USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[Inquartata]

That's just the example of which I was thinking, but I didn't know the parameters of the USOC funding. For all I know that can be used for referees and cadre as well...

[oiuyt]

A message from Kalle:

And we have heard so much from Kalle? If we follow your logic...

Thanks for asking. I've written and/or reviewed and edited all of the major posts from the nominees, as well as the material on our website. As Greg noted in his post a day or two ago, the nominees work as a team, so we collaborate extensively on our proposals via email, as we bring diverse skills, experiences and opinions to the topics we are considering.

As an aside, I am also a faithful f.net reader—lurker—of not only the election threads but others as well (tractor tire posts among them…) I've noted a number of ideas for future reference, most recently CadetVet's thoughts on raising our visibility, and IanSerokin's offer of assistance with a tech rfp. Thanks to both of you, and everyone else who takes the time to think about and post ways to improve our sport and association.

With recognition that I am committing thread drift, I'll report that I called Gerrie Baumgart earlier this week to request that the Election Committee publish the procedures they plan to use for preferential voting; as of last night (Thursday) when we spoke again she indicated that the document was undergoing its last reviews and would be available shortly. I will serve as the nominees' observer during the ballot counting process.

K.

[T]

After reviewing the financial info provided by Greg (thanks), Sharol and I have developed the following outline for the current financial situation of the USFA.

USFA is in a serious financial situation. Many of us are owed reimbursement money for refereeing or for athlete expenses or Performance Awards. In order to develop a financial plan, it is important that we examine the budget and expenses of the USFA.

1. Elite Programs account for 20% of the income (from USOC grants) yet they account for nearly 40% of the expenses.
2. In 2006-07, National Tournaments (NACs, JO, and Summer Nationals) lost $207,000.
3. The average venue cost of the NACs is nearly $13,000/day.
4. Donations accounted for only 1% of Revenues.
5. Merchandise sales accounted for less than 1% of Revenues.
6. Membership dues/services accounted for 26% of Revenues yet only 7% of Expenses.

Short-run Financial Priorities:

1. Hire a Chief Financial Officer to oversee all financial aspects of the organization.
2. Institute close Budget development and approval process with the Budget & Finance Committee.
3. Develop a plan of reimbursement for all referees, athletes, and tournament officials that have outstanding reimbursements.
4. Bring NACs to at least a break-even point and hopefully profitable by reducing size (smaller venues) and increasing number (more of them).
5. Develop a plan for Elite Athletes that includes a reduced number of Designated Events scheduled for the 2008-09 season and the inclusion of International Referee expenses to be included in the Weapons Program budget.
6. Expand Merchandise Sales with online store on the website.
7. Regular communication with USFA membership about financial status.
   

Short-run Cost Containment/Cutting Proposal (International/Elite Programs):

Proposal:

Reduce the number of Designated Events for the 2008-09 season.

Rationale:

Performance Enhancement Awards (PEA) are awarded only on Designated Events. By reducing the number of Designated Events, the Performance awards distributed will be considerably less. Many Weapons programs are paying for a significant portion of the travel expenses to world cup events so PEA are not being used to reimburse the cost of that trip.

Proposal:

Limit entries to World Cup events in 2008-09 to 4 per event; if there are more than 4 entries per event, then the Referee expense will come from the weapons budget.

Rationale:

Countries are required to send 1 referee per 5 athletes registered. If entries exceed this, then the weapons budget will be responsible for Referee expense.

Proposal:

Athletes, referees, and coaches make/purchase their own flight arrangements with a pre-specified limit.
Rationale:

Under specific guidelines, athletes and other cadre can make their own flight arrangements which will avoid travel agent fees.

Short-run Cost Containment/Cutting Proposal (Domestic Tournaments)

Proposal:

Use a fixed stipend payment system for all tournament officials which will allow them to book their own travel and book their own hotel.

Rationale:

A fixed stipend payment system will allow all tournament officials to arrange for their own accomodations and travel which will avoid travel agent and THS fees. This will also encourage tournament officials to use frequent flyer miles that have been earned as a function of their service to NACs because they will pocket the benefit.

Short-run Payment of Accounts Payable to athletes, referees, and tournament officials

Proposal:

Develop a payment plan for all debts (owed to athletes, referees, and tournament officials) on the books. This plan will include approximate dates for payments to be sent to fulfill the financial reimbursement obligations.
The plan will focus on first-in, first-out process however limits will be established to allow percentages of various debts to be paid to ensure that everyone gets some payment as soon as possible -- even if it is not 100% payment.The plan established will specify payment dates/amounts for each person owed money.

Rationale:

A specifc plan which includes dates of payments will allow people to plan their personal finances better and will assure them that payment is being processed. Payment limits will allow people to receive partial reimbursements sooner while allowing individuals to plan for remaining reimbursements.

Intermediate/Long-term Financial Priorities:

1. Bring accounts payable for referees, tournament officials, athletes to 30 days.
2. Re-investigate the National Training Center concept.
   
3. Develop a major sponsor or donation program for Elite Athlete Programs

National Training Center:

Proposal:

1. Re-investigate the National Center concept which would include offices, 25+ strips, dorms for camps and tournament officials, food-services, training facilities, showers, etc.
   
2. Investigate funding options for the facility such as a a) Limited Partnership proposal that would allow investors to invest in the facility and rent it to the USFA or b) corporate sponsor to fund the facility.

Rationale:

1. Venues and Freight of equipment are currently costing $550,000/year. If you add the expense of hotels and food which totals another $450,000/year -- making the total costs for holding NACs, $1million/year. All of this could be housed out of the National Training Center.
   
2. All office functions could be moved to the National Training center which would reduce expenses associated with rent in Colorado Springs (another $10,000/year)

[oiuyt]

Proposal:

Athletes, referees, and coaches make/purchase their own flight arrangements with a pre-specified limit.
Rationale:

Under specific guidelines, athletes and other cadre can make their own flight arrangements which will avoid travel agent fees.

Short-run Cost Containment/Cutting Proposal (Domestic Tournaments)

Proposal:

Use a fixed stipend payment system for all tournament officials which will allow them to book their own travel and book their own hotel.

Rationale:

A fixed stipend payment system will allow all tournament officials to arrange for their own accomodations and travel which will avoid travel agent and THS fees. This will also encourage tournament officials to use frequent flyer miles that have been earned as a function of their service to NACs because they will pocket the benefit.

Given that these are short-term proposals intended to be in place for next season, what are the fixed rates you (or Sharol) are proposing?

* The pre-specified limit for international travel.
* The fixed stiped for domestic.

What is included in the fixed stipend (ie what, if anything, are tournament officials paid beyond the stipend? Does the stipend vary based on level of the official or role?)?

Do international trips also have a fixed stipend, or are you only proposing guidelines and limits for the travel portion?

Have you talked with any of the people that have been in the fixed-stipend pilot program to gather data about how well they thought it worked? What potential problems were identified? Suggestions for further improvements?

-B

[JEC]

As far as I'm concerned, Brad is the anti-hoarder, which is why I'm thrilled he was unopposed. Not that it would have been a tough vote to decide...

I strongly agree with the Capt. Over the past few years, Brad was the only BoB member that was providing information in F.Net on a regular basis including minutes (his own account at the meeting), and agendas (even prior to meeting). He has my vote ... (even if he doesn't need it).

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Proposal:

Reduce the number of Designated Events for the 2008-09 season.

Rationale:

Performance Enhancement Awards (PEA) are awarded only on Designated Events. By reducing the number of Designated Events, the Performance awards distributed will be considerably less. Many Weapons programs are paying for a significant portion of the travel expenses to world cup events so PEA are not being used to reimburse the cost of that trip.

What's the cost breakdown of PEA money paid out per weapon program vs the total budget of the squad expenditures? Is it a significant percentage? (edit: should have read the books first! For 2006-2007, the PEAs only paid out at 35% of their budgeted level...hardly a backbreaker)

I'd also point out that, at least in WS, the Squad starting covering travel expenses only within the last year or so of the Quad. The other 3 years, the PEA is the only way athletes have to subsidize a portion of the cost of international travel.

[Soberin]

Re two of T's proposals above:

1. Limiting World Cup events (either Senior or Junior) to only 4 fencers will reduce the opportunity for international experience for those who need it to make team selection, as well as to improve their fencing in a more competitive environment than may be available in the USA.

2. Frequent flier miles, as we all know, have become almost useless. There are far too many restrictions, fewer seats are available for specific dates (no flexibility for NACs--dates are fixed) and therefore should not be proposed as a way to save money for the USFA by thinking these "miles" could be easily used by tournament staff or referees.

[oso97]

2. Frequent flier miles, as we all know, have become almost useless. There are far too many restrictions, fewer seats are available for specific dates (no flexibility for NACs--dates are fixed) and therefore should not be proposed as a way to save money for the USFA by thinking these "miles" could be easily used by tournament staff or referees.

Ummm... not necessarily so. I've got a bunch of miles racked up almost entirely through USFA service (at the regional and national level). I've used them to travel to events where I was coaching instead of refereeing and had no problems...

[KD5MDK]

Notable Budget Items:

1. Elite Programs account for 20% of the income (from USOC grants) yet they account for nearly 40% of the expenses.
2. In 2006-07, National Tournaments (NACs, JO, and Summer Nationals) lost $207,000.
3. The average venue cost of the NACs is nearly $13,000/day.
4. Donations accounted for only 1% of Revenues.
5. Merchandise sales accounted for less than 1% of Revenues.
6. Membership dues/services accounted for 26% of Revenues yet only 7% of Expenses.

1) What is an appropriate level of Elite Program support? Should it be 1:1 with USOC money?

2) From the reports we were told at the 2008 JO Board meeting, the NACs in 2007-2008 were so far profitable. Does this change your plan any?

(skipping donations and merchandise)

3) What is the proper ratio of dues to membership services expenses? Should we plan to increase services until they are equal?

Short-run Financial Priorities:

1. Hire a Chief Financial Officer to oversee all financial aspects of the organization.
2. Institute close Budget development and approval process with the Budget & Finance Committee.
3. Develop a plan of reimbursement for all referees, athletes, and tournament officials that have outstanding reimbursements.
4. Bring NACs to at least a break-even point and hopefully profitable by reducing size (smaller venues) and increasing number (more of them).
5. Develop a plan for Elite Athletes that includes a reduced number of Designated Events scheduled for the 2008-09 season and the inclusion of International Referee expenses to be included in the Weapons Program budget.
6. Expand Merchandise Sales with online store on the website.
7. Regular communication with USFA membership about financial status.
   

1) What parameters do you have for a plan for reimbursing outstanding expenses? Is there a timeframe it must be within?

2) Do you have an studies or evidence that reducing the size of National Tournaments would be more cost effective, as opposed to just reducing our economies of scale? Right now we concentrate of 4 day tournaments where shipping and airfare is amortized across 4 days. If we go with more frequent tournaments, our volunteers don't have the time to spend on tournaments of equal length, therefore they will have to be shortened to 3 or 2 day events, which doubles the cost/day of shipping and airfare.

Short-run Cost Containment/Cutting Proposal (International/Elite Programs):



Proposal:

Limit entries to World Cup events in 2008-09 to 4 per event; if there are more than 4 entries per event, then the Referee expense will come from the weapons budget.

Rationale:

Countries are required to send 1 referee per 5 athletes registered. If entries exceed this, then the weapons budget will be responsible for Referee expense.

Proposal:

Athletes, referees, and coaches make/purchase their own flight arrangements with a pre-specified limit.
Rationale:

Under specific guidelines, athletes and other cadre can make their own flight arrangements which will avoid travel agent fees.

If we limit entries for World Cups to 4 entries per tournament for most competitions, will fencers not currently in the top 4 or 5 points holders have a chance to advance? If the WC spots are always taken up by the current team members, the next fencers down have very restricted chances to move up the points list.

What % of the cost of travel do travel agent fees cost, and is it a significant savings to have everybody booking their own arrangements.

Short-run Cost Containment/Cutting Proposal (Domestic Tournaments)

Proposal:

Use a fixed stipend payment system for all tournament officials which will allow them to book their own travel and book their own hotel.

Rationale:

A fixed stipend payment system will allow all tournament officials to arrange for their own accomodations and travel which will avoid travel agent and THS fees. This will also encourage tournament officials to use frequent flyer miles that have been earned as a function of their service to NACs because they will pocket the benefit.

Right now my reimbursement is about $350 per event, which excludes the hotel and airfare the USFA pays. If I have to add (4x$75 hotel and $300 airfare) I'm looking at nearly $1000 I'm waiting to receive.

I earn about 3500 frequent flier miles per trip to either coast, since I'm in the middle. If the redemption rate is 25000 miles per round trip, it means I need to work 8 tournaments in order to get 1 round trip ticket. That's not a big change.

National Training Center:

Proposal:

1. Re-investigate the National Center concept which would include offices, 25+ strips, dorms for camps and tournament officials, food-services, training facilities, showers, etc.
   
2. Investigate funding options for the facility such as a a) Limited Partnership proposal that would allow investors to invest in the facility and rent it to the USFA or b) corporate sponsor to fund the facility.

Rationale:

1. Venues and Freight of equipment are currently costing $550,000/year. If you add the expense of hotels and food which totals another $450,000/year -- making the total costs for holding NACs, $1million/year. All of this could be housed out of the National Training Center.
   
2. All office functions could be moved to the National Training center which would reduce expenses associated with rent in Colorado Springs (another $10,000/year)

Will fencers located out of driving distance of the National Training Center tolerate never again having a national tournament within driving distance? What are the annual costs of operating dorms? Will sufficient hotel space be available nearby for our tournament entries? Right now lots of people value the ability to book hundreds of hotel rooms right across the street from the venue.

How much do we lose by dropping our connections to the other NGBs and facilities in Colorado Springs?

[T]

[QUOTE=Soberin;692829]Re two of T's proposals above:

1. Limiting World Cup events (either Senior or Junior) to only 4 fencers will reduce the opportunity for international experience for those who need it to make team selection, as well as to improve their fencing in a more competitive environment than may be available in the USA.

[QUOTE]
Remember, these are short-run solutions in order to reduce the deficit. They will be taking place in the first year of the quadrennial when international travel for athletes is typically lower anyway.

The proposal calls for limiting the entries to 4 HOWEVER, if the Weapons Coach believes that it is in the best interest of the team to enter more athletes, then the proposal suggests that the money come out of the Weapons budget. So, if the Budapest Jr. World Cup is an event that the Coach feels is an important team qualifier where more than 4 should attend, then the Weapons program will be responsible for the $1500-$2000 it cost for the extra referee.

In both the the Junior & Senior categories, there are typically 12-14 Jr. World Cups. For those that are using world cups for 'developmental' purposes, they may be better suited for the world cups that are not as high a strength factor (ie, ones that have not been regularly selected in the past).

[T]

What's the cost breakdown of PEA money paid out per weapon program vs the total budget of the squad expenditures? Is it a significant percentage? (edit: should have read the books first! For 2006-2007, the PEAs only paid out at 35% of their budgeted level...hardly a backbreaker)

You have it backwards; the approved budget was $35k; they paid out $100k.

I'd also point out that, at least in WS, the Squad starting covering travel expenses only within the last year or so of the Quad. The other 3 years, the PEA is the only way athletes have to subsidize a portion of the cost of international travel.

I agree, it would be nice to be able to Designated all World Cups so that athletes can attend them all and have their performance rewarded. For the seniors, the FIE only uses 6 events (out of 14) and for the Juniors they use 3 (unless there is a non-European event - then they use 4) to calculate the point standings. Typically, the year after the Olympics, athletes travel less to world cups. This is a short-run measure; not a long-run solution.

What is needed is a major sponsor or a donation program that enables the elite athletes to travel. We don't have that yet but it is one significant intermediate/long-run solution.

[teacup]

Has it been considered that due to higher costs for air, gas, hotels, food, etc. that FEWER people may attend national events in the upcoming season?

To encourage participation by more college student fencers, rather than hosting national events over four days around holidays, has it been considered to make these two day events aligned with school exam, holiday and NCAA schedules? Aside from time constraints, rising education costs may further reduce the number of college fencers who can afford to travel both nationally and internationally.

Has shortening or re-aligning the season been considered? The season is almost a year long. Maintaining a year long season is difficult for even the most committed junior/youth fencers.

Isn’t 1990 the peak birth year for generation Y? Has it been considered that youth entries may start to decline? With the growth and addition of SYC’s and higher travel costs more youth fencers may choose regional events instead of the time and expense needed to attend national events.

What about adding a regional cadet circuit?

Demographically isn’t the growth now in older fencers? Wouldn’t adding events for this age group be more profitable?

Higher travel costs may even curtail international travel. Perhaps, only those highest on the points list or those with unlimited funds will be able or willing to attend.

Reduce or eliminate assigned coaches for international events. Some fencers bring their own coaches, others are on their own, others are students of the assigned coach. There are no guidelines in the athletes handbook as to the responsibilities of assigned coaches. Some parents may prefer a chaperone who would organize travel arrangements for the "team" rather than an assigned coach.

If there are more people who wish to attend an international event, could the option of the fencers themselves funding the additional ref be considered? Or fencers are given the choice of assigned coach or ref?

Are the numbers of confirmed entries for Summer Nationals meeting estimates? (I know quite a few fencers in California who are considering not going to SN due to time and higher travel expenses.) Have expenses been recalculated to include higher fuel, food and airline luggage costs?

Contracts for venues are being signed up to 2014. With escalating fuel costs will large tournaments in convention centers be viable? With higher costs and stagnating wages, maybe the USFA should focus more on regional events with national tournaments only for championships events. Economic conditions may force the USFA to change.

And finally does anyone know if the NAC in Portland made money?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Some time ago, I saw on the net that Alisher Usmanov paid for a lot of fencing costs in Africa, South America, and I think parts of Asia.

Out of his personal pocket.

Since he seems to be the only one out there who combines serious money (can spend millions of USD in an heartbeat!) with a serious interest for fencing, why not approach him?

Claim that USFA should be considered one of the developing-nations federations, and beg real hard?

I am sure that Tracy and Kalle have something to offer in return!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[KD5MDK]

To encourage participation by more college student fencers, rather than hosting national events over four days around holidays, has it been considered to make these two day events aligned with school exam, holiday and NCAA schedules? Aside from time constraints, rising education costs may further reduce the number of college fencers who can afford to travel both nationally and internationally.

Can you find 27 tournament days on weekends only that won't conflict with school exam schedules? The month of December is pretty much out (college exams in the beginning, high school in the middle, Christmas at the end).

[bigdawg2121]

Hi!


Alisher Usmanov... his personal pocket...why not approach him?


I am sure that Tracy and Kalle have something to offer in return!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Pause. Better yet, FULL STOP. On behalf of all on fencing.net and in the name of decency I'm going to give you a chance to rewind and finish this post more tastefully. Please do better.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Pause. Better yet, FULL STOP. On behalf of all on fencing.net and in the name of decency I'm going to give you a chance to rewind and finish this post more tastefully. Please do better.

Well, promise that USFA will support him in his next (?) bid against Roch.

What were you reading into it?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[whtouche]

What were you reading into it?

Peter Gustafsson

Honestly, he and everyone else probably read into it exactly what you intended.
Don't play dumb.

[oiuyt]

After reviewing the financial info provided by Greg (thanks), Sharol and I have developed the following outline for the current financial situation of the USFA.

T-

Any chance you (or Sharol) could answer the questions I asked (post #84)?

Or KD5MDK's questions (post #89)?

You seem to have skipped past them when responding to Soberin and Capt. Slo-mo.

I'm especially interested in your answer to my final question (whether (either of) you've done any research talking to the people in the fixed-stipend pilot program that has been running for the past couple of years to gather feedback based on their actual experiences with how well this works or what modifications they suggest).

-B

[CadetVet]

After reviewing the financial info provided by Greg (thanks), Sharol and I have developed the following outline for the current financial situation of the USFA.

USFA is in a serious financial situation. Many of us are owed reimbursement money for refereeing or for athlete expenses or Performance Awards. In order to develop a financial plan, it is important that we examine the budget and expenses of the USFA.

1. Elite Programs account for 20% of the income (from USOC grants) yet they account for nearly 40% of the expenses.
2. In 2006-07, National Tournaments (NACs, JO, and Summer Nationals) lost $207,000.
3. The average venue cost of the NACs is nearly $13,000/day.
4. Donations accounted for only 1% of Revenues.
5. Merchandise sales accounted for less than 1% of Revenues.
6. Membership dues/services accounted for 26% of Revenues yet only 7% of Expenses.

I can't help that we're in some ways looking at this whole problem from the wrong direction - we're providing services that an increasing number of people seem to want, seem to enjoy (ignoring the whining) and seem to attend. Restricting such attendance does not seem to be the appropriate approach. Our events have grown, our population has grown - we should encourage, not discourage, participation.

Our problem is that we're successful, but have been poor at managing that success. Instead of looking to pricing as a way of addressing it (raise the per-event fee by $20 - that's another $15-20k per NAC), we look to cutting opportunities. That is the wrong approach. Certainly, a price increase will discourage a certain number of participants, but it won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back (and maybe we can create some need-based aid).

We should also include t-shirts in the registration fee (and charge $15-$20 for them - no option - you sign up, you get a shirt). Get a nice design (IMHO ProPrintwear had far better designs than our current vendor), get them produced in bulk ($5-$8/per) and give them out with the water bottles. Stop the microprinting of names (illegible, increases cost, and means that lead time is shorter). Figure about $12/per shirt profit, that is another $8-$12k in an event. More free advertising - and good design will mean that they'll get worn outside of the salle - free advertising!

Our other problem is that we don't manage our resources. Referees (and probably coaches and bout committee) don't sign an agreement up front every year that spells out the guidelines in getting reimbursement. We should. The first time that a coach violates a book-ahead policy that was in an agreement that was signed and doesn't get reimbursement, they will all stop. Instead, they now whine and sue over it. Same is true with referees and bout committee. However, there are no basic, written agreements spelling out the guidelines in advance for either of these groups. Just guidelines on the back of the form. It's all informal and rife for abuse. Frankly, there has always seemed to be a feeling of entitlement amongst these cadres (and I'm part of one of them) that really needs to be reigned in.

Also, I'd be for knocking $5 off the per-diem for referees in exchange for USFA-issued polo shirts. The shirt-and-tie is nice, but it is uncomfortable, creates dry-cleaning costs for most of us, and in warm venues, can be pretty nasty. A nice navy blue polo shirt (available for purchase or borrowing - along with weights and shims) would provide uniformity, comfort and allow the per-diem to be reduced a bit. I bet we'd be ahead after one year.

I don't agree with curtailing international opportunities - or domestic opportunities - we'll shoot ourselves in the foot. One of the reason that fencing is attractive - and our results have been there - is because we've become forces on the international circuit. An event with a crowd from the US is a point of pride - and the fact that our cadres have been performing better speaks to the value of esprit de corps and teamwork. In fact, I'd increase the concept of what a "team" is and include all who travel - we pull each other up.

But, that being said, maybe all of the fencers going should chip in for the referee costs - from referee 1 on - so that there's no feeling of entitlement or resentment. (Hell, I'd even like to see us ban private coaches from international events - if we could - having them there does little to build the team approach).

With regard to travel, I have often wondered why we don't get a little more creative with our airlines and hotel providers. Select venues with a common hotel chain (and make them a sponsor). If we go to, say, Hilton's central office and let them do the reservations (instead of THS), we may be able to save a bit of money. Buy plane tickets in bulk and in advance and distribute them (Southwest? Let's dump United for gods sake (sorry Sjohn)). In short, move away from our "one-off" mentality and to a more cohesive approach to venue selection.

Finally, claiming "fairness" we basically raise the cost of events to more than 50% of the fencers. We have about 11,000 of our 20,000 member in California and the DC-to-Boston corridor. Texas/SW has another concentration of about 2600. No offense, but there should never be events in Richmond, Portland (although I love Portland), St. Louis, or where-the-hell-is-that-istan (aka Chattanooga). Sure, California and NY are expensive, but that can be taken into account with the event fees. If, for example, we ran a circuit in Stamford, Westchester or New Jersey, nearly 8,000 members would have car or train access to the event. Even if the venue cost was higher, these fencers would have far lower personal costs in getting to the event - and could be surcharged by division to reflect that.

If I don't have to get on a plane, I'd gladly pay a proximity surcharge to have the event within driving distance. It would be cheaper for me. Period.

A while back, I remember that Paul Soter was pushing the concept of "fencing dollars," looking at the total event costs to individual fencers when figuring out venues, etc. At a base level, I think he's right.

One national training center would be a challenge. We have a sport centered in four distinct areas of the country - California, Boston-to-NY, NY-to-DC and Texas (with the Boston-to-DC run being about 40% of our fencers). Furthermore, we're a sport that peaks late - when people have real jobs or are in serious colleges - so putting a center in middle-of-nowhere (and, sorry, Texas is middle-of-nowhere to me) doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

We could, however, name four facilities - one in NY-to-DC, one in NY-to-Boston, one in, god-forbid, Texas and one in California as National Training Centers and fund programs. They'd have to be clubs (which would be a political nightmare, I understand), and could be named by quadrennial - allowing some rotation. This way, people could mostly keep their jobs and train at the highest levels.

At the end of the day, however, I don't agree with trying to shrink our events or cadres. Their growth is a sign of our success - our management of that growth a sign of our failure. Let's change the bath water (not the people, but the underlying approach) and keep the baby.

[T]

Note that everything mentioned above are all proposals and are where the discussions start – they are not necessarily where the discussions end. I encourage you to examine the proposals. Make suggestions for improvement; provide constructive criticisms; explore additional ideas and bring those to the table.

1) What is an appropriate level of Elite Program support? Should it be 1:1 with USOC money?

No. Elite programs will probably always consume more than the USOC money (given the current rate of USOC money and our current rate of success). As an NGB, the USFA has as its top goal to support elite athletes, select teams, etc. While this is true, the 501C3 USFA has the additional goals to promote and facilitate the growth of the sport (among other notable goals). In the short-run, the USFA needs to do a better job of projecting Elite athlete expenses with the budget AND develop a system that is relatively easy for the National coaches (and the office) to monitor their budget expenditures and provide regular reports to these individuals.

If we are going to exceed the 1:1 ratio, the additional money will need to come from NAC profits (a real possibility), a national sponsor (an intermediate/long term possibility), donations/fundraising program (an intermediate/long term possibility), membership fees, or some combination of these things.

Budget demands for Elite programs will always be higher during the 3rd and 4th year of the quadrennial. We need to support our athletes while at the same time not putting the organization into bankruptcy. I believe one of the ways to support our elite athletes (especially during years 1 & 2 of the quad) is with programs like the USOC jobs program (see the pipeline proposal). We need to commit to them but it doesn’t necessarily need to be at 100%. Employment programs like the USOC program can provide that needed transition for our athletes without the USFA footing 100% of the bill.


2) From the reports we were told at the 2008 JO Board meeting, the NACs in 2007-2008 were so far profitable. Does this change your plan any?

I don’t have this info so I can’t reasonably comment because I don’t know how ‘profitable’ they were. However, it doesn’t really change the plan. The cost of smaller NACs coupled with the increased opportunity for fencing more quality bouts closer to home makes a lot of sense. As CadetVet states, it doesn’t make sense to decrease fencing opportunities. Huge events do just that. More people will come to the NACs, fence their 6 pool bouts and maybe 1 DE and go home $1000 poorer and having gained little in the experience category. I also agree with CadetVet that raising entry fees is a real possibility. However, it makes much more sense if the fencer is spending less on travel (they are less likely to mind the increased entry fee). Teacup suggests, above, that by reducing the events to 2 day events that these will likely attract more school-aged (or college) fencers and referees. I have had MANY people tell me that they would be able to referee more if they didn’t have to take 2 or 3 days off from work to do it. Fencers also have to take work-days or school-days off for the 4 day fencing events. So, if we expand the focus of NACs to include more than financial costs – to include opportunity costs - what costs are our members incurring when they attend a 4-day NAC?

With the increased prices of fuel and airline tickets, more NACs closer to home is likely to attract more fencers, reduce the opportunity and financial costs associated with competing, refereeing, or volunteering, or by parents.

3) What is the proper ratio of dues to membership services expenses? Should we plan to increase services until they are equal?

I don’t have an answer for this but as I said above, Elite athlete programs will always exceed USOC grants so there is no doubt that a big chunk of Membership dues will be used to cover Elite Programs. The 'Membership Services' expenses includes Membership Services Administration (nearly 50% is salary and administration expenses), Membership database maintenance, credit card processing fees, division-section dues rebates, commercial general liability insurance, athlete accident insurance, development grants, and club equipment subsidy program. Not much of that is going to the average USFA member so the 7% is a very low amount.

Ideally, this category would include services provided to member-clubs to help them with starting a club, marketing their business, etc. with templates that can be modified. Without membership services that extend to the local level, we will constantly rely on our clubs to attract USFA members with their own resources. Another area that would fit into this category is investment in technology which would enable more services to be provided.

4) What parameters do you have for a plan for reimbursing outstanding expenses? Is there a timeframe it must be within?

As Greg said, it will most likely take a couple of years to get the finances in reasonable order. I don’t think that any rational person could expect otherwise. The deficit didn’t happen overnight and it won’t be fixed overnight. What we would like to see is a specific plan generated for each debt that the USFA holds for referees, athletes, etc (internal stakeholders) so that people know when they can expect payment. We also would like to see that reimbursements be developed based on a percentage or maximum plan so that people can receive partial reimbursements sooner (again, based on the plan established). People can deal with not getting reimbursed. It is the unknown of not knowing when that people get upset about.

Part 2 later...