[NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals
Grow Pattern
pattern4u at comcast.net
Wed May 2 14:41:55 AKDT 2007
Thank you Ron.
I am only trying to submit the argument that $ numbers can mean different things when rolled up and you can't see the breakdown. I was not trying to get into your NSRCA bag!
When I look at these details I might draw different conclusions to you. Of course I might not, but the now data is clear to both us all. A desired position to be in.
My take would be that the number of meals booked (We have to give banquet center a number in advance and then pay for that number no matter what) was too high.
I would quickly add that it is a pure gamble that any banquet organizer has to make. If you guess too low, then you have unhappy attendees and if you guess too high, you (the NSRCA) eat the bill. At 120 attendees you would have only had $3000 to offset the $3532.
My conclusion would be that the other costs, except for the service cost, were NSRCA meeting costs and not the responsibility of the banquet bill.
Now you know what went wrong and what it really costing what, you are infinitely better equipped to make a better decision or make a new and better plan.
So back to what I was really talking about before my example dragged me off topic.
What are the real additional costs for the AMA when our nationals are hosted by the AMA?
To get there we need to know the real costs, in detail, to the AMA when we are there running a nationals event in Muncie. Then what would be the AMA costs, in the same detail, if we were not there.
We can do the math!
Regards,
Eric.
----- Original Message -----
From: Derek Koopowitz
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] NSRCA contrubution to nationals
And to follow on to Ron's email... the price was given for 150 people but we never even came close to that many people attending. I'm not sure of the exact attendance but I'm sure it was around 120 people (or way less).
On 5/2/07, Ron Van Putte <vanputte at cox.net> wrote:
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?
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
_______________________________________________
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/b77d5a9e/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list