[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals

[Ron Van Putte]

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail from Randa Coats at AMA,  
"Your banquet total last year was around $4500.00.  The charges were  
as follows $100 for AV equipment rental, $250 for building rental,  
$3532.50 for food for 150 people (breaks down to about $23.55 per  
person) and then a service charge of $671.18.  All banquets held  
there last year were a bit pricier than usual."

AMA organized the banquet, as well as arranging for meeting rooms for  
judge certification and the NSRCA board meeting.

Ron Van Putte

On May 2, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Grow Pattern wrote:

> I was talking about 2005 not 2006.
>
> You know I wasn't asking or referring to 2006, but now you come to  
> mention it and you have, as you say, exact information on how much  
> money was spent,
>
> What was the cost breakdown for the 2006 banquet
>
> I ask because this number is being used as a "decision maker" and  
> we should know exactly how it was derived.
>
> I'd like  to know, as an NSRCA member, exactly how much the items  
> cost for the 2006 banquet and how much we collected. You should  
> know exactly the meal cost, the room rental, the audio equipment  
> cost etc.
>
> To be $34 per head prices, must have gone up considerably since 2005!
>
> The NSRCA did roll up all of the costs that I mentioned below into  
> one figure in 2005. The meal was pretty close to $25 per head. The  
> tickets were $25 per head per adult with 10 free tickets.
>
> If it was $34 a head are you saying that we subsidized the meal in  
> 2006?
>
> Before you do your usual on me, try and remember that the example  
> that I gave below, was how a specific number was arrived at but  
> when you took it apart the conclusion you could draw could be very  
> different than the point that was originally being made.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric.
>
> P.S. I almost forgot, did the NSRCA organize the banquet or did  
> they hand that job over to the AMA?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Derek Koopowitz
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 3:52 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals
>
> 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  
> 112.5 people. (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
> To: Discussion -NSRCA
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070502/4030b129/attachment-0001.html