PDA

View Full Version : Who is in charge here?? USFSA take charge!!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Debbie S
05-05-2010, 07:07 PM
Do I think that Smuckers didn't want him hired in 2008 or for guest appearances in 2010? Do I think that USFS was unhappy about Weir being the only US medalist in 2008 and that the 7th place finisher at US Nationals would have been preferable? Yes and yes. Can I prove it? No and no.I think USFS was very happy that Johnny medaled at 08 Worlds. I think they were disappointed that he was the only one - particularly with B/A finishing 4th when they were the favorites to win after DomShabs withdrew. But I don't see how the USFSA being disappointed with a less-than-stellar showing overall means they were disappointed about Johnny - after all, he was really their only hope in the men's event after Evan withdrew.

I don't think Kimmie and Johnny's appearances (or lack thereof) on SOI that year had anything to do with the USFSA. Kimmie is an IMG client and I believe she had a multi-year contract with SOI (even in 07, she did a few winter shows and then did COI after Worlds). I'm sure when SOI signed her to a contract they were not expecting her to finish 7th at 08 Nats.

aftershocks
05-05-2010, 08:37 PM
I believe that the only "family friendly leaks" have come from Johnny's agent.

I may be wrong on that, but I don't recall any other spokesperson saying anything of the kind.


Apparently the report was originally blogged here:

http://glaadblog.org/2010/03/11/johnny-weir-deemed-not-family-friendly-enough-to-perform-in-stars-on-ice-tour/

The source who provided the information, as indicated, wished to remain anonymous. I'm sure (actually, I know) there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Who knows, maybe GLAAD inquired of IMG why Johnny wasn't invited to tour, and an anonymous source told them and then it was reported. I think it's a stretch to say that Johnny came out first with the claim he wasn't invited because he wasn't considered "family friendly." (Unless you choose to believe he or his agent is the anonymous source). It was the media who brought up to Johnny the report about the "not family friendly" comment. Contrary to what many believe, I don't think Johnny seeks out attention, he doesn't need to. Very similar to Adam Lambert, Johnny is someone with talent and charisma, and that attracts attention as well as fans and critics. There's a thin line between love and hate.

As I said previously, it's often hard to dig beneath the cockeyed surface of things. "Only love is real. Everything else illusion, adding to the confusion."

While Johnny and Evan hopefully move forward, the war continues between fear and the sport's PTB, and between fans with varying opinions, experiences, illusions, delusions, and maybe not a few denials and repressions, perhaps even jealousies.

But remember, "only love is real," and that's what I feel when I watch a joyous, in-the-zone skating performance, such as Pang/Tong 2010 Olympics; Davis & White 2010 Olympics; Shen & Zhao 2003 Worlds, 2004 Worlds lp; Savchenko & Szolkowy 2007 Europeans; Michelle Kwan 1998/ 2004 Nationals, 2003 Worlds, 1996 Worlds, 1998 World Professionals; Rudy Galindo 1996 Nationals; Johnny Weir 2004 Nationals, 2004 TEB, 2006 Nationals sp and numerous exhibitions; Brian Boitano 1988 Olympics; Paul Wylie - his transcendant professional performances; Toller Cranston - practically his entire career.

igniculus
05-05-2010, 08:38 PM
I believe that the only "family friendly leaks" have come from Johnny's agent.

I may be wrong on that, but I don't recall any other spokesperson saying anything of the kind.

You are right on this. All the BS and petitioning started after Johnny's agent told the leader of the Johnny fan board this information and she set up the petition.

Cheylana
05-05-2010, 08:42 PM
You are right on this. All the BS and petitioning started after Johnny's agent told the leader of the Johnny fan board this information and she set up the petition.
Johnny needs a new agent, like yesterday. She comes across as really unprofessional and bargain-basement. I bet a better agent would have gotten Johnny on the SOI tour.

BlueRidge
05-05-2010, 08:45 PM
Apparently the report was originally blogged here:

http://glaadblog.org/2010/03/11/johnny-weir-deemed-not-family-friendly-enough-to-perform-in-stars-on-ice-tour/

The source who provided the information, as indicated, wished to remain anonymous. I'm sure (actually, I know) there's a lot that goes on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Who knows, maybe GLAAD inquired of IMG why Johnny wasn't invited to tour, and an anonymous source told them and then it was reported. I think it's a stretch to say that Johnny came out first with the claim he wasn't invited because he wasn't considered "family friendly." (Unless you choose to believe he or his agent is the anonymous source). It was the media who brought up to Johnny the report about the "not family friendly" comment. Contrary to what many believe, I don't think Johnny seeks out attention, he doesn't need to. Very similar to Adam Lambert, Johnny is someone with talent and charisma, and that attracts attention as well as fans and critics. There's a thin line between love and hate.

As I said previously, it's often hard to dig beneath the cockeyed surface of things. "Only love is real. Everything else illusion, adding to the confusion."

While Johnny and Evan hopefully move forward, the war continues between fear and the sport's PTB, and between fans with varying opinions, experiences, illusions, delusions, and maybe not a few denials and repressions, perhaps even jealousies.

But remember, "only love is real," and that's what I feel when I watch a joyous, in-the-zone skating performance, such as Pang/Tong 2010 Olympics; Davis & White 2010 Olympics; Shen & Zhao 2003 Worlds, 2004 Worlds lp; Savchenko & Szolkowy 2007 Europeans; Michelle Kwan 1998/ 2004 Nationals, 2003 Worlds, 1996 Worlds, 1998 World Professionals; Rudy Galindo 1996 Nationals; Johnny Weir 2004 Nationals, 2004 TEB, 2006 Nationals sp and numerous exhibitions; Brian Boitano 1988 Olympics; Paul Wylie - his transcendant professional performances; Toller Cranston - practically his entire career.

Its all been discussed previously in at least 3 million five hundred thousand two hundred and thirty-three threads, but the main one I believe was the one started by the same poster who started this thread and you can find it here:

http://www.fsuniverse.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72275&highlight=Johnny+weir

Prancer
05-05-2010, 08:48 PM
You are right on this. All the BS and petitioning started after Johnny's agent told the leader of the Johnny fan board this information and she set up the petition.

Yes, all the stuff with GLAAD came way after the petition and the furor on the messageboards, so the "anonymous source" consulted by GLAAD also happened after that, as did the media attention. So saying the media brought it to Johnny first---uh, no.

And I might add that at no point is the "anonymous source" attributed to ANYONE at IMG, so I don't know where that came from.

BlueRidge
05-05-2010, 08:51 PM
GLAAD stated to me in an email communication that the anonymous source was anonymous. But they assured me that the anonymous source surely was a source, just one that wanted to stay anonymous. :P

kwanfan1818
05-05-2010, 10:08 PM
I don't think Kimmie and Johnny's appearances (or lack thereof) on SOI that year had anything to do with the USFSA. Kimmie is an IMG client and I believe she had a multi-year contract with SOI (even in 07, she did a few winter shows and then did COI after Worlds). I'm sure when SOI signed her to a contract they were not expecting her to finish 7th at 08 Nats.
I don't think the USFS specifically kept Weir off the tour, but if they had any influence, which was suggested earlier in the thread, I don't see them pushing him forward.

danceronice
05-05-2010, 11:04 PM
Well, a book doesn't need to be great literature to earn a lot of royalties. ;)

But I agree that I'll probably read more from the book on FSU than I would ever want to pay for.


The majority of books don't earn any royalties at all. Unless you get a very unusual contract, authors are normally paid an advance, and then if the book earns out its advance they recieve royalties on it. Most books never earn out and end up remaindered. Or, as Clive James so brilliantly put it, "The book of my enemy has been remaindered, and I am pleased." (http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/bookofmyenemy.html)

kwanfan1818
05-05-2010, 11:14 PM
Or to be technical about it, the royalties earned are applied against an advance until/if they exceed the advance, in which case the author earns royalties in excess of the advance.

From a recent article in The New Yorker called "Publish or Perish: Can the iPad topple the Kindle, and save the book business?"


They also give advances on royalties, without which most writers of nonfiction could not afford to research new books. The industry produces more than a hundred thousand books a year, seventy per cent of which will not earn back the money that their authors have been advanced; aside from returns, royalty advances are by far publishers’ biggest expense. Although critics argue that traditional book publishing takes too much money from authors, in reality the profits earned by the relatively small percentage of authors whose books make money essentially go to subsidizing less commercially successful writers. The system is inefficient, but it supports a class of professional writers, which might not otherwise exist.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/04/26/100426fa_fact_auletta?currentPage=all#ixzz0n60CFRb i

Ziggy
05-05-2010, 11:31 PM
Contrary to what many believe, I don't think Johnny seeks out attention, he doesn't need to.

Yeah, right. How do you think he's managed to build his D-list celebrity career?

Prancer
05-05-2010, 11:34 PM
The majority of books don't earn any royalties at all. Unless you get a very unusual contract, authors are normally paid an advance, and then if the book earns out its advance they recieve royalties on it. Most books never earn out and end up remaindered. Or, as Clive James so brilliantly put it, "The book of my enemy has been remaindered, and I am pleased." (http://torch.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/bookofmyenemy.html)

Too true; Sue Grafton was on her fourth or fifth alphabet book--all bestsellers--before she could quit her day job and just write.

But celebrities generally get a bigger advance than most first-time authors, so Johnny should have gotten a tidy advance, if not, say, something in the A-list celebrity class.


Yeah, right. How do you think he's managed to build his D-list celebrity career?

Natural charisma and charm, of course.

rfisher
05-05-2010, 11:34 PM
Well, a book doesn't need to be great literature to earn a lot of royalties. ;)

But I agree that I'll probably read more from the book on FSU than I would ever want to pay for.
!

Great literature never makes any money. :lol: In fact, unless you're Nora Roberts, Charlaine Harris or Stephanie Twilightperson and sell millions and millions of copies, you don't make money on books. The author averages a dollar or less/per copy after all is said and done. Sometimes they get less than 50 cents/per copy sold. The few thousand skating fans who might buy won't pay the cost of printing. So, everybody get yours early. It'll be a first and only edition. :D In fact, if books don't sell a certain amount within a certain time, the publisher often demands them back and trashes the copies. I've never been certain exactly what the thinking on that is, but they do it.

Ziggy
05-05-2010, 11:53 PM
Natural charisma and charm, of course.

:D

agalisgv
05-06-2010, 12:03 AM
Once he accused the sponsors of discrimination, it was Game Over. That he didn't have the balls to stick with his story made him lose my respect. I think he didn't stick with the story because the story was untrue.