[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals

Wed May 2 11:52:28 AKDT 2007

Just to be clear - we know exactly how much money we spend on the Nats for
each of the items that Eric has outlined below.  We have the bills from the
AMA which shows how much the actual dinner cost us - including rental of the
facility.  Trophies and awards are NOT included in that cost as they are
separate.  The $34 per head cost was based purely on the convention center
cost.  There are no hidden/extra costs included in that amount.

This year we've budgeted $3500 for the banquet - so whatever bill we get
from the country club will hopefully be close to that amount (or less).

Here is our budget (May K-F):

NATS Expenses

Awards 800.00

Banquet 3,500.00

Event Director 600.00

Impound Personnel 300.00

Judges 1,000.00

Line Manager Site 1 240.00

Line Manager Site 3 240.00

Line Manager Site 4 240.00

Meeting Expenses 350.00

NSCRA Award BBQ 1,000.00

Planning Meeting 450.00

Postage 80.00

Scoring HQ 300.00

Scoring Site 4 180.00

Site 1 Site Director 240.00

Site 3 Site Director 240.00

Site 4 Site Director 240.00

Supplies 250.00

TOTAL NATS Expenses 10,250.00
Hopefully we break even on this...

On 5/2/07, Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  What I worry and wonder about the most is how we just accept a number and
> then beat the death out of something when there is no real data, or the data
> is suspect or even wrong in the first place.
>
> The first number that I read was that the AMA lost $25K running the Nat's.
> Then later on I read that they had not been tracking it very well. That
> should immediately raise a doubt about the number of $25K.
>
> - Then I began to wonder if the number included the two locations that are
> used to run the Nat's. (Not all of te Nat's is run at Muncie).
>
> - Then I thought about the running costs of the AMA site at Muncie. *After
> all, It runs whether the Nat's are there or not.* So if we extract
> ONLY the additional Nationals related costs only, what are they really?
>
> - Beyond the field, maintenance what is the EXTRA cost to the AMA
> associated with the running all of the events that constitute a Nationals.
>
> - Then I asked myself what are the costs related to *just running PATTERN*. Do
> they have contest related equipment already, or do they buy new stuff such
> as tents etc. just for us.
>
> - I know that they put out the box poles and provide some PA equipment,
> but are extra summer workers hired for just us?  and what is the cost for
> the four days that we are there.
>
>
>
> ======================================================================================================================
> In my business life I have seen numbers used to prove many a point ,but
> almost every time the numbers did not hold up to close examination.
>
> In our case (pattern). In 2005 we raised around $10,400 in pattern entry
> fees. ( I say "around" because there are a few late-entry fee entries that
> are twice the normal fee and are hard to track). Our important number is
> that we received $ $6755 from the AMA after they took their cut. The AMA's
> important number is that they receive the balance which as a round number of
> was in the region of $3600.
>
> Is that enough to cover what we cost them? The year before the AMA claimed
> that they had lost $12,000 running the Nat's. Now it is a $25,000 loss.  The
> only action that I know of that took place was to increase the AMA entrance
> fee portion by $10.
>
> - What is more important is to ask what;
>
> a) Difference did the fee increase make, and
>
> b) Why did the costs still go up so much.
>
> c) Was anything done to reduce costs.
>
> The real problem is that what you are being fed as factual money data is
> "roll-up-accounting" at its worst. The devil may be in the details but so is
> the answer. You cannot solve a fiscal problem if you don't know which part
> is failing or broken.
>
>
>
> ======================================================================================================================
>
> Accounting roll-ups are the real  emery of all good decision making.
>
> Let me give you a small example of what I mean. I am familiar with the
> Pattern Nat's banquet. I read in the K-factor that the banquet cost was too
> high and that another venue, [probably the golf club] would be used again.
>
> The number used was something like $34 a head and we should not subsidize
> the meal. This looked similar to the 2005 number that I managed. On the
> surface of it looked like good logic. BUT I happen to know also that a bunch
> of other costs were dumped into the "banquet bucket"  in 2005.
>
> The true cost of the banquet meal is the vendor charge minus the money
> collected for meal tickets. In short,we collected $2,560 from 112.5people. (This was comprised of adult meals, kids meals and 10 comp. tickets
> for people like the Event director plus wife, AMA Contest director plus
> wife, other key AMA officials and the HQ scoring staff plus guest.  The
> tickets were $25 per head. The NSRCA subsidized the actual meal by $250.
>
> Now  for the hidden costs! the NSRCA holds and hosts a general meeting at
> the Banquet so it eats the costs for the hall ($200 and microphone/podium
> stuff etc.) reasonable so far. Then you add any trophies and awards etc.
> Then the cost for the NSRCA board meeting the night before, (we feed them
> way past midnight) was put in there. And then the costs for the finals
> "free" meal and awards ceremony. [Note- NSRCA trophies we pay for. AMA
> trophies we do not].
>
> All of these relatively small items gradually pushed the "roll-up
> accounting banquet" number up to nearly $4000.
>
> Now you have a number that you can divide, say by 115 contestants and you
> get $34. It is a good number that good people can and will tie their
> argument to, but it is just plain WRONG data that give a wrong conclusion.
>
> Back to the shop.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric.
>
>
>
>  *From:* Jerry Stebbins <JAStebbins at worldnet.att.net>
>
>  *To:* Discussion -NSRCA <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 01, 2007 5:26 PM
> *Subject:* [NSRCA-discussion] Muncie's reason to exist
>
>
>
> Tony,I do know, and as voiced by others around at the time, that Muncie
> was defined, justified and implemented as a common location to hold AMA NATS
> Events. Whatever else it did, or could do, was secondary.
> That being the case, why isn't the real question "How do we expand all the
> NATS and cover any associated expenses".
> We have heard these same old complaints about the NATS for many years, and
> yet the EC seems to let them fester, rather than solving them.
> I also have heard threats that if "it" don't get fixed then the NATS will
> go away. I have news for that position-if AMA takes that road--they will go
> away since  they could not stand a large Membership reduction. They could
> quickly be replaced by a new viable "service the membership" organization
> holding all the NATS! Maybe that is what they want?
> Wonder what the Greater Muncie CoC would have to say about that?
> The cost deficit I have heard has always been expressed based upon
> Membership $. What about the large $s given to AMA every year by
> donations/bequests, and what about Event fees? How about all the revenue
> taken in from the family members and contestants on shirts/caps/whatever,
> and at the Museum?  Don't they all provide additional resources, or are
> new tasks/jobs created to absorb them. Maybe the answer is to reduce overall
> AMA growth/costs.
> The majority of facilities/support items
> (tents,tables,trailers,chairs,etc.) used to support the NATS are already
> sunk costs-with typical periodic maintenance  or replacement costs.
> What is it that "doesn't get done" for the time when a few staff support
> the NATS, rather than their "normal" jobs?
> It would be interesting to hear a candid position of each Member of the
> EC, to see what they actually think
> the role of AMA at Muncie is.
> It sounds like they may have in mind a totally different mission for
> Muncie than was originally defined.
> Looks like that would be a good project for AMA Members from each AMA
> District to find out.
> In any case it smells like AMA is moving away from a "service the
> Membership" mentality, and towards a "do more-different/create more" growth
> business mentality, using complaints/costs as a justification.
> Jerry
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070502/41fb3224/attachment.html 