[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals

[Grow Pattern]

A budget also needs to have projected income side by side with the projected costs. It would be easier to read.

The NSRCA banquet should break approximately even. It is not a free lunch (sorry about that one !) The ticket price should closely match the food cost. No argument from me there.

In Muncie you can get a heck of a good steak for $25-35. I found it hard to sell banquet tickets at $25, even using Michelle as my ticket agent,  especially when it was a Tuesday night banquet - [not intending or trying to open that Pandora's box].

The NSRCA eats (I did it again) the cost of the hall etc. because it is also an NSRCA annual meeting and that should go in meeting expenses. In 2005 we grouped the meeting and food costs together. There were some special recognition awards etc. as well. After the NSRCA got their piece from the FAI auction the total cost of the 2005 meetings and meals was within a few dollars of the money that was collected. Basically the meeting costs were subsidized by the auction. (Most of the auction money went to the FAI team.)

That was how we did it then. Keep the nominal account for the banquet in another "bucket!"

The money from the AMA entrance fees was used for the competition event only. It is easier if you account for the "entertainment separately and don't confuse the contest budget. It is almost a red herring.

Without the Banquet-piece the Nats 2007 total budget requirement is $6750 which translates to 112.5 people needed to compete in the 2007 Nationals.

Soooooooooooooooo! - I know, where was I going with all of this? - here it comes........................ There is a point where we can't afford to run the Pattern Nationals at these rates and fees at Muncie. but it still begs the question, "Where could we afford to do it and what would the fees have to be?".

We should be looking at the mission and the quality of the event, the attractiveness, the feasibility, the goals and many other issues. You need good figures and spending rationale to get this stuff right, not just stumble into the next change. Maybe there should be qualifiers that people can get to? If picked, most people will then go wherever,

I know this much, it is way more complicated than a  statement of a loss here or a banquet there. It requires real financial skill and planning awareness to pull something  off this big and run it at and above the level we have been doing.

I am really glad that it's not my problem.

Regards,

Eric.

P.S. Thanks to you all who wrote to me off-list. I appreciate that you saw that I was opening up the thinking and not just accepting blanket number statements. To those of you who got mad at me again. Sorry, my bad!  It was not my intent, but if you don't blow smoke etc. then I won't try and clear it away - Eric,

 
      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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070502/ec23e984/attachment.html