[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals

Wed May 2 13:24:11 AKDT 2007

I know you weren't referring to 2006 - I just wanted to point out how the
$34 a head figure came about and that we know exactly how much money we'd
like to spend on the banquet in 2007 (excluding all the roll-up examples you
gave).  The AMA was involved in the procurement and organizing of the
banquet last year.  Since I had no say in that decision, I can't answer any
questions as to why... and I do not have the actual bill in front of me (it
was paid by Rusty Dose last year) and all I have is the total amount, which
worked out to around $34 a person.

So, yes, the NSRCA did subsidize the banquet last year - and the NSRCA lost
a LOT of money last year based on the numbers that we had at year-end.  My
hope is to avoid that this year and to build some respectability into our
finances for 2007 and beyond.

On 5/2/07, Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> 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 <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
> *To:* NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> *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 112.5people. (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
> >
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/d83c63c4/attachment-0001.html 