Fencing @Di$ney

[Saber-Psycho]

So because something is standard, it's OK for it to be outrageous?

[Mo]

Originally posted by epeemike81

In addition, I would again like to point out that it is NOT a fee to watch the fencing event.
-m

Here's the text of my future conversation at the Disney gate:


Me: I'd like to go see the fencing, please.

Mickey: (in falsetto) Ha-Ha! Nice to see you. That'll be $10, please.

Me: But I'm not going to the Disney Epcot Center or any other attractions, I'd just like to see my kid fence.

Mickey: (now in threatening basso profundo) Listen, youse. If yer gonna see the fencing, my little white glove gets greased with a deuce of Abraham Lincolns, or else fuggitaboutit!

Me: (looking down at my still intact knees) uhhh...I'd like to pay the entry fee for the USFA fencing event now, please.

Mickey: (sticks baseball bat back down pant leg, returns to falsetto) Ha-Ha! Thanks a bunch. See you again tomorrow!


If you go to a fencing event, and have to pay to get into the event, then it's an entry fee. No more, no less. To suggest anything else is disingenous at best.

And by the way, Mike, it's a sign of intellectual pauperism to have the bulk of your arguments limited to dressed-up versions of "not neither!"

The Other Mo

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
Eric, I think you should go take those econ courses again. hey, I got an idea.... the clothing store in the local mall is providing a service that the owner of the mall can't. the owner of the mall should be paying them. Rent for retail space is, obviously, very common. taking that rent in the form of percentage of profits is ALSO very common. As for the rate, 35% does seem a bit high to me, but as I don't have experience with rents paid by retailers, I can't really comment on it.

-m

I think Tim's post subsequent to yours quoted here indicats the validity of my point.

Your analogy of Disney to a mall owner is appropriate, but it breaks down in the details. USFA isn't analogous to a clothing store in the local mall (even though the income we generate may be analogous). USFA is analogous to the big anchor stores (Macy's, Lord & Taylor, JC Penney). Those anchor stores do not pay the mall owners a dime. Indeed, they either have an equity stake in the mall or they have zero rent. Why? because they're bringing in foot traffic. That foot traffic will go to the little clothing store or the picture frame store or the athletic shoe store.

The fencing equipment vendor is analogous to specialty departments within a Macy's or Sears. The Sears optical department rents space from Sears, not from the mall owner. The travel department rents space from Sears, not the mall owner. The jewelry and make-up tables are rented spaces (in some cases).

So the analogy would make that the vendors rent booths from USFA, which they do, to a tune of $500-750 for the event (Summer Nationals may be $1000). But the mall owners don't get any money from the Sears optical department or the make-up counter. So, Disney shouldn't be getting anything from the vendors directly.

Oh, there is one entity that's getting a cut. The government always get a cut. Whether it's the mall or Disney.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by edew
I think Tim's post subsequent to yours quoted here indicats the validity of my point.

Your analogy of Disney to a mall owner is appropriate, but it breaks down in the details. USFA isn't analogous to a clothing store in the local mall (even though the income we generate may be analogous). USFA is analogous to the big anchor stores (Macy's, Lord & Taylor, JC Penney). Those anchor stores do not pay the mall owners a dime. Indeed, they either have an equity stake in the mall or they have zero rent. Why? because they're bringing in foot traffic. That foot traffic will go to the little clothing store or the picture frame or the athletic shoe store.

The fencing equipment vendor is analogous to specialty departments within a Macy's or Sears. The Sears optical department rents space from Sears, not from the mall owner. The travel department rents space from Sears, not the mall owner. The jewelry and make-up tables are rented spaces (in some cases).

So the analogy would make that the vendors rent booths from USFA, which they do, to a tune of $500-750 for the event (Summer Nationals may be $1000). But the mall owners don't get any money from the Sears optical department or the make-up counter. So, Disney shouldn't be getting anything from the vendors directly.

Oh, there is one entity that's getting a cut. The government always get a cut. Whether it's the mall or Disney.

now your analogy breaks down in the details. the vendors are NOT a department of USFA. they are independant retailers out to make a buck. they are actually MUCH CLOSER to my analogy than yours. however, in this case, neither analogy is sufficient, since USFA is an organization built not around making a profit, but around providing service to its members. Thus, the USFA threw around what clout it (and probably explained how little money it would make Disney to do this) had to better provide for its members. Your suggestion was that "Disney should pay THEM (the vendors)." which is STILL bull**** since the vendors to not bring significant extra foot traffic to disney.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Mo
Me: But I'm not going to the Disney Epcot Center or any other attractions, I'd just like to see my kid fence.

Mickey: yes you are. you are going to the Disney All Star Sports Center, which IS an attraction. You will thus have to pay the SAME ENTRY FEE as patrons pay every other day of the year.

Events such as the NAC are hosted on the cheap to give business to their resorts AND to attract patrons to the all star sports complex. to NOT allow them to make these sorts of revenues lowers the value of hosting. Again: I do not object to people who complain about these entry fees, though I personally don't. What I DO believe is that people should pick 1 side of this debate. do you want to go inhospitable places in offseason, or do you want to pay higher prices??

If you go to a fencing event, and have to pay to get into the event, then it's an entry fee. No more, no less. To suggest anything else is disingenous at best.

such a simplistic view as "an entry fee, is an entry fee, is an entry fee" is a sign of "intellectual pauperism", as you put it. Ya know, it costs a lot to park near the convention center in Boston. Should they ever host in Boston, would you suggest the parking garages should waive those fees? After all, it doesn't cost nearly as much to park at other venues the USFA has used. Clearly, this is not an identical situation, but it is at least somewhat analogous. different venues have different costs (monitary and not) and different benefits.

And by the way, Mike, it's a sign of intellectual pauperism to have the bulk of your arguments limited to dressed-up versions of "not neither!"

I'll make a deal with you: you stop stating untenable positions, and start making arguments which require more than simple refutation, and my posts will become more complex.

Until then, I would appreciate it if you could stick to insulting intelligence with your positions rather than outright.

-m

[edew]

Originally posted by epeemike81
now your analogy breaks down in the details. the vendors are NOT a department of USFA. they are independant retailers out to make a buck. they are actually MUCH CLOSER to my analogy than yours. however, in this case, neither analogy is sufficient, since USFA is an organization built not around making a profit, but around providing service to its members. Thus, the USFA threw around what clout it (and probably explained how little money it would make Disney to do this) had to better provide for its members. Your suggestion was that "Disney should pay THEM (the vendors)." which is STILL bull**** since the vendors to not bring significant extra foot traffic to disney.

And who exactly are the Sears Optical department? Who exactly are the Sears Insurance or Travel department, other than some independent entity using the Sears name and space in their store? Many big stores operate this way, where they provide additional services which they think their customers might like, but they don't want to bother with the details. Most retail stores work on the selling and purchasing of products. Additional services like travel, insurance, etc., are conducted by independent contractors, but uses the same name so that Sears (or whatever) can promote themselves as having a complete package of products and services, and those independent contractors can leverage the power of the name of "Sears" (or whatever). So they do behave very closely to how the vendors work with USFA.

Besides the analogy isn't so much whether they're independent contractors or a real department within a store/organization. The analogy is how the relationship works in terms of money. The optician working that store pays Sears rent.

The barber at most barbershops pays the owner rent for using that one or two chairs. That's how many of them work. That pole/lap dancer at that Orlando night spot where the kids aren't allowed in pays the club a fee to work there. Many services establishments work that way. Barbers and lap dancers are similar like that; they both take a little off the top, too.

[Peach]

I personally would pay a spectator fee if an NAC were being held in, say, Manhattan, but the prospect of paying to get into a Disney facility boggles my contrary mind. I wouldn't go there if they paid ME, so I'm just as happy I don't have to do this one.

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by epeemike81
What I DO believe is that people should pick 1 side of this debate. do you want to go inhospitable places in offseason, or do you want to pay higher prices??

Mike, are these the only two imaginable possibilities? If not, then you are presenting a false dilemma. Logically that's fallacious.

As I see it, there ARE other choices. Such as, how about the USFA bites the bullet and pays what they need to pay for suitable venues free of Byzantine stipulations like 35% vendor surcharges and spectator entry fees and prohibitions on food and drink? Instead of hoarding money to spend on "performance awards" and free travel for elite fencers, their coaches, their coteries of officials, et.al.? How about they enlist people in the Divisions to search out the best venues---the last I heard there was a surplus of convention space, so values must exist out there...

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Mike, are these the only two imaginable possibilities? If not, then you are presenting a false dilemma. Logically that's fallacious.

As I see it, there ARE other choices. Such as, how about the USFA bites the bullet and pays what they need to pay for suitable venues free of Byzantine stipulations like 35% vendor surcharges and spectator entry fees and prohibitions on food and drink? Instead of hoarding money to spend on "performance awards" and free travel for elite fencers, their coaches, their coteries of officials, et.al.? How about they enlist people in the Divisions to search out the best venues---the last I heard there was a surplus of convention space, so values must exist out there...

You are clearly not aware of the actual economic situations. if you think $40 entry fees are something, just wait to see the fees if the USFA "Bites the bullet" as you put it.....

-m

[DJ Apostrophe]

Inq,
Dont take my word as gospel, but I'm pretty sure its the divisions are the ones responsible for putting together the proposals for the NACs. There is a bidding process, and USFA chooses the venue that will be cheapest for them (they probably take some consideration for fencer expenses as well). So if you are that unhappy with the way things are going, get on your division board and put together a hosting bid. Don't blame the USFA, they do the best they can. The things they choose to spend their money on are decided by the USFA congress, if you want things changed, get there and speak your mind. The USFA isnt an aristocracy, you have a voice! use it!
-W

[edew]

Certainly, division officers or people in divisions have opportunities to make bids for hosting NACs. But they're not the only ones. The NAC in Palm Springs were, for all the years there, were bid by the Palm Springs convention and visitors bureau. They invited USFA personnel to the venue, showed them the place, made an offer, and USFA took it.

A club itself could make a bid. Members of the club can scout out a place, pay the fees to USFA, and make the bid. That's possible as well.

Anyone can make the bid. Just ask USFA for the tournament bid packet. They send you the information on what to expect, the size required, and a person to talk to. You call, offer them something, and if they like it, they'll take it.

[oiuyt]

The USFA congress has next to zero input, it basically acts as a rubberstamp once/year. The Board of Directors and the various committees that it sets up are where the power to control most anything in the organization resides.

They also look at considerations such as geographic distribution when assigning NACs. Even if 4 proposals from various divisions in New England (or any other region of your choice) came in that were each better than the best proposals from anywhere else, New England would NOT get 4 NACs.

EDew had a copy a while ago of the NAC bid packet, he might still have access to a current copy. Don't THINK that they're available online, but I'm sure an email to the USFA would get you one. That should get you at least what the claimed criteria are.

-B :)

[edew]

Contact USFA and they will send you a bid packet for free.

Of course, part of the consideration for competition sites is the distribution across the US, how close to major fencing concentrations, etc.

The USFA Congress, as you said, is plainly worthless in terms of getting tournament held someplace.

However, direct feedback from fencers at the venue to the tournament organizers, to the bout committee people, to Carla Richards and other people on the raised platform will get noted. Maybe if one person said it, it might not amount to much. But if two, they'll think they're gay and won't listen. But if three, they'll think it's a conspiracy and would start to listen. But if a whole bunch were to go to the bout committee table and sing a bar of Alice's Restaurant, maybe they will listen and make changes.

[Inquartata]

That, or call Security.

[Chris Aher]

Eric,

You are not old enough to be on the Group W bench!

Originally posted by edew
Maybe if one person said it, it might not amount to much. But if two, they'll think they're gay and won't listen. But if three, they'll think it's a conspiracy and would start to listen. But if a whole bunch were to go to the bout committee table and sing a bar of Alice's Restaurant, maybe they will listen and make changes.

[edew]

I'm TOO old for the Group W bench!

Maybe we should get a Group W bench at the Orlando NAC. Just get a big "W" sign and put it above some chairs.

[Saber-Psycho]

day of spectating: $9.75

hour movie: $8.75
baseball game: $18 (cheapest seats)

American idol tickets: $40

Watching your kid fence: priceless

[Chris Aher]

Originally posted by edew
I'm TOO old for the Group W bench!

Maybe we should get a Group W bench at the Orlando NAC. Just get a big "W" sign and put it above some chairs.

ROTFLMAO!

Maybe we should do this at Columbus. Some of the Vets will understand.

Here are a few characters (in addition to me, of course) that could be good candidates for the Group W bench:

http://www.candlewoodfencing.com/comix.htm



BTW, I took my draft physical in NYC about a year after Arlo did. It was every bit as surreal as he depicted.

BTW

[Inquartata]

Group W? What you're all Republicans?

[swordsen]

Isuppose it is just too obvious for people to say "these fees are ridiculous, I'm not going." Easier to fuss.

Just be glad we are in a cheap sport where registration fees are not 3 digits.