USFA considering forcing members to use THS

[flechewounds]

I think you've gotten very turned around, and should read the powerpoint presentation again.

Soft roll: Interacting with THS still optional, encouraged to provide feedback.

Hard roll: must have waiver or book through THS.

Tel -

There is another way to look at this that I would argue is far more accurate:

Soft roll: THS doesn't have sufficient room commitmentss for NAC A and NAC B, so it couldn't control all rooms.

Hard roll: THS commits US Fencing to 25% more rooms than it currently does, meaning that the USFA will have to require its fencers to stay there or pay for the unused rooms out of its generous endowment.

Frankly, which is more plausible?

[piste off]

Looking for Hiltons in downtown Atlanta (searching regular rates, not points), only the Hampton Inn - Georgia Tech - showed availability at $143/night (7/2-7/6). Everything else was booked.

No Marriotts near the GA World Center show any availability. The closest one is GA Tech at $164/night.

Ditto. And I am a gold Hilton Honors member and can ususally get in. I've never seen this happen in past Atlanta trips.

This far out (1 year)? Something does not seem right.

R-

[keith]

I think you've gotten very turned around, and should read the powerpoint presentation again.

Soft roll: Interacting with THS still optional, encouraged to provide feedback.

Hard roll: must have waiver or book through THS.

How was I (or Gladius) mixed up?

The problem is the hard roll.

As to the waiver we have three sources of information;

The powerpoint.

The text of the USFA page.

The actual sample waiver.

So it's a bit tricky to know what the soft roll waiver will actually look like. There also isn't anything in any of those sources to suggest that just ignoring the waiver would be a clever idea. If you want to fence that is.

So lets make some assumptions. We will assume you are right to trust the USFA to eventually get its clerical house in order and provide a sample waiver with all possible options. We will further assume that this waiver will not be changed when the roll goes hard. Happy?

Taking those assumptions, that nothing changes from the current status quo, to the soft roll and then the hard roll. A question/suspicions arises;

Why exactly is S&P needed for THS to provide additional service?

If THS is going to generate the same service/USFA cut/profit under the soft roll as the hard roll; there is no need for a hard roll nor indeed any change from what happens now.

Unfortunately we know that the only hard roll in existence involves a tight waiver (just like the sample currently on the web site).

Having lived through too many admin roll outs I will admit that I am overly jaded.

I can fully appreciate how a relationship with THS can help the USFA (and local organisers) hedge the cost of room blocks. I fail to see how the S&P arrangement provides benefit for the USFA broadly. The revenue gain is of course important, but it has to come from somewhere, in this case fencers using hotel points or 'unmatched' hotel booking routes.

[zéphirin]

Remembering this bit of news http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/200...y-to-2012.html about the eternal struggle for meager funds to support athletes (and their national federations) made me think, What is kosher and what is not in trying to raise money for the "noble" cause of sport?


The example of Logan Campbell can be informative: to compete in Beijing he raised about $98,000, most of it from family members. To compete in London 2012, he expects he'll need $200,000. [note to the USFA: does your budget for the quad take this doubling in cost into consideration?] Necessity being the mother of invention, he decided to open a high class "gentleman's club" (aka a high class brothel) to "pimp" his way to his Olympic dream in London. In New Zealand licensed prostitution is legal and since his mom--who had financed his Beijing Olympics--approves of the "nice girls" he employs ("normal people who support their kids and stuff") he thinks he's OK. A win-win situation for all: him, his mom, the "girls," the sport...


But wait, says the New Zealand Olympic Committee and the New Zealand Taekwondo federation, the national Olympic selection "takes into account not just performance but also the athlete’s ability to serve as an example to the youth of the country.” Our poor Logan may have bitten more than he can chew...he may raise the funds but not be allowed to represent his country in London because he did not abide by the code of behavior of an Olympian.

What's that to do with S&P and USFA-THS unholy partnership? In the New Zealand case someone found a "legal" solution which runs against the "morals" of being an Olympian. The proposed S&P plan may be on shakier legal ground and to me as a free citizen just as weak on the "moral" ground with the addition that it is coerced while in NZ everybody does what they do by their own free will.

The Olympian pimp and the USFA have got to try to find solutions to their financial woes which are both legal and moral..., i.e., NOT stupid!

[eac]

I hate being enslaved as much as the next guy, but people in the thread don't seem like they've particularly been trying to model what's going on in the heads of the people on the other side (presumably mainly Kurt).

It seems to me from the Craig conversation that Kurt's objective is not mainly to enslave fencers and make them pay the USFA more through funny channels. It may do that, although I doubt the median NAC competitor will pay significantly more, but it seems like his main point is to make cities like fencing, and get fencing to be in better cities that way, and generally cause fencing to expand, get more publicity, be more mainstream, and like that. For make benefit glorious nation of fencing, in other words. Not really mainly balancing the budget.

Which, if you ask me, is not a bad objective. I think it would be cool if we had an NAC in NYC or Boston or wherever. It would be cool if more people fenced, if it were on TV, all that stuff. We could get lots of sponsorship money, and then maybe the top people could get paid to fence without stupid USOC stipends going through corrupt national coaches. I don't know. It could be fun.

The point being, there is some common ground here, and some people are probably being a little excessively oppositional. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the greatest idea to give up room-choosing freedom or to use THS or whatever, but I think a lot of us really *do* want make benefit glorious nation of fencing, and we're forgetting that.

At the moment, it sounds like whether S&P is a good idea more or less hinges on how much THS continues to suck. If it starts to decrease in suck, and has a really large number and price range of hotels to choose from, and isn't particularly worse in rates, the benefit to fencing as a whole could be worth it, quite aside from the balanced budget.

On the other hand, if it continues to be horrible, screw up reservations, and generally sh!t all over everyone, it probably wouldn't be worth it. It sounds like they at least think they're willing to notice if THS sucks too much to use.

[telkanuru]

I can fully appreciate how a relationship with THS can help the USFA (and local organisers) hedge the cost of room blocks. I fail to see how the S&P arrangement provides benefit for the USFA broadly. The revenue gain is of course important, but it has to come from somewhere, in this case fencers using hotel points or 'unmatched' hotel booking routes.

I see you extrapolating beyond the available facts.

The revenue gain is important, yes, but I believe it is *intended* to be revenue gain with no increase of cost to membership. I believe this because it is a ridiculously obtuse way of going around the process otherwise. Simply raise membership fees by $10 and NAC entries by $20 and be done with it. Now, whether or not this works out as planned will be seen.

I just want to step back and say that I'm very much influenced by this program. I traveled to all DIV-1 NACs and SNs last year, and intend to do the same this year. I tend to stay on the floors of friends who ref, scraping by on as little as I can spend, although I confess my booze tab runs away from me on occasion. I am almost definitely a member of the group that will be most affected if this program goes south, but I'm willing to give it a chance. You are in the least affected group, and are not. Why is this?

If everything goes as planned, I have to do a bit of extra paperwork and the USFA can afford to spend the money to perform well in the next quad and raise the profile of the sport, resulting in a positive feedback loop. If it goes poorly, you're looking at a fairly massive membership revolt in short order and a termination of the program after one season. I think it's worth a shot.

[flechewounds]

I hate being enslaved as much as the next guy, but people in the thread don't seem like they've particularly been trying to model what's going on in the heads of the people on the other side (presumably mainly Kurt).

It seems to me from the Craig conversation that Kurt's objective is not mainly to enslave fencers and make them pay the USFA more through funny channels. It may do that, although I doubt the median NAC competitor will pay significantly more, but it seems like his main point is to make cities like fencing, and get fencing to be in better cities that way, and generally cause fencing to expand, get more publicity, be more mainstream, and like that. For make benefit glorious nation of fencing, in other words. Not really mainly balancing the budget.

Which, if you ask me, is not a bad objective. I think it would be cool if we had an NAC in NYC or Boston or wherever. It would be cool if more people fenced, if it were on TV, all that stuff. We could get lots of sponsorship money, and then maybe the top people could get paid to fence without stupid USOC stipends going through corrupt national coaches. I don't know. It could be fun.

The point being, there is some common ground here, and some people are probably being a little excessively oppositional. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the greatest idea to give up room-choosing freedom or to use THS or whatever, but I think a lot of us really *do* want make benefit glorious nation of fencing, and we're forgetting that.

At the moment, it sounds like whether S&P is a good idea more or less hinges on how much THS continues to suck. If it starts to decrease in suck, and has a really large number and price range of hotels to choose from, and isn't particularly worse in rates, the benefit to fencing as a whole could be worth it, quite aside from the balanced budget.

On the other hand, if it continues to be horrible, screw up reservations, and generally sh!t all over everyone, it probably wouldn't be worth it. It sounds like they at least think they're willing to notice if THS sucks too much to use.

EAC -

Respectfully, I disagree. While the goals that you suggest are good (better exposure, more income, etc.), the ends do not justify the means.

As for your "median competitor," I suppose that you counting a member already using THS. The reason that THS created this program in the first place, however, is because of erosion in their market caused specifically by Priceline, Hotwire and other online competitors that have become increasingly more popular. This was highlighted in an earlier post describing why Volleyball was using it. Additional erosion probably comes from boards like this - where people share good deals so that their friends can benefit.

Frankly, I don't care if it is THS or God's own Travel Agent running it. The fact is that it is forcing people who have benefitted from broad choice of legal, legitimate alternatives to forego that benefit. Whether that is a "median" attendee or a nutcase who lives in a camper (Sorry Bill G - not referring to you), it shouldn't matter.

Here, the devil isn't in the details - it is in the broad conception of the plan itself and its disingenuous presentation to the membership. No amount of hedging on the "waiver policy" or "THS's promise of improved service" or "great places we may be able to go" will change that.

[telkanuru]

[Citation Needed]

[keith]

Which, if you ask me, is not a bad objective. I think it would be cool if we had an NAC in NYC or Boston or wherever.

The problem is that fencers are too tight to afford these cities. Unless S&P really pushes up median room prices this probably wont happen .

[ysbadadden]

No rooms in downtown Hyatts either. What's happening in Atlanta at that time? I find it hard to believe that THS has booked all rooms in all hotels, if only because it wouldn't be in the hotels' interest to let them do so.

[keith]

I see you extrapolating beyond the available facts.

I see you are selecting what to respond to.

The revenue gain is important, yes, but I believe it is *intended* to be revenue gain with no increase of cost to membership.

We clearly have different opinions of free lunches.

I believe this because it is a ridiculously obtuse way of going around the process otherwise.

Actually if you assume that the budget gain is extracted solely from the evil hotel operators then it is a really clever way of getting a few tens of thousands of dollars (I recall tens of thousands of dollars being mentioned).

I just want to step back and say that I'm very much influenced by this program. I traveled to all DIV-1 NACs and SNs last year, and intend to do the same this year. I tend to stay on the floors of friends who ref, scraping by on as little as I can spend, although I confess my booze tab runs away from me on occasion. I am almost definitely a member of the group that will be most affected if this program goes south, but I'm willing to give it a chance. You are in the least affected group, and are not. Why is this?

You are right. I hardly ever get to fence, I have never been to a NAC, although I was planning to be amoung those affected this year as a newly minted V40. Further I had no bloody intention of sleeping on anyone's floor so THS may have ended up with my business.

So you are right this really does not affect me. However I will observe a summary of my reasons for spending to long in this thread;

The justifications make no sense.

I am willing to bet that participation cost will go up for the average NAC fencer.

Taking more out of the hide of the average NAC fencer is a really bad idea since these are already the people who (with the odd exception) put most of the work into keeping the USFA going.


But if you want the real reason; I am having a real ***** of a time with my gating currents and this is far more fun than trouble shooting those.

[mfp]

No rooms in downtown Hyatts either. What's happening in Atlanta at that time?

Uh, many thousands of Seventh Day Adventists coming from all over the world for their once every five year gathering?

Their event runs through July 3rd.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

In the past, when THS blocked out a chunk of rooms for an NAC, but didn't use them all and returned the extras to the hotel, was there actually a financial penalty to either THS or the USFA?

Or have they never failed to sell every single room previously?

[flechewounds]

What could have worked instead of Stay & Pay?

1) risk a commitment of an additional, say, 200 room nights (additional comps, etc.)

2) start an internal PR campaign (oops, I forgot, we don't do PR) encouraging fencers and their families to use THS for the good of the organization.

3) see if the occupancy increases.

- or -

1) start a "capital campaign" called "Fencing 2012"

2) start an internal PR campaign (oops, I forgot, we don't do PR) encouraging fencers and their families to donate money.

3) put an opt-out $25 dollar donation on the entry form.

- or -

1) add a surcharge to event entries.

2) start an internal PR campaign (oops, I forgot, we don't do PR) explaining why the surcharge is necessary.

- or -

1) create a "round up for Fencing" program that allows you to round up purchases and donate the difference to US Fencing - or contact the UPromise people and see if they can do for an NGB what they do for education.

2) start an internal PR campaign (oops, I forgot, we don't do PR) encouraging people to participate.

Instead, what we got was a program that:

1) forces fencers to use a service they HATE and pay more for lodging.

2) Gets a kickback and promises everyone "money for nothing, and the chicks for free."

3) doesn't do a PR campaign - remember, we don't do PR - so that the rollout looks like a total cluster f**k.

4) Gets for the ED and AED the evil eye from 1/2 the membership at every event, angry emails questioning their very humanity and public humiliation.

Looks like we made the intelligent choice, no?

[flechewounds]

In the past, when THS blocked out a chunk of rooms for an NAC, but didn't use them all and returned the extras to the hotel, was there actually a financial penalty to either THS or the USFA?

Or have they never failed to sell every single room previously?

If not, we could have promised 6100 rooms without S&P. It wouldn't have mattered.

[gladius]

It seems to me from the Craig conversation that Kurt's objective is not mainly to enslave fencers and make them pay the USFA more through funny channels. It may do that, although I doubt the median NAC competitor will pay significantly more, but it seems like his main point is to make cities like fencing, and get fencing to be in better cities that way, and generally cause fencing to expand, get more publicity, be more mainstream, and like that. For make benefit glorious nation of fencing, in other words. Not really mainly balancing the budget.

Which, if you ask me, is not a bad objective. I think it would be cool if we had an NAC in NYC or Boston or wherever. It would be cool if more people fenced, if it were on TV, all that stuff. We could get lots of sponsorship money, and then maybe the top people could get paid to fence without stupid USOC stipends going through corrupt national coaches. I don't know. It could be fun.

I agree that Kurt's intentions and efforts are to provide a "better" service and this is why I support him and accept in theory his proposal and will try to use THS, as long as it is convenient and economical for me. If this is a way to get us into different/better cities, more power to it, though the issue of cost has to be paramount both for the USFA and the fencers.

But if the "price" to pay is that it must be mandated (if you don't stay with THS you don't play) and if my only "out" is for me to ask for a waiver to be allowed to choose what I want, then I am totally against this idea. And if to make this plan work it MUST be imposed, then no matter how brilliant and how well intentioned the plan may be, it will turn into an unmitigated disaster.

As to the potential benefits, I'd like to hear how by doing so (fence in swankier places) could attract lots of sponsorship money? In Italy, where fencing is very popular and where they have a big (compared with us) TV[*] and media exposure with top athletes like Vezzali, Montano, Granbassi, Baldini, Tagliariol, etc., they cannot have a major event in Rome or Milan because it costs too much for a sport like fencing. How could we do it just by waiving the THS magic stick (I mean wand) and get a cheap enough venue in New York City or anywhere else for that matter and related sponsorships' windfall?

And even if we were able to do it (I never underestimate the power of determination and innovation), do you honestly believe that Madison Avenue executives will knock at Kurt's door to please let them buy a banner or sponsor a portion of the tournament in NYC because of the financial benefits the fencing community will bring to New York?

EAC -

Here, the devil isn't in the details - it is in the broad conception of the plan itself and its disingenuous presentation to the membership. No amount of hedging on the "waiver policy" or "THS's promise of improved service" or "great places we may be able to go" will change that.

Agree with this 100%.

[*] Fencing on Italian TV in 2008 (broadcast, satellite, cable, and pay TV): 88 hours (+39% from the previous year). Of course this reflects the fact that 2008 was an Olympic year. In the "Top 10" for each Olympic discipline, fencing TV viewing was in first place with an improvement of 2 points with respect to Athens.

[note: this last point is just a translation from Italian and I really don't know how these numbers are calculated. Regardless, it is much more than what we have here.]

[edew]

I hate being enslaved as much as the next guy, but people in the thread don't seem like they've particularly been trying to model what's going on in the heads of the people on the other side (presumably mainly Kurt).

It seems to me from the Craig conversation that Kurt's objective is not mainly to enslave fencers and make them pay the USFA more through funny channels. It may do that, although I doubt the median NAC competitor will pay significantly more, but it seems like his main point is to make cities like fencing, and get fencing to be in better cities that way, and generally cause fencing to expand, get more publicity, be more mainstream, and like that. For make benefit glorious nation of fencing, in other words. Not really mainly balancing the budget.

Which, if you ask me, is not a bad objective. I think it would be cool if we had an NAC in NYC or Boston or wherever. It would be cool if more people fenced, if it were on TV, all that stuff. We could get lots of sponsorship money, and then maybe the top people could get paid to fence without stupid USOC stipends going through corrupt national coaches. I don't know. It could be fun.

The point being, there is some common ground here, and some people are probably being a little excessively oppositional. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the greatest idea to give up room-choosing freedom or to use THS or whatever, but I think a lot of us really *do* want make benefit glorious nation of fencing, and we're forgetting that.

At the moment, it sounds like whether S&P is a good idea more or less hinges on how much THS continues to suck. If it starts to decrease in suck, and has a really large number and price range of hotels to choose from, and isn't particularly worse in rates, the benefit to fencing as a whole could be worth it, quite aside from the balanced budget.

On the other hand, if it continues to be horrible, screw up reservations, and generally sh!t all over everyone, it probably wouldn't be worth it. It sounds like they at least think they're willing to notice if THS sucks too much to use.

Fencing isn't going to be more popular just by having them at big-name cities. The big-name cities already have a strong fencing presence (whether it could benefit from a stronger presence is a valid question).

The problem is the quantum leap in costs in going from tier 1.5 cities like Memphis and Oklahoma City and Des Moines and tier 1 cities like NY and SF and DC.

There, you're not going to get much leverage in getting the convention bureau to drop the cost of the facility. Moscone Center in SF is $10K/day, at the very least. There is no way we can drop that down to $1K/day to become economically competitive with the Gaylord or GWCC in the summer. It just isn't going to happen. SF hotels around the Moscone Center (W, Marriott, etc) are in the $159-$179/night range, on a dead-time night. Otherwise, it's in the mid $200s. We can't ask them to go down to $99/night. That's not going to happen any time soon.

I'm sure NY and DC are in the same boat.

Getting fencing popular and on TV and so on is a desirable goal, but not in the time frame that this THS plan is on. There should be a completely different group/committee whose only goal is to generate publicity and interest in the sport. Maybe get Tim Morehouse to head that committee. USFA should look out after its membership, make sure that they're happy (by not screwing them of excess $$), and that's really it.

Membership will grow on its own. Ok, help make the clubs more profitable and better businesses so that the clubs will grow. Fencing grows only when the clubs grow. Clubs grow only when they follow successful business plans. USFA should be working on helping develop "Best Practices" for clubs to help them grow. I think all of us club owners are sitting in the dark. Even those clubs who claim to be bringing in hundreds of members a week, how do they know they can't do better?

The only way to make fencing popular is to have lots of people doing it and enjoy doing it.

[seak]

I think it depends on the tier 1 city (well not the hotel prices). In DC for instance they have various different prices depending on the hall. Now it's not going to be 1k per day, but I think you can get 40,000sq ft for around 5-6k (in terms of price per sq ft) before stay and play. The problem is their smallest hall is 111,000 sq ft, so you'd have to get them to rent you half a hall for half the rate.

The thing is though there are cities that I would classify as tier 1 that aren't SF or NY. I still think we should have a NAC in Baltimore for instance , and I happen to know for cities like that there is a huge rate decrease if you guarantee a number of rooms.

As a side note to this discussion as someone who has investigated getting blocks of rooms for large groups, the price if you don't meet the guarantee is steep. As a result I've never actually gone ahead and signed the contract, since I did not feel comfortable putting finances on the line without some way of ensuring that the rooms would be used. Stay and Play feels to me in some sense like the USFA/THS wants to start doing room blocks but are afraid of the costs if the rooms aren't all reserved, so if there negotiating these huge blocks, they want to make sure people will be stay there.

[Batlleth]

Thus, even if "Stay and Play" isn't ultimately contracted upon, any commitment that THS makes with regard to rooms, etc., it is making on behalf of the USFA and the USFA would be liable.

You couldn't be more correct.

Jason

[Batlleth]

As a side note to this discussion as someone who has investigated getting blocks of rooms for large groups, the price if you don't meet the guarantee is steep. As a result I've never actually gone ahead and signed the contract, since I did not feel comfortable putting finances on the line without some way of ensuring that the rooms would be used.

I could lay my hands on some model contracts for this sort of thing if there's any interest.

Best,

Jason