA Properties?
David Cummings is the former Director of the USPA who I believe directed a vast sum of money to be spent to upgrade the computer system for the USPA only to find out it was neither cost effective in the long run nor compatible with any other systems the USPA used.
When he saw that the real money was in USPA Properties, he jumped ship to intern under a licensing professional that was brought aboard by Merle Jenkins. Once he learned as much as he needed to learn, he cut the professional loose and hired his wife to help him run USPA Properties. What are these people getting paid (with no previous training in this field) and what additional perks (travel, expenses, etc.) do they receive? If this is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the USPA, why can’t the membership be informed of these facts?
Doesn’t anyone wnt to know about these things?
5 Comments
thu212am08, Nove02beTue, 12 Feb 2008 06:38:12 +0000 11, 2007 at 08:46p02
First of all I would like to thank you Backhander for taking the time and effort to put all of these issues on the table for all to see.
I personally would like to have the answers to the questions you raise–or at least a good lie from the USPA
thu224am08, Nove02beSun, 24 Feb 2008 01:11:28 +0000 11, 2007 at 08:46p02
I share some of your questions about the long-term effects and uses of the funds the USPA receives from USPA Properties. I do not share your interpretation of the role of David Cummings in the changes to USPA Properties’ management that occured some 4yrs ago.
When David became executive director of the USPA, his job descriptionwas simple:he was to be the CEO of the association.when he began to inquire into the operations and financial condition of USPA Properties, the association’s wholly-owned subsidiary, he stirred up a hornets nest.the properties’ board and the management company,Polo Ventures(aka Merle Jenkins) pitched a fit. When he pointed out tHe absurdity of being tasked to be a CEO but excluded from any information about the association’s largest revenue producer, that really made them mad. However, an arrangement was made for the then USPA Chairman, Orrin Ingram, to provide him with certain basic information–to be determined by the Properties’ , not the USPA, board. The upshot was that for merely attempting to do his job Mr. Cummings made powerful enemies who were not shy about expressing their anger and the view that he was power-hungry. He of course could not reply in kind, so the myths about him went unanswered.
Fast-forward many battles and a couole of years later and Polo Ventures’ management contract was up for renewal. Ventures proposed to in effect “buy” the USPA’s logos, images, and promotional rights in general for a guaranteed $250,000/yr. payment for a period of years. that was coincidently about the amount of that year’s operating deficit. The Properties’ board and some of the uUSPAs board thought the USPA should take the deal-”it’s $250,000 more than we have now”. To illustrate what an inadequate proposal it was, the USPA now receives TWELVE TIMES that amount each year from the current Properties’ arrangement.
A major rift occurred in the association’s governing bodies between those who backed Ventures’ proposal and those who insisted on a better deal. There are still hard feelings on both sides of the argument. But there is no question the association is better off today than it would have been. in the end Ventures lost its management contract, but don’t be too concerned, they got a buyout worth lots more than they were offering the association. this was an instance of the USPA Board of Governors taking seriously its fiduciary duty to the members, at some considerable cost to comity and the spirit of consensus they usually try to achieve. I note that because the governors almost never get credit for acting that way,but they do more often than most members know. Interestingly, David Cummings, as USPA Executive Dirctor, everone’s favorite whipping boy, was odered to the sidelines. this battle was actually waged by and among the Board of Governors.
As to your comment that David interned under a professional and the pushed him out so that he could make the big bucks himself, that is hogwash.
Since Ventures was out and since they had saddled Properties with an empolye they had been ordered on Ventures’ payroll, properties had to honor the existing contract. While he was knowledgeable about the clothing business, he was nobody who worked wtih him’s idea of a CEO. so for a year and a half David Cummings acted as CEO of both the USPA and USPA Proerties. It was too much. the association’s Executive Committee and the new properties board of directors wanted him at properties. They then got a very knowledgeable and capable “polo guy” to be the USPA Executive Director.
Many people who read this will know that David Cummings and iIare friends of many years standing. Lest you think i’m just a “cheerleader” here, you should know that in his second year as Properties’ CEO, David terminated the license of a company I owned a piece of and to which I loaned money for working capital. He and I still disagree about the necessity of the action he took. But there was, and is, no question that he acted in what he believed to be the best interests of Properties and the Association.
thu409pm08, Nove04beWed, 09 Apr 2008 20:01:22 +0000 11, 2007 at 08:46p04
i find it mildly amusing that two months after a factual response to rather vaguely stated accusations about uspa properties, there has been no futher comment. i wonder if that bespeaks an attitude of antagonistic apathy in the polo community at large, or at least as represented at backhander.
thu413am08, Nove04beSun, 13 Apr 2008 08:16:31 +0000 11, 2007 at 08:46p04
As amused as you might be, you had a hand on the steering wheel of the Association in the past as a Circuit Governor, and I hope today that you can see how difficult it is for the membership to learn anything about the workings of the Association. Just the other I asked a Governor-at-Large if he knew how much money Properties produced. He admitted that he didn’t. I asked him how much the Association received from Properties. He admitted that he didn’t. I asked him if he knew what the Association’s long-term plans were for the Properties income, again, he admitted that he didn’t.
You step up to speak out for your friend David Cummings at Properties and probably offered the members more information than they would ever have learned from the Association.
Me, I dont like operations that keep everyone in the dark. They make me nervous.
I don’t like to think that when I go to Properties website David’s name is not mentioned. His wife’s name is not mentioned. And I wonder why.
You, on the other hand you speak of a rift by the governing bodies that still exists today. Name the players on each side. I think you will find that the people who were supporting the ouster of the Jenkins deal are gone-to a man. There is no tolerance for those who might oppose the inner circle.
thu416am08, Nove04beWed, 16 Apr 2008 02:33:27 +0000 11, 2007 at 08:46p04
I too believe the association to be a little too economical with information. I agree that more open communication would be a good thing. Too much uninformed speculation is the inevitable result of not enough information. I think that nefarious motives are too often imputed to people who are just doing what they believe to be right, and are doing what they believe to be their best in what is, after all, a volunteer position that is in fact a real expense to maintain.
There is real difficulty in developing long term solutions and a strategic approach to problem-solving in an orgaization managed by volunteers who meet 2 or 3 times a year. Ultimately, the resources provided by Properties’ income will lead to greater reliance on professional managers who help develop as well as implement policy. That time isn’t here yet. A consensus has not yet been achieved as to what a long term goal the association should be striving toward. Nevertheless, I am heartened that those in charge are husbanding the Properties’ funds rather than rushing out to realize a bunch of half-baked pet projects.
I agree with the point you seem to be making in some of your other comments that US polo is being outsourced to Argentina, but I’m not sure yet what the USPA ought to do about it and I damn sure don’t want to see the USPA rush head-long into some form of protectionism, or throw money at what may or may not be a real problem.
As an aside, many of those who opposed the Jenkins contract are still in place. The “inner circle” you refer to is not near as cohesive as you and many others seem to think. There is room for disagreement, there is just an institutional bias against it. The board was traumatized by the battle over Properties. There is no taste to repeat it. This leads to inertia and an avoidance of bold initiatives. That is not an entirely bad thing in this kind of organization, but it does lead to frustration in the ranks.
You would do well to speculate less about ulterior motives and more about solutions to the problems you sometimes correctly identify. There are officers and governors who share some of those concerns, but at a minimum cost of over $10,000 ayear to serve, they don’t like being told that they are busy pursuing some private advantage. Some may be, but most are not and they are very protective of the wider interest.
Leave a Reply