PWT Super Pro Payout

[JLDII]

The negativity bothers me is all, and I'm not exactly an outsider when it comes to this subject either. I just wonder what an outsiders perspective would be and the impression they would carry away from this with all the bickering thats going on.

Surfice it to say, if any group should know how to put all their oars in the water and pull in the same direction, you would have to think it would be fishermen!

By the way, have I told you lately how much more I enjoy guiding....it does have its advantages!;-)

Why do you think the Super Pros through the coordination of NPAA and advisory council got together to ask for a vote on lowering their entry fees??? Do you honestly think they were getting big checks from their sponsors??? AND do you honestly think the NPAA and Advisory council which is pretty much the same guys didn't agree to approach them on this subject? or maybe a couple of pros who couldn't afford the 3000 bucks approached the PWT and asked them to poll the group? Do you think the PWT would listen to anyone but the top anglers? There has been absolutely no voice from the guys that will keep these tours going in the future, and that is just the way the top anglers want it...

How was the NPAA involved?

As far as I know, The advisory council had nothing to do with the entire mess that has transpired with this whole pwt super pro deal. I firmly believe if it went to the advisory council, you would have not seen the issues we are dealing with today.
From what I can see, the pwt relied heavily on the voices of a few of the pro's and forgot about the majority.
Jon T

So the PWT just decided to lower the superpro entry fees by a grand on each event..the idea to vote had to come from the powers that be...period...or it wouldn't have happened..too bad the powers that be aren't thinking about anybody else......also a good point on a previous post....no MWC anglers on the exec board, no anglers that solely fish the FLW....interesting....

[Jim Carroll]

I believe the reason why most of the anglers voted to lower the entry fee to 2K was simple economics. The payback percentage with a 2K entry fee was more favorable to the anglers vs. a 3K entry fee, and there is still enough money in the purse to make it worthwhile.

At 2K, the % of payback is 159% for the first 3 events, and 208% for the last event. At 3K, those numbers would be 139% and 171% respectively.

Also, some of the guys may have wanted to reduce their cash outlay and risk. Risk? You have to beat about thirty of the toughest sticks in the business just to cash a check...there are no weak links.

The % of payback vs. entry fee looks pretty good to me and hopefully the promotional opportunities will be there too. I think these are some of the reasons why nearly all of the guys that qualified will be fishing these events. Jim Carroll NPAA #333

[Fish_on]

"I'm not positive about the In-Fish and Insider numbers, since they rarely share any valuable information"

Not true at all. They are required to publish their numbers annually.

Sponsor obligations and pressure. Or possibly that most anglers need to fish more than just 4 events (FLW) to be able to gain the most sponsor bucks.

The concept of the Super Pros are fine, the problem is there is an entry fee. They need to have the Elite or Majors like BASS has with no entry fees for these Super Pros. This way the PWT could focus on producing a professional television program, maybe hire Jerry McKinnis' group, and truly highlight the pros who fish this elite field.

The ROI is not good when compared to the FLW.

No matter what many of you think, true pro anglers are concerned about the payouts and want good return for their investment. Yep, the big bucks are made from sponsor endorsements for a few, but the 6-figure wins the BASS and FLW bass guys have, not to mention paying $10,000 to the person in 50th, and now some of the FLW walleye pros have a shot at 6-figures in cash for a win during the regular season make things worthwhile to pursue above and beyond their sponsor salaries if they actually have any.

BTW - Very few pros actually have salaries from sponsors. At least the kind of sponsor money that some would could consider a good income. This makes tournament paybacks all the more important.

[Fish_on]

"The In-Fish products are generally regional in nature, the upper Midwest/walleye country, whereas the FLW Outdoors is national and it sounds like soon to be international."

Sorry but you are dead wrong on this one too. If you request a media kit from each organization you will discover that In-Fisherman has a wider geographic reach than FLW outdoors.

And if a super pro is verbalizing those concerns, think about what just happened to the other 100 or so guys that fished the PWT that didn't get asked....now the sponsors they worked very hard to promote, are now looking at them saying, sorry, you didn't make the cut...we are not going to be able to do what we have done in the past for you. So many will either have to bite the bullet and load up the credit cards, or the trail will have to count on new faces hoping they will be willing to load up their credit cards...personally, I think it would have been a better move to say we are going to start this tour in "08" and will take the next three years record into account. There would have been a better mix of people who are walking the walk now instead of using earnings that were added in 12 years ago when few actually fished the tour. Many of those guys do very little in promotion today...No seminars...just rode the good ole days into the elite tour... Probably would have had much less backlash as anglers would know the deadline is coming...also the young controvercial rookies would have earned their spot and no one could complain.....By the way...I could also see number 56 filing a great big law suit over the sponsor exceptions....that is discrimination....