An open question for the tournament organizers and div officers in New Jersey

[RITFencing]

NJ fencers will be very happy this season, for we should see event costs in the $15-20 range, based on a cost driven model. OR, the clubs might chose to operate on a profit model to generate income.... we shall see....

That would be wonderful. The cost driven model, that is. Why was such an expensive venue chosen? No high school gyms or clubs could be used? Also, for referees: what was the pay for both days?

[counter riposte]

Review the results for the DO'C from last year and you will have your answer as to why Drew was most likely chosen. $4,400 also seems like a reasonable price, considering the size of the venue.


As for the meeting,

Lots of dicussions about refereeing, and the hiring practices thereof.

Who will be in charge of hiring this year, if anyone?

[RITFencing]

If venues of such a size are going to be needed, it seems like they would be better served by breaking the event up into multiple weekends (all epee on one weekend, all sabre on another, etc) and getting a smaller place, like a club facility.

[oiuyt]

Actually, by hosting in a club, rather than a rented venue, your costs would go down by $4,400, to $4,880 and yielding a net profit for that club of $2,860.

The vote that was taken was that the division would operate the tournaments (qualifiers, DO'C, Championships (although from Jeff's post it sounds like this last might not have been scheduled)) and the club was merely the host. Absolutely no consideration was given as to whether or not clubs would be compensated for acting as host (indeed, for the DO'C HS event, when there was a discussion of splitting it into two days at two locations and a club signalled interest in taking one or both days it was expressed multiple times that giving it to them would save the division money because it would be free (an assertation that was disputed, although not loudly enough to enter into the conversation, by the club owner)).

NJ fencers will be very happy this season, for we should see event costs in the $15-20 range, based on a cost driven model. OR, the clubs might chose to operate on a profit model to generate income.... we shall see....

Right, just like all of those club-hosted $15 events that we're currently seeing.

Who will be in charge of hiring this year, if anyone?

As far as I could tell from the meeting there is to be no change from last year.

What wasn't clear was whether it's "the division", the host club, or some other combination or other entity. "The division" can then be further subdivided into the EC, the TC, the "officials committee", or possibly some other subgroup. I believe ALL of these options were mentioned as the responsible group at some point during the meeting I attended, with little regard to the fact that different groups were being mentioned at different times or an attempt to reconcile this difference.

$30 for large signature events such as the Denise O'Connor aren't a problem. They're high-profile, they pull larger/stronger fields, they have higher expenses, they are held to higher standards, etc. It's the dinky little run-of-the-mill tournaments that are charging that much or more that should be the issue.

I do remember one point where it was stated that the division has tons of money, so worrying overly much about some slight cost variations (IIRC this was in a conversation about renting a HS gym (the gym didn't cost anything, but there was an issue on whether the janitorial staff for a Sunday would need time-and-a-half), although admittedly I might be merging a couple of different portions of the discussion into one recollection) wasn't a high priority. If the division really is swimming in money (an assertation I can't verify) it would tend to indicate that perhaps the entry fees -- by far the largest source of revenue -- do not need to be further increased and perhaps could even use with some slackening.

-B

[jeff]

Brad,

I left before you did, but heard something (or imagined?) that there would definitely be qualifiers but not necessarily division championships. I'm up to my ears editing various HTML files (using extremely low-tech web technology ) to revise the website for the matches already fenced (last weekend started the season), and to post results for the few events already scheduled. When the dust settles I'll be conversing with rsy and the others so I better understand what is and is not. My rule 'o thumb is "if I don't understand it, I cannot post it to the Internet". Gee, I sure hope I actually get to fence in a few of these things.

[rsy]

Who will be in charge of hiring this year, if anyone?

Unfortunately, it looks like me. If I have time tonight, (unlikely) I want to start a thread about ideas to attract ref's to the division events.

I left before you did, but heard something (or imagined?) that there would definitely be qualifiers but not necessarily division championships.

Yep. There was no final descision made one way or the other to abandon the division championships and because of the number of club events, the schedule is so crowded. Nontheless, I am in favor of holding them and I will revisit this issue in October at the next TC meeting.

As to the cost for club facilites hosting division events, this is something I will be addressing with the host clubs. It is up to the TC and it will make the final descision, but I undersatnd if a club owner says it is unfair to get his facility for free and no justification for him to be out of pocket. On the other hand, they were each and all eager to get the Division events, there was no competitive bidding and there is no reason the clubs should make a profit at the expense of the Division or the participants. These Division events are run for the benefit of the fencers and the Division, not the club's profit. The clubs got their crowded schedules where they can try to make their profit. Hosting the Division events is a way to pay back.

-r

[RoninX]

I wonder who would win if RIT squared off against rsy in the all penguin epee match? That is an epee in your penguin's hand, right rsy?

I'm confused, it seemed to me that RIT was saying that he knew of clubs that wanted to charge less than they were required to by the division. Yet rsy seems to be saying that it is the clubs who are keeping the prices up. Who am I misunderstanding?

[rsy]

I'm confused, it seemed to me that RIT was saying that he knew of clubs that wanted to charge less than they were required to by the division. Yet rsy seems to be saying that it is the clubs who are keeping the prices up. Who am I misunderstanding?

The TC doesn't set fees, the EC does, but as far as I know the Division doesn't require the clubs to charge anything for a tournament, nor does it set a limit that I know of. The division has a $5 per fencer charge that the club has to pay to run a sanctioned event, but the division waived that fee last year and has, at least temporarily, waived it again this year.

I wonder who would win if RIT squared off against rsy in the all penguin epee match? That is an epee in your penguin's hand, right rsy?

Nope, it only looks like an epee because the guard had to be that big to cover what the penguin was doing with his fist and middle finger before the picture was changed.

The way I feel right now, I may change it back.

-r

[oiuyt]

A couple of comments on disparate sub-threads.

With regards to referee attraction, I can give you one current policy/situation that exists in NJ Div that DISCOURAGES me, personally, from being willing to referee (and hence the removal/clarification of the situation would be a net improvement).

Referee pay. Not the quantity, but how the quantity is determined.

According to the website, and what was cited at the meeting last weekend referees get $40 for a pool, and $5 for a DE. In practice, both times I refereed in NJ (recently, I also did so several times back when I was in college) I received a flat rate for the day. This discrepency alone is enough to raise questions in the mind of a referee. But let's say the policy were followed as printed. I would be somewhat reluctant to commit to refereeing under such a system. I'm a fast referee and I'm a very good referee, so I would be likely to get through more bouts than the typical referee and can be used later in the day than the typical referee. So my expected pay is higher than average under this system. But as someone unfamiliar with how the tournaments are organized, I don't have a reasonable way of determining what that expected pay is. Additionally I'd be going into a situation with little control over my useage level, and therefore no ability to directly impact my pay. There is a maximum limit, but no minimum given, so I'm losing any potential upside with no downside protection for how little I could receive in exchange for a day of my time.

I would much prefer that there be a set rate, or, preferably, a tiered structure of set rates (such that the better/more useful/more worked referees are more highly compensated).

Speaking as a non-club owner, I think the division SHOULD have some financial benefit from all of the hundreds of events that are run throughout the season. A head tax (the currently-waived $5 fee, for example) is a simple way of accomplishing this. Waiving the fee did not result in savings to the active fencers, it resulted in additional profits to the tournament organizers. The typical tournament increased in cost when that fee went away. And I would question an argument that somehow the fees would have increased even faster without the division waiving it's cut.

While not proven, I strongly suspect that the division is better at using money for the overall benefit of all fencers in the area than tournament operators (read: club owners) are. If for no other reason than because the division can look towards longer-term goals and non-immediate ROI. Developing referees and coaches is something that will help the division. While it helps an individual club, other than training coaches specifically for that club, little of the benefit accrues directly to the club spending resources on such training.

Division activities (should) benefit all division members -- including the clubs and their members. Ensuring that the division has the resources to pursue these activities is important. Given the a major source of revenue is tournament operations, and that the division's activities directly improve said tournaments, it seems reasonable that some of those revenues should go to the division.

That said, other than a fencer revolt (unlikely, given the demographic of the fencing market and the observed lack of sensitivity to increasing costs over the past season or two), perhaps a sudden introduction of one or more tournament operators who intentionally price tournaments at a below-market rate (although easily still profitable), or merely peer pressure to "do the right thing", I don't see an end in the near future to price hikes.

-B

[nahouw]

Brad,

The website needs to be updated. We at one point in order to attract referees went to that model, but unfortunately, we attracted TOO many, and so people weren't able to earn alot of money because it was spread out amongst so many referees. We then immediately saw a drop of referees because they weren't making enough money under that method and went back to the flat rate method.

I don't know what the new officers will plan to do for this season.

[RITFencing]

I wonder who would win if RIT squared off against rsy in the all penguin epee match? That is an epee in your penguin's hand, right rsy?

I'm confused, it seemed to me that RIT was saying that he knew of clubs that wanted to charge less than they were required to by the division. Yet rsy seems to be saying that it is the clubs who are keeping the prices up. Who am I misunderstanding?

I think you're getting confused by the situation. I'll try and restate my own position:

Given the huge expenses associated with renting venues large enough for the larger competitions, I'm willing to say that 30 dollars may be a fair price for the big Division run events. So while I don't totally back down, hats off to the div officers who contacted me and posted here for being honest and up front regarding funds. Whether the event that comes out of it is worth 30ish to me is another matter, but at least there's a fairly solid reason. If they can be hosted in more dedicated venues like clubs I would hope that the prices of Div events would drop. Even more transparency in division financial matters would go a long way towards shutting me the hell up.

On a related note, I think more work might be done for finding venues, splitting up the events into smaller, more manageable ones, etc.

As to events already being hosted by clubs... I'm still pretty firm. I don't think there's really any reason they need to be so damned expensive when club run events in other parts of the country with comperable cost of living expenses charge 1/2 to 2/3 as much. ESPECIALLY since as far as I can tell, the div does NOT charge a sanctioning fee, though that may be reinstated. I'm beginning to wonder if club owners didn't just see that parents and fencers are willing to pay larger fees for division run events and just start to charge a comperable amount. The thought was suggested to me in confidence by a few division members who shall remain nameless, and I think it sounds pretty reasonable.

I still have yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why a 20-30 person event held in a club in NJ costs 30 dollars, whereas a similar event held in Boston, NYC, etc might cost 15.

[RITFencing]

That said, other than a fencer revolt (unlikely, given the demographic of the fencing market and the observed lack of sensitivity to increasing costs over the past season or two), perhaps a sudden introduction of one or more tournament operators who intentionally price tournaments at a below-market rate (although easily still profitable), or merely peer pressure to "do the right thing", I don't see an end in the near future to price hikes.

-B

This is something I've actually considered, although currently I lack the resources and experience to run my own club.

That is, the cheap tournaments. Not the fencer revolt... Never considered that... Nope.

Note to self... Baker knows too much.

[oiuyt]

This is something I've actually considered, although currently I lack the resources and experience to run my own club.

That is, the cheap tournaments. Not the fencer revolt... Never considered that... Nope.

Note to self... Baker knows too much.

:)

Could run a "club" that effectively only exists for tournaments and doesn't actually operate as a training facility. The USFA has a (most unenforced) rule requiring member clubs to have at least 10 members, and I believe NJ has a similar rule requiring 25+ members (explicitly, according to statements made at the meeting last weekend, these do NOT have to be USFA members) in order to have a representative on the EC and TC.

You'd need to source equipment and space for events, but this could in theory allow one to introduce some lower-cost events to the schedule. How flexible is the high school at which you'll be coaching?

Never been a big fan of white text....

The website needs to be updated. We at one point in order to attract referees went to that model,

Could have sworn it was mentioned at the meeting this past weekend. Which doesn't mean that it's no longer current procedure, but no OTHER referee compensation model was raised. Again, my first point was that the confusion about compensation alone is enough to discourage nearby referees from travelling to NJ. Or at least it's enough that _I_ have been discouraged from doing so and I know of at least one other in a similar situation. While I know I'm atypical in a number of ways, I assume that many things that appeal to me or that turn me off are likely to affect others similarly.

-B

[jeff]

re: "website needs to be updated"

I've posted the recent results, and will post the schedule for this year as soon as it is blessed and given to me. Any other text regarding referees, recruiting, or whether penguins use pistol grips (I imagine so, considering they lack fingers) will be posted as soon as I get official content to post. cheers, Jeff

[RITFencing]

Could run a "club" that effectively only exists for tournaments and doesn't actually operate as a training facility. The USFA has a (most unenforced) rule requiring member clubs to have at least 10 members, and I believe NJ has a similar rule requiring 25+ members (explicitly, according to statements made at the meeting last weekend, these do NOT have to be USFA members) in order to have a representative on the EC and TC.

True; the Mendham fencing club operates this way.

You'd need to source equipment and space for events, but this could in theory allow one to introduce some lower-cost events to the schedule. How flexible is the high school at which you'll be coaching?

Never been a big fan of white text....

The high school has a pretty packed schedule, but this early in the year I don't think organizing something would be out of the question. Would you be interested in getting involved, Brad? I could certainly use all the help I can get.

The team, btw, already has several sets of scoring equipment than I'm sure could be used, and we should be able to buy a few more.

Didn't know you didn't like the while text; I'll bear that in mind.

Could have sworn it was mentioned at the meeting this past weekend. Which doesn't mean that it's no longer current procedure, but no OTHER referee compensation model was raised. Again, my first point was that the confusion about compensation alone is enough to discourage nearby referees from travelling to NJ. Or at least it's enough that _I_ have been discouraged from doing so and I know of at least one other in a similar situation. While I know I'm atypical in a number of ways, I assume that many things that appeal to me or that turn me off are likely to affect others similarly.

-B

[RITFencing]

This actually may correspond well with something else I'm planning; I'm talking with Greg Dilworth about putting together a reffing seminar, and this gives a place for referees to get observed right after the sem. I'm given to understand that there are often tournaments held right after ref clinics for that very reason.

[oiuyt]

This actually may correspond well with something else I'm planning; I'm talking with Greg Dilworth about putting together a reffing seminar, and this gives a place for referees to get observed right after the sem. I'm given to understand that there are often tournaments held right after ref clinics for that very reason.

Keep in mind that "right after" usually means the Sunday following a Saturday clinic. The clinic is 7-8 hours long.

-B

[RITFencing]

Keep in mind that "right after" usually means the Sunday following a Saturday clinic. The clinic is 7-8 hours long.

-B

That's what I meant. I've been to a ref clinic before.

[oiuyt]

That's what I meant. I've been to a ref clinic before.

Just a reminder.

Of course some of the clinics in the past have been well short* of 7 hours. Then again, the FOC is reworking the list of approved instructors (not coincidental, although also not likely to completely fix the problem).

*by "well short" I mean I know an instructor who routinely did the clinic in 4 hours, and was at a tournament where an instructor (not the same one) started the clinic at 10 or 11am, and let the newly minted "referees" loose on the unsuspecting competitors by 2pm.

-B

[RITFencing]

Yeesh. Well, I'm going to trust that Greg knows what he's doing. God knows he's a good enough referee.