Where fencing fits in your wallet.

[telkanuru]

Um, National Tournament fees and your USFA membership fee is a pathetically small percentage of the expenses for someone competing Nationally, never mind internationally.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bunbury

Enjoy your second-rate life, chief

If you're afraid of getting a 5% loan out for a house and you somehow think that you're income will not be increasing by 5% per year and/or coupled with the value of the house, then you need to stop selling weed and move up to coke.

I wonder whether we can apply the same logic to the nation's "life", and quit *****ing about the national debt...?

I'm guessing "no".

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Um, National Tournament fees and your USFA membership fee is a pathetically small percentage of the expenses for someone competing Nationally, never mind internationally.

True. But it IS the only part over which the USFA has much control.

The problem is, the national office is complaining that NACs are too big to run as it is. Lower the price and you get more demand. If anything they are likely to raise the price, in an attempt to deter people from entering...or, I dunno, start a program called NOCs, where someone else incurs all of the costs of setting up and running tournaments but the USFA still gets income from them...

[Freight-train]

Well I am carying some debt, but working at paying that off. I don't think much of it comes from Fencing. I do by top of the line equipment whenever I need it, I think it pays off in the long run, FIE blades and uniforms last for years longer than the cheap stuff.

Same reason I buy my work clothes at Brooks Brothers rather than JCPenney, even though I don't make a ton of money I've found that paying for quality is a good investment.

Travel and hotel expenditure can get sorta steep so I will be spending more time around my own division this season except for the big regional and national tournaments I hope to do. Of course some of this depends upon the time and money I'm able to devote to training, I just earned my B this weekend and it's gonna take a big effort to make the next jump up to the A.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Um, National Tournament fees and your USFA membership fee is a pathetically small percentage of the expenses for someone competing Nationally, never mind internationally.

Yeah but $100+ on entry fees is ridiculous.

We pay more in entry fees than anybody else. If fencing isn't your life priority, its a lot to spend.

People are interested in raising a family, keeping the lights on, and putting food on the table. When people have to make a choice "Fencing or putting oil in my car", fencing is a real underdog.

When you make it possible for ordinary people to afford to become quite good, then you raise the roof.

The USFA should refrain from spending money on coaching and international expenses whenever possible. International experience is not as valuable as some people say it is. US international results in everything except WS support my opinion.

Everything is about money.

[epeelion]

International experience is very important. What results are we talking about that prove that it's not?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Everything is about money.

I agree, but cutting costs as you suggested wouldn't actually reduce your total expenditures by 50%, which is what you claimed.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

With the way our economy is, subsidizing domestic fencing expenses is what is going to keep USFA numbers up.

Subsidizing it how?

What is the source of the subsidy that you're proposing?

Note that you're not just asking that expenses be reduced to the break-even point, but actually well into negative territory. Merely removing all other sources of deficit will not yield a surplus that can be transferred to domestic fencing.

We currently have three major sources of revenue: domestic tournaments, membership fees, and USOC grants. You've proposed reducing the first two to the point that they don't support domestic programs. The third category is tightly ring-fenced to specific projects and the money from that source cannot be used elsewhere than specified.

Completely leaving aside the truth value of the statement that such a reduction, which, as noted by previous posters, represents a very small portion of the annual outlay for nearly all competitive fencers -- and certainly those which you're targetting -- will actually be beneficial, you still need to show how it's even possible to do what you're proposing.

-B

[bunbury]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I wonder whether we can apply the same logic to the nation's "life", and quit *****ing about the national debt...?

I'm guessing "no".

Your guess is pretty bad. When our debt is as large as, say, Norway's, Belgium's, or Italy, that might be a valid argument; sadly, its a far ways off. Oh, and before you do the scrub move of saying "ZOMG THE NUMBER IS BIGGER," you have to view it as a % of GDP. Our debt is still barely where it was in the mid-90s.

I am lucky enough, however, to not be buying a house and also funding a war at the same time.

[Allen Evans]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Cut international expenses and coaching programs. Pour that money back into domestic fencing.

$25 NAC entry fees.

$25 USFA Membership.

Cut the cost of fencing in half.

Tanstaafl

[dberke]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

With the way our economy is, subsidizing domestic fencing expenses is what is going to keep USFA numbers up.

Cut international expenses and coaching programs. Pour that money back into domestic fencing.

$25 NAC entry fees.

$25 USFA Membership.

Cut the cost of fencing in half.

Ummm.... maybe you missed this, but the USFA is currently significantly in debt. Cutting entry fees without corresponding cuts in services would just make the problem worse. And I doubt anyone wants either.

Also, I would venture to guess that the largest expense to most fencers is not membership fees nor NAC entry fees. It's the other expenses such as travel (mainly flights and hotels), equipment, and lesson/coaching fees. None of those are under the control of the USFA.

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Yeah but $100+ on entry fees is ridiculous.

We pay more in entry fees than anybody else. If fencing isn't your life priority, its a lot to spend.

People are interested in raising a family, keeping the lights on, and putting food on the table. When people have to make a choice "Fencing or putting oil in my car", fencing is a real underdog.

If you're worried about putting food on the table, you shouldn't be spending money on fencing. Let's face it, fencing is a luxury as is any other sporting activity.

At the very least, someone financially strapped should not be travelling to NACs. Hopefully they have access to fencing at the local level, which requires a much lower investment than travelling.

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

When you make it possible for ordinary people to afford to become quite good, then you raise the roof.

Do you have any data to back up that assertion, or did you just make it up?

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

The USFA should refrain from spending money on coaching and international expenses whenever possible. International experience is not as valuable as some people say it is. US international results in everything except WS support my opinion.

So nice of you to provide the counterargument to your own assertion. Thank you!

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Everything is about money.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

Dan

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by bunbury

Your guess is pretty bad. When our debt is as large as, say, Norway's, Belgium's, or Italy, that might be a valid argument; sadly, its a far ways off. Oh, and before you do the scrub move of saying "ZOMG THE NUMBER IS BIGGER," you have to view it as a % of GDP. Our debt is still barely where it was in the mid-90s.

Possibly you should read my question again...

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

All the questions presented above are good.

I don't have answers.

I just have ideas, and more questions.

Its just apparent that in our economy, participation in fencing (as well as a variety of other activities) will decline, due to the cost of participation.

Therefore, it makes sense to me that the NGB should make an effort to reduce the cost of fencing.

But I do not know how.

What came to mind was eliminating certain programs (International, Coaching), and turning the freed up cash back to the bulk of the membership in a variety of ways.

I'm not knowledgeable as to how USFA funding is tied up, so the feasibility of my suggestions is perhaps limited.

If I could sum up my idea in a few bullet points, it would be like this....

• Reduce expenditures that only benefit a small percentage of the membership.
• SOMEHOW acquire more money.
• Increase domestic participation by reducing fees and reimbursing expenses.

I have no idea how to achieve these things. It may not be possible.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by dberke

Do you have any data to back up that assertion, or did you just make it up?

If you ask me, its just common sense. You can't build a tall tower without a sturdy base.

Originally Posted by dberke

So nice of you to provide the counterargument to your own assertion. Thank you!

I don't believe I did.

Money spent on international expenses has not paid good dividends, in my opinion. I believe it would be better spent on reducing the cost of participation for domestic fencers.