[NSRCA-discussion] NATS cash flow
Lance Van Nostrand
patterndude at tx.rr.com
Sun May 6 16:41:10 AKDT 2007
Keith, like you I remain silent because this is too silly to discuss. I know I'm not the only businessman on this list but this is pretty simple stuff. There are only 3 reasons for a budget overrun: poor budget plan, unexpected costly surprise, wasteful management. That is it. If they are always running in the red, then option 2 is not the issue (good plans account for contingencies).
--Lance
----- Original Message -----
From: Keith Black
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:36 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] NATS cash flow
I've resisted entering this conversation thus far, but I just have to float this thought out there.
It is mind boggling to me that cash flow at the Muncie site could be worse off hosting NATS than it is just hosting the occasional drive by sport flier. For goodness sakes when NATS is NOT being held the gift shop is probably still open, the museum is most likely open, the grass still has to be watered and mowed, and I'm guessing the A/C is still pumping at headquarters. How on earth could it be cheaper to maintain all the fixed costs with just the occasional sport flier showing up than it is when 150 people show up one week and pay money?
What about those food venders, does the AMA get a cut of that? If not they should. What about all the extra merchandise that they sell, both NATS related as well as from the gift shop? Are they making money on that? If not why the heck not? People take RV's to NATS and the AMA collects a daily charge for this. Are they loosing money due to the RV's sucking too much electricity? If so then they're being fiscally irresponsible and should adjust their charge, if they are making money then this is more positive cash flow due to NATS.
OK, I know the AMA has to set up some poles and a net for speed control line and even a tent or two, big deal! I still don't see how the site sitting there empty could be more financially beneficial. What is that you say? The cost of all that extra temporary high dollar staff is killing the budget? Then charge higher entry fees, reduce the staff, or tell the SIG's they have to handle tasks the AMA temporary staff is handling, like setting up poles! Question, if it takes 10 temporary employees to run the Pattern NATS, do they keep all 10 around the week there are only 12 competitors? If so, why?
What I'm hearing doesn't make any sense. It's like saying that a hotel can't make money if those pesky guests keep showing up.
Glad I got that off my chest.
Keith Black
----- Original Message -----
From: John Ferrell
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
I have wondered when this would come up!
The Muncie Site is a dream come true until you look at the related costs. We all face the same problems at our home fields. It starts with the cost of capital just to posses the site.
Paving (and maintaining) the interior roads, wiring the remote sites (some of us still use generators at home fields) and mowing all that grass! The grass is a real liability. The more soy beans around our home fields, the better. It makes money instead of eating it! The camp ground is really neat with its showers and flush toilets. If I am not paying enough, I will pay more...
The costs of the facility are pretty constant, regardless of the days used so reducing usage just makes for more expensive days.
The manpower costs of the AMA seem to be a little out of line to me. I handle the table reservations for a one-day swap meet for our club once a year in January. There are 160 tables ( comparable to 120 flyers). I am set up for 160 tables, when they are gone we are booked! I can take new clients on the day of the event with no trouble until I am booked. It just is not that hard. Book resources, not clients.
What the matter comes down to is that we have sunk costs into the Muncie Site and now we need to focus on generating as much revenue as practical to help defray the operating costs.
Please do not plant any of this 12 foot tall corn we have in North Carolina though...
BTW, the small amount the volunteers get is not enough to meet out of pocket expenses.
John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Stillman
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
Ok.. .you asked for a need. here it is..
The Executive Council is always pressed by sport fliers as to why funds should be spent on less than 1% of the membership to allow for a site for a Nats, as well as the staff support and equipment support required to run these events. The Nats takes up 6 weeks of prime flying time for Muncie. Other groups would like to use that time for events as well. The Nats operates in the red every year.
So, if we reduced the number of days required to have a Nats, that would reduce costs as well. How do we reduce the number of days required to run the pattern Nats? Do we just increase the entry fee to take care of all of the costs so the sport fliers can then be told that the competition pilots "pay their own way"? Do we (the EC) just ignore them and hope they go away?
I am a BIG fan of competition and the Nats. However, I can tell all of you that many on the EC don't give a rat's behind about competition or the Nats. I am trying to represent competition and how important it has been in the past and will be in the future.
So, how does NSRCA handle it if we get cut to a 2-day even for the Pattern Nats?
Tony Stillman, President
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mike Hester
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 12:37 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
ok, then one more:
if it ain't broke, why fix it? Is there some underlying problem that we aren't aware of? I'm just not seeing the need I guess. if it were a vote, I'd definitely vote NOT to have to qualify for the Nats.
-Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Stillman
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
John:
I realize that this is a different approach and that there are lots of opinions. That is all I am asking for.
Tony Stillman, President
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Ferrell
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:32 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
Flame suit on, cannons loaded and ready...
If you really want a good answer, ask the guys who are competing at Muncie this year.
If you want to justify a position already decided, survey the population that will give you the answer you want!
No offense intended.
Why would you want to curtail the most successful segment of the Nats? Without the Nats, there is little point in maintaining Muncie.
(BTW, considering the source, I think you are shopping for ammunition rather than an argument!)
John Ferrell W8CCW
"Life is easier if you learn to plow
around the stumps"
http://DixieNC.US
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Stillman
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
Buddy:
As I said at the beginning of this discussion thread, I am involved with a total NATS review. We are talking about all of the NATS, nothing is too sacred to be up for discussion.
One question I always had is why it the NATS an open event? Most all sports NATIONAL championships require you to qualify. With so many people complaining that the AMA NATS is 6-weeks long, this was brought up as a way to shorten the event. It also would elevate the status of the NATS. I don't see how this would reduce participation at the local level. It may actually increase it!
Keep in mind that this is just DISCUSSION!!! Don't get all bent out of shape because we are talking about it.
Tony Stillman, President
Radio South
3702 N. Pace Blvd
Pensacola, FL 32505
1-800-962-7802
www.radiosouthrc.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of BUDDYonRC at aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 6:56 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rule 8.1.1
I have a question
Why all of a sudden are you talking about special requirements needed for
Nat's entry.
My take on this, is if this is done we will reduce participation. I may be wrong but if I am not how is this going to help pattern and the NSRCA?
I think it will be the first step toward a further reduction in membership and a step toward an all professional Nat's
Second question
Tony are you pushing this idea for real?
Buddy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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/20070507/2ff9eb39/attachment.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list