USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[TBean]

How does the USFA plan to see if THS can work out its "clearly defined problems" if during the trial period booking with THS will not be mandatory?

Without making the membership to book through the the system, including a clearly defined waiver policy and price-matching, Stay & Play will not be tested to see if it works for fencing. If using the system is not mandatory, no more fencers will be using the system then are currently booking through them - making this an inadequate trial of the THS system or program. Additionally, the USFA not know how its workload will be affected with having to approving waivers for NACs. This is an overworked staff as it is, and if you need to add a staff position to help with workload, then your additional income of $100K is reduced.

A 92% satisfaction does not seem so bad until you begin to think about the actual numbers of people using the system, and the only ones likely to go back to it are the ones who did not have issues. I cannot imagine that number going up when more people have to book though THS.

[Philistine]

First, on the procedural issue: It seems that some sort of deal has already been made with THS.{snip}

But as Allen Evans has pointed out, the USFA has had a deal with THS for the paster several years. AIUI, it looks like THS is marketing this S&P deal to a number of organizations. From the powerpoint, it looks like the ED has recognized at least some of the major issues that have been raised here, and is proposing some sort of pilot program that doesn't obligate the USFA, to see if those issues can be satisfactorily resolved. Seems reasonable to me.

Secondly, many of us see the waiver system as part of the problem.

Sure. And this is a major issue that needs to be finalized before implementation.

{snip} and presents issues of privacy invasion (do I have to prove to you that my friend in town whom I am staying with is really that good a friend?).

I agree. To my mind any questions along the lines of "who are you staying with and what is their address" fall under the realm of "none of your damn business."

If the waivers do not require verification, that invites a wider use of them, and is a temptation in some cases to untruthfulness. Now, we would not want to set up a system that tempts people to be untruthful, really, would we?

I don't know--I don't particularly care if there is a waiver along the lines of "not staying at a hotel" that would be used as a catchall for those who want to use priceline, etc., even if that were untrue.

I'd also think a sensible requirement is that THS either match the actual price (with whatever discount is in place) or an automatic waiver be put in place.

But all that is quibbling about the details (which is fine--but not really the cause of the immediate outrage here).

--Philistine

[Allen Evans]

If the waivers require verification, that requires more staff time, has more opportunities for things that could go wrong, and presents issues of privacy invasion (do I have to prove to you that my friend in town whom I am staying with is really that good a friend?).

This would appear to be an unfounded fear based on any of the information provided in the power point, or on the US Volleyball site. I assume it was included for dramatic effect?

Seems reasonable to me.

You don't seem to be meeting the requirements for participating in this thread.

[Philistine]

{snip}
The point of these deals is to provide revenue, which seems to have been lost in the question of whether Stay and Play is a good idea.

A large part of the point of the THS deal (in general, not just S&P) is also to assure that there will be available rooms close to the event. This is definitely a useful service.

On the S&P both THS and the USFA have an interest in maximizing the # of people using THS. Some individual USFA members have an interest in not using THS, or at least having flexibility. How those interests get balanced is going to be the major issue as to whether or not I think the plan is a good thing or bad thing (as well as the real revenue effect for the USFA, which I suspect will be somewhat less than is projected.) The devil is in the details....

Given the lead time for block bookings (whether a conference or a sports event) the idea that there is a trial period is dubious. It might be interesting to know if USFA is on the hook for any termination payments should the trial be unsuccessful (which in this context means what?).

I agree--that is absolutely something that should be made public.

The USFAs budget issues are supposedly temporary why exactly are they solving a temporary problem with the instigation of a permanent revenue stream?

Why not? If it works, of course.

I'd expect a pilot program to look like the S&P program--with a "requirement" at the time of registration that hotels be booked, or general alternative plans given, and no cancellation of registration if not--this would also give an idea as to what percentage of people would actually use THS if the S&P program were implemented, and what waivers are likely to be useful--allowing better planning by both THS and the USFA.

--Philistine

[keith]

This would appear to be an unfounded fear based on any of the information provided in the power point, or on the US Volleyball site. I assume it was included for dramatic effect?

This raises the possible possibility for the USFA to grant waivers to everyone called Bill.

The powerpoint made me laugh, although its reassuring power has me worried about poor Telk.

As Tbean pointed out; if the USFA freely grants waivers THS will point out that they are failing to meet targets because they cannot book large enough blocks. The only way to prove the system works (or doesn't) is for the USFA to be stingy with waivers. At that point the USFA would have to forsake revenue and, depending on the contract, face costs should they suddenly go back to providing more waivers.

[keith]

A large part of the point of the THS deal (in general, not just S&P) is also to assure that there will be available rooms close to the event. This is definitely a useful service.

This comes back to the waiver issue. If you are going to use S&P to help you into more desirable facilities (or even cities) you need the savings large block bookings give you. If you are freely granting waivers then that benefit disappears. THS will only enter into contracts with host hotels if it has a guaranteed number of bodies - something which does not happen with a sign it and fax it waiver policy.

The devil is in the details....

Always is, but there are some properties of the scheme which have a certain inevitability abut them .

Why not? If it works, of course.

Well, I guess that I find it funny that the folks who ran on the open and efficient ticket are now busy using the deficit panic to pull in extra, permanent, revenue.

[Philistine]

{snip}THS will only enter into contracts with host hotels if it has a guaranteed number of bodies - something which does not happen with a sign it and fax it waiver policy.

Isn't THS already entering into contracts with host hotels, with no "guarantee" of #'s?

The issue seems to be, if the USFA can deliver more bodies using THS, then THS (and venues) may give more money (or better deals) to the USFA.

I suspect that merely tieing in registrations to hotel booking, and making it a mild hassle to not use THS, is going to result in some level of increase of use of THS. Even with effectivley open reasons for waivers.

Whether that's enough to realize tangible benefits over what is already in place, and whether THS can overcome its problematic service issues remain to be seen, and it seems like this is the perfect situation for a trial program to address both questions.

{snip}Well, I guess that I find it funny that the folks who ran on the open and efficient ticket are now busy using the deficit panic to pull in extra, permanent, revenue.

Really, I think it's good sense. Part of the knock on the old administration is that they weren't particularly proactive in getting revenue.

If, and that's a big "if" the S&P program is a good program that is beneficial for USFA members and gives revenue to the USFA, it's a good idea.

A draconian waiver program is going to result in some number of members paying a couple of hundred extra dollars each, to provide maybe $20-25 of benefit to the USFA. Generally, this would be a bad thing--though to my mind, the actual calculus depends on how many people it would likely effect and how easy it would be for a motivated person to get a waiver that he wouldn't actually be entitled to under the program.

--Philistine

[hello?]

Here's the thing, hopefully it will allay several fears which have been raised here.

Let's not let facts get in the way of good fearmongering, though.

Again, the 'facts' is what most people have been asking for all along -- I specifically said at one point (many, many posts ago) that the only way to end the speculation was to simply tell the membership, officially, what was going on. You have to admit that it's a little strange that you have posted the Power Point which seems to be the closest we've come so far to what was actually presented...And where is Kurt's explanation on the USFA site? It was supposedly going up yesterday.

[zéphirin]

... Part of the knock on the old administration is that they weren't particularly proactive in getting revenue. If, and that's a big "if" the S&P program is a good program that is beneficial for USFA members and gives revenue to the USFA, it's a good idea.

You raise two important points here, one political and one ethical.

The political problem is the usual one we encounter in the political discourse of any newly elected administration which always finds that the reality is worse than what they had anticipated during the election campaign where talk is cheap and promises are long. Frankly, when I saw people even fighting tooth and nail to be elected as the new leaders of the USFA a little more than a year ago, I was wondering whether they had ANY idea what they were getting themselves into.

To blame now all sins and current problems to the previous administration(s) is a bit disingenuous. For sure the previous admin was not proactive in getting revenue, as is the current one, in my opinion. What I personally see as a great improvement from the past is that there is a new ED who tries very hard to change things for the better even though I may not always agree with what he proposes.

This THS deal is one thing I do not agree with for a variety of reasons mentioned by many in this forum and I think also it would be a politically wrong move if it will provoke a riot and defection among many members.

But in all this I am more concerned with the ethical problem I see in the "IF" part of your statement, which could be seen as "the end justifies the means" position.

First of all I don't believe that anything can be good for the USFA, its members, and THS. Everything has a price and somebody got to pay for it. Anyone who even thinks that any plan like this can fill the coffers of the USFA, get THS stock up, and lower our costs at the same time should have his head examined. Therefore, since the USFA needs money it does not have and THS is not in a position to give it, we the members are going to have to foot the bill and pay extra, not less, because we must feed two mouths now, the USFA AND THS.

But the ethical problem that bothers me is why is it that we (the members) have to always pay for everything, including the mistakes of others, when the administration takes the "easy" street to tax us and spend instead of doing one of the most important tasks of any such organization which is a successful fund raising and marketing campaign for the sport of fencing?

I would not be against this if the USFA, after showing that it did raise funds and contributions from outside (according to a specific plan with defined targets and levels), realizes it has a temporary shortfall for which it must appeal to the goodwill and resources of its members. But what I see here is the reverse. I don't see any PR, any major fundraising, any better service to the membership (as a result of this fundraising campaign) to entice new members and keep the existing ones, no effort at all in this direction, only go to the membership and charge extra, directly (raising fees) or even worse indirectly as this THS idea appears to be the case.

Lastly, a practical consideration: is this plan which would bring according to predictions about $150,000 (rounded figure) really worth all the upheaval and anticipated (by some) problems it will cause even if it were to be flawless in its execution (no screw-ups)? How much extra work will require for a staff which cannot even find the time to write a press release and share it with all the media of the extraordinary international successes by our athletes? Isn't all this just a distraction from what should be the main goal of a national Olympic sport federation?

[teacup]

Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of those attending USFA sponsored national events use THS? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50%?

What is the goal? 98% usage and by whom? For each entrant there are additional personnel, coaches, parents, chaperones, referees, bout committee, armourers, venders, etc. Are there any figures on what percentage of these people use THS? Are all of these people expected to use THS?

Can these figures be made public?

Have these numbers been rising or falling compared to whether entrant participation has been rising or falling? Is use of THS has been dramatically falling? Is this the reason to implement this plan?

Was there any specific drop off this season with those using THS due to economic conditions when hotels dropped hotel prices?

In other words how many people would be affected by this proposal?

[oiuyt]

Does anyone have any statistics on what percentage of those attending USFA sponsored national events use THS? 10, 20, 30, 40, 50%?

What is the goal? 98% usage and by whom?

One of the slides shows that for Atlanta (SN10) without S&P it's projected THS will book 4402 room-nights and with S&P that number climbs to 6162.

The combination of increased room nights and a higher rebate figure accounts for over $53k in added revenue to US Fencing. Atlanta additionally benefits from a $25k drop in venue cost with S&P and $20 reduction in the room rate under the program.

-B

[teacup]

One of the slides shows that for Atlanta (SN10) without S&P it's projected THS will book 4402 room-nights and with S&P that number climbs to 6162.

The combination of increased room nights and a higher rebate figure accounts for over $53k in added revenue to US Fencing. Atlanta additionally benefits from a $25k drop in venue cost with S&P and $20 reduction in the room rate under the program.

-B

Was a graph presented as to what these numbers have been historically?

Is the trend to use THS increasing or decreasing?

[flechewounds]

One of the slides shows that for Atlanta (SN10) without S&P it's projected THS will book 4402 room-nights and with S&P that number climbs to 6162.

The combination of increased room nights and a higher rebate figure accounts for over $53k in added revenue to US Fencing. Atlanta additionally benefits from a $25k drop in venue cost with S&P and $20 reduction in the room rate under the program.

-B

At what cost to members? I assume that the difference in 1760 room nights came from people that used low-cost alternatives such as priceline/hotwire, or used awards or direct-to-hotel reservations.

Assume that 1,000 of these room nights were booked with a low-cost aggregator at an average stay price of $55 (forget the other savings on food, etc., associated with that) and assume that the S&P rate is $100 (a blended average for those same rooms based on S&P's promised rates), the total cost to the membership of S&P is $45,000 (let's call that the S&P Tax). Furthermore, one can assume that those using low-cost aggregators for cheaper accomodations are price sensitive due to limited resources (e.g., they're the ones who can least afford it), so, in essence, the S&P Tax is a regressive tax, not a flat or progressive tax.

Note that my assumption stated that around 60% used lower-cost alternatives. I would expect that to be a higher percentage in actuality.

Do we have surveys on fencer-chosen accommodations? I don't remember seeing one at any event this year. Wouldn't surveying the membership to see what their actual practices are be a reasonable first step?

[edew]

I'd be happy if they were to poll us at the registration table and I'll be happy to answer honestly. I've never used THS (and probably never will).

[Allen Evans]

Hmmm...one might think that by knowing the number of entrants to an event, and the number of fencers who made registrations through THS, the USFA MIGHT be able to do the math and get an idea of compliance rates.

[flechewounds]

Hmmm...one might think that by knowing the number of entrants to an event, and the number of fencers who made registrations through THS, the USFA MIGHT be able to do the math and get an idea of compliance rates.

And let facts interfere with a really good idea? That's blasphemy!

[misha]

Assume that 1,000 of these room nights were booked with a low-cost aggregator at an average stay price of $55 (forget the other savings on food, etc., associated with that) and assume that the S&P rate is $100 (a blended average for those same rooms based on S&P's promised rates), the total cost to the membership of S&P is $45,000 (let's call that the S&P Tax).

Most people would stay 2 nights, so the number is actually $90K


.

[flechewounds]

Most people would stay 2 nights, so the number is actually $90K


.

Actually, not. The Atlanta number Brad quoted was total room nights - and includes multiple night stays. That's how these things are calculated.

[keith]

Isn't THS already entering into contracts with host hotels, with no "guarantee" of #'s?

The issue seems to be, if the USFA can deliver more bodies using THS, then THS (and venues) may give more money (or better deals) to the USFA.

Turn it around, given Brad's numbers, THS is already providing 70% of the rooms. That is the number for a generous waiver program - which is what the USFA currently runs. Assuming that the trial involves no change (all waivers provided on demand) there is no difference between the trial year and previous years. So what is so magical in terms of service from THS about the missing bookings?

The remaining 30% is the group of people who are local or who find better deals. Any revenue generated from this program comes solely from those individuals who are now forced to use THS.

At the end of the day all S&P does is to give THS more financial guarantees but providing those guarantees does not come free to the members of the USFA.

I suspect that merely tieing in registrations to hotel booking, and making it a mild hassle to not use THS, is going to result in some level of increase of use of THS. Even with effectively open reasons for waivers.

Perhaps, but most people will fax in a request when a couple of hundred dollars may be at stake.

Whether that's enough to realize tangible benefits over what is already in place, and whether THS can overcome its problematic service issues remain to be seen, and it seems like this is the perfect situation for a trial program to address both questions.

As pointed out there is no reason for THS not to be providing these services given the number of rooms it is already booking.

Really, I think it's good sense. Part of the knock on the old administration is that they weren't particularly proactive in getting revenue.

Well I think the real knock was they were not good at managing revenue, or expenditures.

One problem is that, from the budgets, NACs and general membership services run in the black. The problem is that expenses ramp up for elite athletes towards the end of the quad. Increasing participation costs for the great un-elite is of course the only way to balance the budget over a four year period but I'd much prefer that discussion to be had openly. Really that funding gap should be filled by the USFA membership as a whole not just those fencing NACs (who are already contributing dollars to the USFA budget by doing so).

If, and that's a big "if" the S&P program is a good program that is beneficial for USFA members and gives revenue to the USFA, it's a good idea.

Might as well ask where you stand on the concept of free lunches

A draconian waiver program is going to result in some number of members paying a couple of hundred extra dollars each, to provide maybe $20-25 of benefit to the USFA. Generally, this would be a bad thing--though to my mind, the actual calculus depends on how many people it would likely effect and how easy it would be for a motivated person to get a waiver that he wouldn't actually be entitled to under the program.

Well even if it only affects a small number of people it is a bad thing. After all that small (?) number is people who are already working to save as much as they can to attend an event. If you are attending multiple NACs those few hundred dollars here and there is going to add up to real money.

As I said before THS is going to push the USFA towards a tight waiver policy with the promise of future benefits. They seem to have convinced the ED (and BoD) that the system will only work at some number above 70% of bookings - 99.9% perhaps .

[Capt. Slo-mo]

OK, so things that need a bit more explanation:

1. Who at the USFA will coordinate waivers? What is the anticipated cost and person hours required to do the waiver system? What appeal system will be put in place for a denied waiver? What are the specific benchmarks for approving waivers?

2. Who handles disputes or questions about THS' price matching? For instance: I find the Comfort Inn for $35/night less than the lowest THS hotel, and it's closer to the venue. If THS refuses to book it for me/offers me the RodeWay Inn 10 miles further out/doesn't respond at all...what is the preferred path of appeal by the USFA? Further, who at the USFA is responsible for overseeing lost/unmade/mis-booked reservations by THS?

3. What internal controls are anticipated by the USFA to monitor performance by THS as it administers this new program? Will there be benchmarks or performance penalties built into the contract?

4. Will the THS guarantee "block" bookings? If a club is bringing 20 fencers, can the THS be required to place all the fencers in the same hotel, in reasonable proximity?

5. Will there be a minimum stay requirement? Can any part of the room requirement be handled by THS, and the remainder by the fencer? How will the USFA be able to tell?

Clear specific answers will go a long way to easing fears about this program.