[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals

Wed May 2 14:35:54 AKDT 2007

Here are our projected income numbers:

Nats Income

Banquet 3,000.00

NSRCA Share 6,050.00

TOTAL Nats Income 9,050.00

I can't give you last years numbers at the moment - it'll have to wait until
I get home.  I'm not even sure I can give you an accurate count of the # of
attendees at last years banquet either.

Eric raises some very good concerns/points about the cost of the Nats and
whether this is a feasible option to "outsource" it to other venues (aside
from Muncie).

On 5/2/07, Grow Pattern <pattern4u at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  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 112.5people. (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.
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070502/75bb867e/attachment-0001.html 