USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #8: USFA back payments

[Derobement]

It would be impossible for those 5 or below to crack into this top 4. This would benefit, of course, the current top four in each weapon, notably including Kelly Hurley, Courtney Hurley, and Soren Thompson.

I don't know if that was a motivating factor in this proposal (frankly, I think it likely was not as Kelly and Courtney are in no real danger of being displaced anytime soon), but it clearly illustrates the MASSIVE conflict of interest that many of us have been trying to point out.

I have had a nagging discomfort with the USFFC slate that crystalized with the whole MrEpee "Scrubs" thread: it seems to be a slate that is more oriented towards the issues of "elite" fencers and may serve those interests at the expense of the other 98% of the membership. As someone who is into the sport just for the enjoyment of it and someone who will never get near a WC event, I find it interesting/amusing that even among the "elite" fencers there would concern over the conflict of interests issue.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that T would act in a self-interested way if elected but sometimes just the appearance of a conflict of interest can be crippling for a leader.

[notalent]

Actually, I was saying that all refs should be paid for - at least in part - by the fencers traveling. My concern with having 4 go for free is that #5 is really hit (and will get the evil eye from 1-4's parents/financiers).

The simple fact is that those currently on the world team will not always be there - and we have to encourage the "pyramid" - I think a more accurate description than the pipeline. If we don't work to develop the next layers of the pyramid, then then when the pointy ones at the top retire, we'll look like a Mayan pyramid (rather than an Egyptian one) - flat on top with no one at the point.

T's (and notalent's) suggested approach (limiting or drastically increasing the cost for 5 and beyond) will stultify the top, reduce development of the next generation, and really be a bad idea. In essence, we stop funding our R&D because we can't manage our operations - a really bad idea.

Seeing as you have cadet fencer on the rise, I understand your feelings. The idea of allowing the fencers to pick up the tab is an fair solution for the fencers whose families can afford it.
No one is saying its a good thing, but considering the state of our finances it must be considered. Any coach who chooses to go should have to pay their own way. This unlike the travel cuts for fencers should be a permanent policy. .

[notalent]

How much is the USFA paying in interest on those credit cards? Is there no better source of loaned money?

Slow repayment has cost them the interst free loans that most tournament officials used to provide.

[CadetVet]

Seeing as you have cadet fencer on the rise, I understand your feelings. The idea of allowing the fencers to pick up the tab is an fair solution for the fencers whose families can afford it.
No one is saying its a good thing, but considering the state of our finances it must be considered. Any coach who chooses to go should have to pay their own way. This unlike the travel cuts for fencers should be a permanent policy. .

NoTalent, et al:

I have no objection to a need-based approach to this issue for all those qualified to go (not just the top 4). I don't think that the results, alone, should determine who gets paid for (particularly for the junior and cadets, the results-based approach doesn't benefit the fencer, but instead mostly benefits their parents). (note that I fully expect and hope to be hit adversely by this approach - but I still think its the right way to go).

CV

[teacup]

There are also discrepancies between the weapon squads.

Women's sabre fencers have done magnificently but merely in mathematical terms a greater percentage are allowed to attend international events AND the domestic championships. At Div I WS events over 30% earn points compared to only 10 - 12% of the field in Div I ME who earn points. Should a greater percentage of epee fencers be allowed to go to more international events?

Would it be fair to tell a top 12 junior ME fencer that they couldn't attend a World Cup which may be more affordable, better location or schedule when the field is so huge domestically?

In some cases, isn't it preferable for cadet fencers to attend cadet events, especially the European circuit events, rather than Div I domestic events? Especially the Div I ME events which are huge.

For the last two years Cadet ME only had one designated event compared to all of the other squads. Would it be fair to restrict the numbers to that one event while all the other squads have two cadet designated events? (Cadet designated events are not FIE events, so I am not sure what are the specific rules regarding numbers of required referees.)

Women's epee, for factors noted in another thread, have not had the same funding available to them. Funding amounts are not equal between all squads.

Where the actual events are is another factor. It is a lot cheaper to get a referee to Las Vegas than Doha. Therefore should referee expenses be averaged amongst all of the squads rather than exact amounts taken from each squad budget?

This issue is complicated but the numbers of eligible athletes and events and the funding of referees and assigned coaches to those events based both on per squad and compared against other squads should be discussed as a way to conserve funds.

[teacup]

In regard to back payments owed by the USFA. Since back payments will be made from profits from San Jose and Portland, I wonder if the estimates will need to be revised due to rising energy, food and airline costs?

[KD5MDK]

Which estimates are you referring to?

[teacup]

Perhaps I am making an incorrect assumption. I thought there would be estimates for expenses, (costs of shipping strips, referee travel, food expenses, etc.) vs income, (the number of projected entrants). Therefore an estimate of profit or loss.

By the way, the number of confirmed entries has been posted.

[oiuyt]

In regard to back payments owed by the USFA. Since back payments will be made from profits from San Jose and Portland, I wonder if the estimates will need to be revised due to rising energy, food and airline costs?

They're not paid for out of profits. They're paid for out of gross.

Many of the expenses are slated to be paid for out of membership dues for 08-09.

-B

[teacup]

Now, I understand. I thought that debts were being paid from NAC profits not just the cash flow coming in.

But aren't some estimates made to determine if national events will be profitable?

[dberke]

There are not too many options to reduce economies of scale. I’m sure there are differences of opinions on this (so everyone feel free to chime in), we cannot get any bigger in the venues that we select without going to venues like the Astrodome or similar venue. By requiring venues to be able to accommodate 54 strips?, we already exceed the space limits of many convention centers. The larger we get, the more we reduce the potential venues. This restricted availability will mean higher venue fees (supply and demand).

I have to disagree with the above statement. I don't think we've been exceeding the convention center capacities with NACs - look at how much empty space there was in Tucson, Rosemont, and Portland. There was tons of extra space in those halls, so if the need was there for more strips, they could be added by using that space.

The current need of a NAC is about 100k sq ft. That's really not hard to find in a reasonably-sized convention facility.

My understanding (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) is that all tournament equipment is stored in one location (Idaho or Iowa or Wyoming or something?). If we adopted the 3-region approach (that we propose on our website which is not a qualifying procedure but simply a way to geographically divide the NACs) we could store the equipment in 3 different regions and shipping would be less.

Do you have any numbers to indicate that the shipping costs would really be cheaper, once you factor in the cost of additional storage sites? This also assumes that the equipment is easily divided into thirds. I can't speak for the strips and machines, but I know that it would be tough to divide up all the bout committee equipment. If you want three independent sets, you'd need to buy more computers, copiers, printers...

In terms of referees (airfare), the events would require significantly fewer referees and could take advantage of refs that lived closer to the venue which would take advantage of refs driving to the event (and sharing a ride, perhaps) or flying on a regional carrier which has more frequent flights and would be short hops and usually cheaper.

Unless there is a massive amount of coordination of referees sharing rides, I don't think this assumption will pan out. As a datapoint for comparison, I looked into flying from Seattle to the Portland NAC. A flight would have cost around $200 roundtrip (plus airport parking, taxis, etc.) The drive (200 miles each way), when reimbursed at the current IRS rate (50.5 cents/mi) came out about the same price.

I think you'll find that airline prices within a region aren't going to be significantly cheaper than longer range flights.

Also, have you considered the negative effect that these smaller regional NACs will have on vendors? They will be spending nearly the same amount of money to ship their stuff to events with fewer competitors, which may make things prohibitavely expensive.

Dan

[teacup]

Also, have you considered the negative effect that these smaller regional NACs will have on vendors? They will be spending nearly the same amount of money to ship their stuff to events with fewer competitors, which may make things prohibitavely expensive.

Dan

Not all vendors go to all NAC's. Surely there are some vendors who only go the venues that are closer to them or only those events which will be profitable for them to attend.

Maybe there are some vendors who have so far only attended regional events such as SYC's or sectionals, perhaps these vendors would attend regional nacs.

[T]

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?

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?)?

First, short-term is defined as less than 1 year. As I mentioned above, this type of program would need to be phased-in and it could not happen until the overall financial situation was better (unless we could find a financial instrument that allowed refs to charge things to an account that was not exactly a pre-paid credit card but could be used in a similar fashion). However, it might be possible to develop and implement the phase-in toward the end of next season.

Let me clarify what is intended for the fixed rate payment system. It is based on 4 ideas:
1) a sliding scale will be developed based on venue location/referee location that reflects a market-rate for travel
2) payments (for at least the airfare and hotel) will be 'paid upfront' which will mean that refs are not out-of-pocket for the 'volunteer' efforts.
3) exceptions to the rule can be made if last minute travel is necessitated by last minute cancellations from referees who had accepted to invitation as we don't want a cancellation to negatively affect the quality of refs
4) referees will have a choice to travel as they want and stay where they want (even at the host hotel) as they will be able to prioritize what they want based on a cost-savings model that will benefit them directly.

The stipend will include:
1) geographic-based travel expense (if the event is held in SoCal then refs from SoCal will receive a significantly less amount for the 'travel' portion of the stipend than a ref that is coming from NY).
2) the usual honorarium that is paid to refs based on the rating
3) hotel expense (equal to 1/2 of the host hotel rate)
4) the usual food stipend.

Benefits from the USFA end
1) cost control - travel and hotel will be based on a market rate (approx 1 month in advance)
2) eliminating travel agent fees
3) this program has a much broader impact if NACs are smaller, require fewer refs, and are more geographically dispersed (and therefore able to take advantage of more local/regional refs).

Benefits from the Ref end
1) Refs get to prioritize what they prefer and can make decisions based on that preference (ie., they can stay at the host hotel or pocket the difference if they choose to stay at a cheaper hotel; they can take a cheaper flight if they have flexibility in their travel schedule).

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

Same type of process as described above can be created for international refs as well.

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

Since Brad is most concerned about this last question, I assume that he has the answer to it. With that said, I'm sure that Brad (or others) can add details or clarification to my description below and can provide some feedback information from refs that participated in the program. And since he is the Secretary choice for both slates, I'm sure he will share this knowledge when the discussion arises. However, just because the administration of a test program was not entirely successful (and considering the phrasing of the question, I suspect that this is the case) does not necessarily mean that the program could not be successful given different parameters.

I have not talked with refs that were in that program, however, I talked with someone in the FOC that knew about the program. As it was explained to me, the biggest concerns with the program was that the stipend was an arbitrary amount that was not set to a sliding scale so that (like in the example that I used above) refs who lived in SoCal were paid the same as refs in NY so it benefited those that lived closer to the venue location while penalizing those that lived further away. This may not be the same program that Brad is talking about and I'm sure he (or someone else) will enlightened all of us as to the specifics about the test program.

[Mr Epee]

This may not be the same program that Brad is talking about and I'm sure he (or someone else) will enlightened all of us as to the specifics about the test program.

I'm really super excited to hear about this program and how the tests have been going.

Good thing that Brad isn't a knowledge hoarder.

*double thumbs up*

[Capt. Slo-mo]

sometimes just the appearance of a conflict of interest can be crippling for a leader.

If only that were true....

[teacup]

I have to disagree with the above statement. I don't think we've been exceeding the convention center capacities with NACs - look at how much empty space there was in Tucson, Rosemont, and Portland. There was tons of extra space in those halls, so if the need was there for more strips, they could be added by using that space.

You can always get more space. You just have to pay for it.

Shouldn't better planning be done so that there isn't wasted space? If turnout is lower than anticipated, why aren't events ADDED to recoup venue expenses?

The current need of a NAC is about 100k sq ft. That's really not hard to find in a reasonably-sized convention facility.

It isn't hard to find large venues but finding affordable venues in desirable locations is difficult. I don't know if you have but I have tried.

Do you have any numbers to indicate that the shipping costs would really be cheaper, once you factor in the cost of additional storage sites? This also assumes that the equipment is easily divided into thirds. I can't speak for the strips and machines, but I know that it would be tough to divide up all the bout committee equipment. If you want three independent sets, you'd need to buy more computers, copiers, printers...

I wonder if the Tournament Task Force did such a study. Though an expense, computers and printers are not necessarily cost prohibitive. As for storage sites, it really depends but if costs are calculated by square footage there may not be much difference in storage expenses if the total amount is divided by three. Having the USFA equipment spread out could mean it is more available for use by a greater number of local or regional organizers.

Unless there is a massive amount of coordination of referees sharing rides, I don't think this assumption will pan out. As a datapoint for comparison, I looked into flying from Seattle to the Portland NAC. A flight would have cost around $200 roundtrip (plus airport parking, taxis, etc.) The drive (200 miles each way), when reimbursed at the current IRS rate (50.5 cents/mi) came out about the same price.

I think you'll find that airline prices within a region aren't going to be significantly cheaper than longer range flights.

Actually I do agree with you. It is not always distance which determines flight costs. In fact airfare from LA to NY can be a lot cheaper than airfare LA to St. Louis or Charlotte or Richmond, etc. but sometimes regional carriers are cheaper.

Buying airfare is unpredictable. Fares are based on supply and demand, not necessarily having any relation to how many days in advance tickets are purchased. You could buy air a month in advance, two days later there is a seat sale and your ticket is a third of the price. Three days before you leave you can get a great fare or exorbitant fare. Who knows?

Though there is often a lot of demand around holidays which is when many four day NAC’s are held. So holding two day events on non holiday weekends may actual mean cheaper air fares and travel expenses.

A venue in a large urban city, such as NY, LA or Boston, etc., may be more expensive per square footage but money could be saved in shipping and referee travel costs. (Fencers themselves may save money if they are able to stay with friends and relatives. Referees may prefer to keep their hotel stipend and stay with friends.)

With the price of energy rising and economic uncertainty, there are those who believe that many aspects of our lives will become more regionalized. Four day fencing tournaments in large venues, may be one of the casualties of escalating oil prices and rising air fares. I don’t know but are regional and/or two day events at least being considered as options? Or maybe all of this has been studied and is totally unfeasible.

[CadetVet]

You can always get more space. You just have to pay for it.

Shouldn't better planning be done so that there isn't wasted space? If turnout is lower than anticipated, why aren't events ADDED to recoup venue expenses?



It isn't hard to find large venues but finding affordable venues in desirable locations is difficult. I don't know if you have but I have tried.



I wonder if the Tournament Task Force did such a study. Though an expense, computers and printers are not necessarily cost prohibitive. As for storage sites, it really depends but if costs are calculated by square footage there may not be much difference in storage expenses if the total amount is divided by three. Having the USFA equipment spread out could mean it is more available for use by a greater number of local or regional organizers.



Actually I do agree with you. It is not always distance which determines flight costs. In fact airfare from LA to NY can be a lot cheaper than airfare LA to St. Louis or Charlotte or Richmond, etc. but sometimes regional carriers are cheaper.

Buying airfare is unpredictable. Fares are based on supply and demand, not necessarily having any relation to how many days in advance tickets are purchased. You could buy air a month in advance, two days later there is a seat sale and your ticket is a third of the price. Three days before you leave you can get a great fare or exorbitant fare. Who knows?

Though there is often a lot of demand around holidays which is when many four day NAC’s are held. So holding two day events on non holiday weekends may actual mean cheaper air fares and travel expenses.

A venue in a large urban city, such as NY, LA or Boston, etc., may be more expensive per square footage but money could be saved in shipping and referee travel costs. (Fencers themselves may save money if they are able to stay with friends and relatives. Referees may prefer to keep their hotel stipend and stay with friends.)

With the price of energy rising and economic uncertainty, there are those who believe that many aspects of our lives will become more regionalized. Four day fencing tournaments in large venues, may be one of the casualties of escalating oil prices and rising air fares. I don’t know but are regional and/or two day events at least being considered as options? Or maybe all of this has been studied and is totally unfeasible.

While it is true that spot market airfares are not predictable, it is also true that planning ahead and picking locations in true hub cities with airline competition costs far less, on average, than going to BFE or Wherethehellisthatistan.

If it were up to me, I'd only go to cities served by Southwest (even if I choose another airline, Southwest's influence tends to reduce average airfares). Sorry Atlanta, sorry Dallas (for another two years), sorry Minneapolis - but those cities are dominated (and fares are set by) single carriers. Heck, I'd even call Southwest and see if I could run USFA travel through them - but I hate United.

The important thing to remember is that the first days of major change will be difficult. People will resent having their privileges compromised, will whine and complain, will say "I'll never do that again." Some will leave, but most will recognize the need to control costs (as long as the pain is shared) and suck it up a bit.

[dcrocket]

The important thing to remember is that the first days of major change will be difficult. People will resent having their privileges compromised, will whine and complain, will say "I'll never do that again." Some will leave, but most will recognize the need to control costs (as long as the pain is shared) and suck it up a bit.

This is true already...my flight to San Jose has not been approved by the USFA. But if you take this approach, which I believe is correct, you need to let the affected people know as soon as the decision is made. I have not been told about this officially...

[CadetVet]

This is true already...my flight to San Jose has not been approved by the USFA. But if you take this approach, which I believe is correct, you need to let the affected people know as soon as the decision is made. I have not been told about this officially...

Agreed. Orderly approaches should be taken.

[oiuyt]

Since Brad is most concerned about this last question, I assume that he has the answer to it. With that said, I'm sure that Brad (or others) can add details or clarification to my description below and can provide some feedback information from refs that participated in the program. And since he is the Secretary choice for both slates, I'm sure he will share this knowledge when the discussion arises. However, just because the administration of a test program was not entirely successful (and considering the phrasing of the question, I suspect that this is the case) does not necessarily mean that the program could not be successful given different parameters.

I have not talked with refs that were in that program, however, I talked with someone in the FOC that knew about the program. As it was explained to me, the biggest concerns with the program was that the stipend was an arbitrary amount that was not set to a sliding scale so that (like in the example that I used above) refs who lived in SoCal were paid the same as refs in NY so it benefited those that lived closer to the venue location while penalizing those that lived further away. This may not be the same program that Brad is talking about and I'm sure he (or someone else) will enlightened all of us as to the specifics about the test program.

Wow, you completely missed my point.

In fact, I haven't talked to anyone in the pilot program about it recently. A bit of discussion a couple of seasons ago when it was just starting and I got some initial impressions of it. I don't know how successful it has been, or what issues were discovered. Then again, I'm not out pushing it as a top solution.

So what WAS my point then?

I don't mind that you keep trying to recycle ideas that have already been studied (fixed stipends, a USFA-owned central tournament location, active.com, etc., etc.). The problem is that you don't seem to bother to even inquire what conclusions were reached by the previous study(ies). What worked? What didn't? What show-stopper or potential show-stoppers were identified? What didn't work but might if we changed things slightly like this?

Without taking that step you're throwing away experience and virtually guaranteeing that we'll hit predictable brick walls. But in this case at full speed, rather than on a limited experimental basis.

That's a problem for me. I had hoped that my estimation was wrong and that you had actually done the research. Guess not.

-B